Illegal Immigration Costs U.S. Taxpayers $113 Billion Annually

Illegal Immigration Costs U.S. Taxpayers $113 Billion Annually

According to a new report, Illegal Immigration costs U.S. Taxpayers a whopping $113 Billion annually and the government is arguing over where to cut the budget? Seems to me that arresting the flow and expense of illegal immigration would be a great place to start. Then again we would all hear how unfair that would be from the likes of the Mexican Government to those liberals in this country that cannot comprehend that no matter what illegals may bring economically it will never offset the overwhelming costs associated with turning a blind eye to real and meaningful immigration reform.

U.S. Representative Luis Gutierrez has already embarked on a 20 city illegal immigration tour to put pressure on President Barack Obama to "keep his promise" before the Democrats may lose their majority in the Senate. Personally, I don't see much of a power shift in 2012 with both sides of the aisle misplaying their hands almost daily. That of course is another story. Luis Gutierrez has not only been an ardent supporter of illegal immigrants, but, immigration reform that unfairly favors Hispanics. I happen to find that disgusting and wrong on so many levels that it is hard to even pick a point at where to begin on the subject.

However, since the title of this post mentioned $113 Billion, let us begin there. That $113 Billion is what federal, state and local governments shell out year after year to subsidize illegal immigration. Of that total, $29 billion is paid out at the federal level. The remaining $84 billion is picked up by state and local levels. I believe that the federal number is skewed to the low side but either way, the total cost is obviously staggering when other programs are being looked at for the chopping block that will deprive lawful residents the assistance they deserve and require. If Paul Ryan had his way with his Path To Prosperity, I am sure that entitlements and welfare programs would be eliminated without regard to the impact it would have on American citizens. But, I would like to help Mr. Ryan on his path to prosperity plan and if he needs a place to start, then this issue is a bleeping golden one.

Luis Gutierrez and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus joined 100 Members of Congress to introduce H.R. 4321, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America's Security and Prosperity Act of 2009 (CIR ASAP Act). In essence, that bill would allow for 12 million illegals currently living on the fringes of society, to be given amnesty if they complied with certain provisions. One of the conditions is that illegals must learn English, which I think is a bang-up idea since there is no reason in the world to provide bilingual government instructions for one ethnic group over another. I have always found that highly offensive since I had no such assistance when I came to this country. Another provision would require illegals to pay a $500 fine, which might sound reasonable for some, but that fine doesn't come anywhere near clearing the cost imbalance associated with illegal immigration. A $500 fine would generate $6 billion. So, what do we do about the $107 billion shortfall, plus the costs associated with creating yet another layer of bureaucracy, the Commission on Labor Markets and Immigration that is called for under H.R. 4321?

Well, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that implementing the Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America's Security and Prosperity Act of 2009 would continue to drain the treasuries of federal, state and local governments alike. Now, I really do understand the liberal argument that illegals contribute to the economy, but, I really have to wonder when liberals will finally wake up and realize that we could not ever recover all the monies lost to illegal immigration. Luis Gutierrez, and the Hispanic Caucus probably needs to consider bolstering the amount of the fine to $10,000 for each family member before we can even consider this plan realistic. There is absolutely no point in arguing the fact that extended illegal family members add to much of the substantial costs to the system, as a whole. It is, as they say, an undeniable fact associated with the problem.

Look, I have absolutely nothing against anyone, especially our neighbors from south of the border, Poland, Ireland, etc..For the most part, the majority of these people just want to come here to work hard and build a better life. However, we also know that many of these illegal immigrants are immediately put behind the eight-ball by some unscrupulous business owners. The threat of deportation hangs over them while some owners even resort to ripping them off for overtime and other wages earned. It certainly is not anything unheard of.

But, that is exactly why I believe that we need real immigration reform. There must be strict adherence to rules and conditions to attain legal residency status in the United States. Of course that also happens to be the right thing to do, but somehow, many in government do not want to expend the energy to do exactly that. It really makes you wonder how many in government profit off of the illegals? We already know about former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's husband making out like a bandit by hiring illegals for his canning operation. But I would like to know who else in our government benefits by this perpetuation of cheap and unaccountable labor? We know why the Mexican government advocates it, but what is our reasoning outside of the obvious which is cheap labor?

Every American should question why Washington hasn't gotten off their collective asses to solve this divisive issue. More importantly they should also be asking "what is the why behind it." I have always said that everyone deserves and needs equal protection under the law. But, that also means that all people would be required to abide by the letter of the law. After all, it is a two-way street.

Besides, isn't Illegal Immigration nothing but an oxymoron?

Our media talking heads and do nothing politicians insist on wagging the dog while forgetting that our nation was built upon the rule of law and that is where we must remain as a civil and functioning society. Anything short of protecting those ideals, would bring about anarchy. At that point you may as well then just remove all the border restrictions and repeal every law and liberty we currently have under the U.S. Constitution.

In the meantime, our nation's economic well-being is headed for an all out collapse, yet we  have extreme political rhetoric and finger-pointing coming from both sides of the aisle. Both sides continue to ignore that there are tremendous costs and waste in government. Illegal Immigration is but one factor that must be addressed
immediately. Blatant fraud of our welfare system must also be rooted out, while eliminating layer upon layer of bureaucracy. What we have today is unsustainable. As I said in my earlier post, government is wasting far too much money on everything from pills to missiles. Blatant government waste  must be addressed first. Period!

Sure, the tough choices must to be made, but they must also be the right choices. Quite frankly, I am convinced that our elected leaders from both sides of the aisle are incapable of that. Whether it is for their own personal greed or whatever else happens to shake the money tree, elected leaders refuse to look at the obvious cuts right in front of their noses.

You know, like those 113 Billion reasons associated with Illegal Immigration?

Comments

Leave a comment
  • Sort of regardless of the cost, your mention of Gutierrez reminded me of something else, which was the statement that the Hispanics expect another Congressional seat in Illinois.

    Now, aren't both legal and illegal residents who are not citizens counted in the census? If so, Luis has to give something to his voters (i.e. pushing this bill), even though the direct beneficiaries can't vote for him, but I guess the rest of his district can.

    I guess the districts outside Chicago (other than say in the Kane and Will county cities) have to hope that we have enough central European and Asian immigrants to counteract that. However, I doubt that any of them are being driven to the border.

  • In reply to jack:

    Funny how that works huh? Will County, though does have a high concentration of Hispanics in Joliet and Kendell County with Montgomery. Of course there is county border jumper Aurora which has a very large Hispanic population as well. Maybe Kane, Grundy?

  • In reply to jack:

    Do I read that correctly...that the $113 billion cost to taxpayers is annually, and H.R. 4321 calls for a one time $500 fine from immigrants, making that $6 billion one-time figure way too little to make any real and lasting difference? Maybe if you used your $10,000 figure annually, but renting our soil at that rate would not bring many illegals to the bargaining table, huh?

  • In reply to jtithof:

    You have to figure that by working at the local hot dog restaurant, ethnic grocery store where they no comprende Inglish, or landscape crew, they don't have that kind of money. Sort of similar to the uproar when the newspapers report that someone left prison owning money for room and board.

    Anyway, as I implied in my prior post, the issue isn't bringing them to the bargaining table. Either the economic disincentive is enough to keep them out, or it isn't.

  • In reply to jack:

    Well jack I agree and that is why my starting price is a $10,000 fine. That would keep many from even contemplating crossing the border flat broke after paying those coyotes.

  • In reply to jack:

    BECOME A WHISTLE BLOWER

    Numerous States have seen the reprehensible illegal immigrant inheritance, that Utah will become a beneficiary of as economic families move there. If other States don

  • In reply to Carracticus:

    It is good hearing from you again Brittanicus. I am inclined to go along with most of what you say except putting any faith into this hijacked Tea Party Caucus that I have written about. A New Tea Party perhaps? Or just UA - "United Americans" would suffice. Paul Ryan, Michelle Bachmann and even our own Adam Kinzinger are extreme rightists trying to pass themselves off as populists and that concerns me deeply. Ryan's Path To Prosperity omits cuts to a bloated defense budget as well as not forcing the rich to pay their fair share. Now they want to take away the little we have as itemized deductions because the rich have abused them. Besides, when I hear Ryan say Social Security is insolvent, well that is an outright lie. SSA was fine until it was robbed by our lawmakers.

    Now, I did see you quantified it when you said a Tea Party "away from the Republican Elites" and I agree with you wholeheartedly, but we must be very, very careful as to who we have representing the Average People. Like the Who sang - "We Won't Get Fooled Again."

    Illegal Immigration (an oxymoron) has cost us dearly and I have to believe that politicians on both sides of the aisle have been complicit; NAFTA as we know was a GOP idea from Reagan's Administration and that went terribly wrong after Clinton pushed it without regard to punishing corporations from moving and reducing the standard of living / livable wages. Allowing illegals to have sanctuary only contributed to this morass - the funny thing though, most of those here I don't blame for wanting to come here and work and have a better life, but as we know the welfare that has ballooned because of it is the end result we live with.

    And it is wrong for sure.

    At the same token, my friend, I wouldn't want to get extreme; i.e. concertina wire, etc. No, rather clear laws (like you say make it a felony) that are enforced. Until corporations are forced to use E-Verify across-the-board and then held accountable for the hiring of illegals we will never change the status quo. A Huge Chicken Concern in Georgetown, Delaware blatantly hires illegals and that town has become a Mecca of sorts on the East Coast, yet even with the proximity to Washington DC local law enforcement has been hand-cuffed and can't even protect their police station from theft from illegals (this is a true story as I got stuck there some years ago). I asked what the hell is going on? The cops answered that the Chicken Company we all patronize runs the town and could care less about hiring Americans because they refuse to pay a living wage. So long as that exists - what to do? Whistleblow? To Whom? The authorities themselves cannot do anything because politicians have allowed this to happen. Now multiply Geoergetown by all the other towns across our country that have a similar scenario.

    Hey I am with you but it seems futile unless we can literally elect people that shuns ideology over rule of law. Those are the candidates we need, but this Tea Party Caucus in Washington right now are not the ones.

    Hope I didn't ruin your well-crafted comment. But hey I do agree with you just the same.

  • In reply to Carracticus:

    I would like to know what your sources are for your claim that they cost us $113 billion annually. Do you have anything besides the controversial FAIR to back that up with? Although I do agree that something needs to be done about illegal immigration, if we think about this logically, we will discover that trying to deport all illegal immigrants would not only be extremely costly, but it would be impossible. Do we need to take measures to reduce the amount of illegal immigration? Yes. Do we need to try to weed out the worst kinds of illegals that commit crimes such as fraud or vandalism or worse? Yes.

    However, something needs to be done that will assure that these illegal immigrants that work hard, keep a clean record and have been here for an extended period already can become legal. Maybe you don't believe me, but what do you think the consequences would be if we didn't do this? Well, we can keep on going the way we are because, as I said, it would be impossible to deport them all, or we can make them one of us so they will pay more taxes, they will decrease wage reduction because they will be more inclined to protect their own rights since they will no longer live in fear of being deported. They will do even more for the economy because they will be able to lease vehicles and buy homes.

    And what happens if we don't legalize the ones that fit the criteria listed above? Well, they will continue to find work, even with more stringent laws in place for employers. You wouldn't believe the resources they can find to get past these things. If they continue to find work, they will continue to bring down wage rates, some of them will still not pay taxes (although, keep in mind that many do pay income taxes already) and they will be unable to stimulate the economy to their full potential. Many that are deported will leave behind citizen families (believe it or not, there are a lot of citizens of the United States that fall in love and start families with illegal immigrants) that will have to fend for themselves and, in the meantime, will have to be sustained by welfare programs because they are no longer being provided for by their deported spouses. I think that more than balances out the extremely small percentage of illegals that are clever enough to get past all of the citizenship requirements to manipulate the welfare system. Do you really think the state workers don't check on these things? Fake socials and identity theft are not going to get someone a welfare check.
    Also, if deserving illegals are made legal, it will help the cost of health care as they will now be able to purchase health insurance for themselves and will not have to abandon outrageously expensive hospital bills that, with their wages the way they are right now they couldn't even dream of affording to pay.

    There are so many more things that I can continue with, but I think I am making my point. It would be way more expensive to try to extract all illegals than it would be to legalize those that fit the aforementioned criteria and it would solve a lot of problems.

  • In reply to Iwish4777:

    There have been numerous studies over the years, CATO, PEW as well as FAIR; I will agree that deportation would not be an option except for as you indicate, the most egregious criminal element. I am all in favor of a rational solution, but here is the hang-up, without a commitment from lawmakers that immigration laws must be enforced rather than waved off every few decades nothing gets solved.

    A work visa program in conjunction with e-verify is an option, as there are other ones I am sure. Still illegal on its face should carry consequence. That is something that is lacking given the sanctuary status of multiple cities and states that openly defy rule of law.

    It is complex, but we must start with LAW as a foundation to discourage future generations of illegal entry. That must be point one in any discussion. As for those that are here, well again, felons from Mexico, Poland, USSR or wherever must be deported however, a real fine rather than a slap on the hand would go further. That is where I depart with Gutierrez.

    I have always said we need REAL REFORM AND ENFORCEMENT. Illegal Immigration is a term that doesn't exist as it is an oxymoron. And I don't understand the conflict in peoples minds as to what those terms mean.

    Hey, I see the illegals that work here, landscaping in my subdivision for instance. These people often get taken advantage of and have no protection under the law. So real reform would, or at least should rectify that. There are pros and cons on both sides of the issue, but in the end everyone loses.

    I think we need to look at things in phases if you will. 1. Discourage future breaches 2. No General Amnesty to stay - real fines to earn status (that eliminates most deportations).

    This notion that illegal immigration is a zero sum scenario is bullshit and any reasonable person can see how we are surcharged for the privilege of subsidizing those taking advantage of our emergency rooms, no or under coverage of auto insurance, etc.. Illinois All Kids for instance is 75% Illegals. What is that about?

    That cannot be dismissed so easily, sanctuary costs. Go to the states like California, Oregon, Utah, etc.. that offer it as a policy and then review their state budgets published on line - you will see that there is an acknowledged cost attached.

    But hey, I am not unreasonable or unfeeling but we do need some consequence built in as a first step to reform if we are to accept a third wave of some 20 million people okay? I still believe we are a nation of laws and anyone who doesn't should apply for a visa in say North Korea or heck Mexico and see what they do.

  • In reply to maciric:

    Okay, I see where you are coming from. I am in no way even the slightest opposed to sealing the border more effectively and trying to prevent as much illegal immigration as possible. I agree that fines would be appropriate for those who get to stay, though $10,000 might be impossible for many to pay. Maybe somewhere between $2500 and $5000. There's not much point in creating a huge fine that many won't be able to pay because that will put us back to square one, with illegals remaining illegal because they can't get it paid for.
    I never believed that illegal immigration is a zero sum. I honestly have not done the research to prove it either way. But, it stands to reason, that if lawmakers were to put something similar to this in action, the debt assumed due to illegal immigrants would drastically decrease and the economy would take at least some degree of a turn for the better.
    Thank you for your response! I always like to see other points of view that are also based on rationality.

  • In reply to Iwish4777:

    It is kind of funny that two strangers can debate an issue without going off a cliff and you wonder why government can't? Yea, $10,000 would be stiff, perhaps that could be the "New Felony Fine" if it were imposed? So far as those that are here it must be more significant than a slap, but yet doable. I can agree there.

    My biggest peeve has always been that I see these people work and get taken advantage of. There needs to be some measure of human dignity attached to those who want to uproot and move to another country. But if you take Mexicans for example, many have to pay these coyotes and then are deserted in the desert left to to their own devices or worse. So that is indignity number one, then they find a job and often get screwed by the employer because they hang deportation over their heads and last but not least after paying off their coyote debts and sending money back to Mexico to their extended families many have no choice but to take advantage of any welfare scam that is floated their way. it is a vicious trap.

    So I understand the complexities of why they want to come, but even they must feel like is it really worth it. They are behind the eight-ball right away. same for the Eastern Europeans. Even if we forget about the cost impact to taxpayers here - it is one hell of a bad situation.

    That is why I advocate immigration reform over a general amnesty. Surely every human deserves some dignity don't they? Heck I was an immigrant myself and it is not easy just making the move and fitting in. Add all the other fuzz into it and it becomes an even bigger mess.

    Really I have nothing against the illegals other than my desire that the rule of law be followed. That, however, is a breakdown in the Mexican and American governments, though. They really are the linchpins to the entire problem and they must be the one to correct it amicably.

    I just wonder if the lawmakers actually have the will to do it?

  • In reply to Iwish4777:

    P.S. You can easily Google the issue and form your own conclusions.
    Just as some discount FAIR there are a myriad of left leaning reports and studies - no one particular study is probably on the money they all show you avenues of where money and burdens are placed.

    I also think that people must try and decipher the data without a personal bias and keep an open mind. Whether people question the validity of FAIR, at least they looked at more than snippets of information like many others attempt to do to diminish.

    Here is a starting point you can use to begin your journey:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_illegal_immigrants_in_the_United_States

    http://forbes.house.gov/capitolmonitor/immigrationcasestudy.htm

    Have fun and have a bottle of aspirin handy.

  • In reply to jtithof:

    You heard right Jackie, although there are people that believe it is a revenue neutral endeavor, it isn't. We pay so many surcharges on top of our own obligations to cover for the damage predicted by just the insurance industry actuarials - it sickens me. Ever wonder what those coverage codes mean on your policy? That is the offset or surcharge for crime and other market influences. Gutierrez? Hell, he has been one waste of taxpayer money from the get go.

  • this "study" comes from the phony group FAIR that everyone knows is not FAIR. Non partisan economists have looked at the effect of illegal immigration and found it revenue neutral.

  • In reply to commonsense1:

    Well Brian, phoney groups abound on both sides of the divide, but any economist that has found the cause and effect to be revenue neutral, I wouldn't trust with my money. Sanctuary alone carries a deficit and increased insurance payments for health, home and auto. I don't think the insurance industry believes those economists either given the surcharges every policy holder contributes. Perhaps you don't believe what the CATO Institute says about this issue either. Only hard core left ideologues could believe that it is revenue neutral.

    If city and state revenues don't convince you, look at the school district expenditures to the undocumented that "they cannot turn away" (their words). No, I am a former Dem turned Independent because I couldn't buy the dream any longer. Nothing short of fair and equitable reform that not only protects the taxpayer, but the immigrants themselves is acceptable.

    Thanks for your opinion.

Leave a comment