Texas Busses Immigrants to Chicago

@zaryia: I don't know anything about CIS but they're quoting the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. What issues did you find with their methodology?

Can you quote them directly then? That secondary source barely mentions illegal and undocumented, since it is talking about all immigration. Nor the number $65,292. Or at least I'm not seeing it. CIS is fake nonsense, and their statements mean nothing.

I have seen recent studies saying the immigrants, including undocumented, put more in than they take out. So I still see this politically driven nonsense as a waste of money for Texas.

Economic benefits of illegal immigration outweigh the costs, Baker Institute study shows | Rice News | News and Media Relations | Rice University

Indeed, for every dollar the Texas state government spends on public services for undocumented immigrants, new research indicates, the state collects $1.21 in revenue.

For State/Local:

As seen in Table 9-6, for the United States as a whole, first generation independent person units (which include first and second generation children assigned to independent first generation persons) cost the states on net about $1,600 each. In contrast, second generation independent person units (which include second and third generation children assigned to independent second generation persons) contribute on net to state and local budgets about $1,700 each, and third-plus generation independent person units (which include their children) contribute on net to state and local budgets about $1,300 each.16

So even according to CIS's source, the TX bussing is a waste of money and costs more than just keeping them long term.

Depends. I think there needs to be certain criteria met before becoming a legalized citizen. No criminal record and an understanding of English for one. If they meet that criteria then I'm fine.

Language criteria isn't fair and is a detriment to those most needing citizenship.

Lol isn't fair? Says who? I'm not saying they need to know English before they come here. But over a period of time they need to show progress in learning the language.

The US does not have a national language. You would gate keep people for something like that, given that their situation was dire? It's a catch 22. You know those poor people wouldn't likely be bilingual with English.

What's wrong with letting them in and requiring them to learn the languag? We could even help then learn it.

The United States does NOT have an official language.

English is our primary language and needs to stay that way.

@zaryia: No, they're using the average education level of illegal immigrants to apply that estimate, using data and the methodology from the NAS. What issues do you find with their estimates or methodology? Are their estimates off-base? I know you can copy and paste others' thoughts, but what are your thoughts?

No, I could not find what that literal fake info group was saying in his actual source documentation (NAS). His actual claims were missing from there. I only require and will only accept quotation directly from that NAS document, not a group with a lower rating than Breitbart. It's on the same ranking as OAN...

In fact one of his own sources directly disagrees with his conclusion:

On the flip side, putting unauthorized immigrants on a pathway to citizenship—which two-thirds of Americans support—would add a cumulative $1.2 trillion to GDP over a decade, increase the earnings of all Americans by $625 billion, and create an average of 145,000 new jobs each year. When it comes to the way forward for immigration policy, the choice is clear.

Cato (High Fact) also looked at NAS when debunking FAIR's (another fake info group) very similar analysis. They came with a completely different conclusion then FAIR/CIS when looking at the NAS's data,

The recent National Academy of Science (NAS) study on the fiscal and economic cost of immigrants accounts for the temporal nature of tax revenue and government benefits (people pay taxes at certain parts of their lives and consume more in benefits in others). In order to properly account for the temporal nature of taxes and expenditures requires reducing the lifetime value of both and discounting it to the present value. NAS table 8–14 does just that for federal, state, and local governments (displayed in Figure 1). That Figure does not include public goods like national defense which is unaffected by illegal immigrants (the U.S. states does not require another aircraft carrier if there are 50 million more immigrants here).

Based on the age of arrival and education, immigrants with less than a high school degree who entered before their 24th birthday pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits. Illegal immigrants are potentially even better for public budgets in the short run because their consumption of government benefits is more curtailed than their tax payments (including the incidence of taxation) due to their legal status. Illegal immigrants do not likely consume more in tax benefits than they pay in taxes but, if they do, the figure is small.

All 4 of these links (NAS, CIS, FAIR, and CATO) are from 2017 btw.

My thoughts are for every dollar the Texas state government spends on public services for undocumented immigrants, new research indicates, the state collects $1.21 in revenue. I find that across the board, undocumented immigrants are significant economic contributors as earners, taxpayers, and consumers. 🤞

And as such, this partisan stunt is costing Texas. Going strictly by the latest facts.

@zaryia: So you have no idea how to address their methodology and instead rely on others to think for you?

English is YOUR primary language. There are other languages spoken in the US.

And you're probably just as bad at those ones too.

A significantly higher rated source (CATO) looked at the same NAS document and came up with the exact opposite conclusion. Two newer sources came up with the opposite conclusion as well.

CIS is quite literally ranked the same as PragerU and OAN. Lower than Breitbart. Citing 3 direct counter-sources was more than enough and all I need to do.

Trolling again.

@zaryia: "and instead rely on others to think for you?"

Understood. lol I mean, I could have guessed that already.

Well that's not fair, Zaryia put a lot of work into searching for some bottom-of-the-barrel "study" by an open borders activist to use as an excuse to not have to listen to anything you said and discredit more credible studies with.

@HoolaHoopMan: yes legal immigrants are a net benefit. The ones that go through the legal process.

Not illegal aliens. The ones that are paying the cartel to sneak them through are not a net benefit.

Don't group legal immigrants in with the illegal aliens.

1 group is carrying all the weight in your "net benefit" analysis

I find it a bit embarrassing for Republicans that this is what's now considered good politics. If this move doesn't lay bare that the GOP is the party of resentment, I am not sure what does. As a Chicagoan, I see this as a net benefit for the city. The evidence on immigration is crystal clear; immigrants support economic growth and contribute more in taxes than they take. So thanks Abbott for the enlarged tax base.

I only regret that immigrants in question had to be used as pawns as Abbott did nothing to coordinate their arrival with the city and their short term situation may indeed be difficult. Doesn't seem very Christian of him...

I posted 3 sources that completely and directly contradict his literal fake news website. There is nothing left to discuss.

• Economic benefits of illegal immigration outweigh the costs, Baker Institute study shows | Rice News | News and Media Relations | Rice University
• FAIR’s “Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration” Study Is Fatally Flawed | Cato at Liberty Blog
• Examining the Economic Contributions of Undocumented Immigrants by Country of Origin - New American Economy Research Fund

This is a wash. Texas is wasting $12 million+ on this bussing.

🤔

We're arguing a purely fact based numerical claim. I'm going to continue to post and quote citation from multiple sources that say otherwise, and that's ALL that's going to matter. Possibly with paraphrasing. My opinion is irrelevant on this. This is normal.

They know. Which is why they are posting literal fake news.

Then instead of whining about the source, show the flaws in the methodology. So far your argument has been that you don't believe them because they're not from within your echo chamber. ROFLMAO @ illegal immigration being a net gain. That's why schools are stretching thin, wages are stagnating, and the countries they flee are anything but economic power houses. If they were so good for economic expansion, Why are their own economies such trash?

@eoten: I'm going to go in a limb here, but I'll risk saying that historical and political factors are more relevant for a country's economy than the individuals who go out seeking for a better life. As an American that should be quite evident as the vast majority of Americans aren't natives and America itself was built upon the practical contradiction of your crazy racist theory.

What's wrong with their political system? They seem to have many of the same things I constantly hear people on the left demanding. Hell, some "leaders" on the left even point to some of the more extreme examples of those countries as models for how to run a nation. Socialism, and government control over most industries is good, right? Capitalism bad?

Also, where the **** do you get off calling someone racist for disagreeing with your absurd, ridiculous notion that open borders are a boon to the economy? Is that really all you people have? Is that all you people can use? Every discussion devolves to the same moronic nonsense that anyone who disagrees with you on anything is a racist, a sexist, a phobe. Grow up.

The US legally does not have an official language, and when we look into historical precedent. There are plenty of reasons why Spanish is a perfectly valid language in the USA.

I don't get why people are trying to impose a language on people. A good chunk of americans, especially in the west. Are fluent in spanish or even have it as a primary language.

This doesn't just go for the US either. I am vehemently opposed to trying to impose the swedish language on the Sami people (who speak the Lapp language).

@eoten: I call you a racist because you were racist. Sorry about that. Nothing to do with disagreeing with you.

That would only be required if I couldn't find counter sources. Objectively speaking, posting 3 direct counter citations that say the direct opposite claim is also satisfactory refutation. It's a wash. In fact, CIS's top sources disagree with it's own conclusion (quoted earlier). Which is typical from a literal fake news sites:

I didn't say open borders are a boon to the economy. I'm just going by the factual data that shows bussing undocumented immigrants costs more than keeping them. As would mass deportation.

Hell, I just found another:

Mass Deportation Would Cost Families, U.S. Billions: Study (nbcnews.com)

A while back I was called a potential sex abuser/offender by you and SargentD after posting studies and fact checks on false Q-Anon claims, who were falsely calling teachers, judges, and librarians all sorts of obscene things. Throwing rocks in glass houses and all. 😬

@zaryia: You might as well give up. You're arguing with someone who cites literal tabloids, and while the other hasn't been on the same level yet, he's been following KHAndAnime's path for months now (as evidenced in this thread by him now citing a tabloid level source).

@eoten: For the most part, we're talking about Latin America and maybe India here. Can you share an example of a leader from the modern American left pointing to one of these countries as a model for holistic economic or political development?

It's a really fascinating contradiction.

Were they using the same methodology? Was the research question the same? I'm not asking you to do a literature review, I'm curious on what your thoughts were on their methodology and data since it was immediately dismissed at face value. You like to copy and paste articles, journals, etc, but never actually do any sort of critical analysis. Do you have any background in this? If you don't understand the process much less how research is conducted, and instead rely on simply parroting sourcing, then I won't press any further.

According to some, you must blindly welcome everyone to our country. Illegal and costly doesn't matter. When you fail to tow such a line, the one and only race card is pulled. A thinking individual poses many legit questions pertaining to the mass influx of aliens but such interrogative sentences are usually ignored.

Chicago, D.C., NYC, etc..., should bend over for them but the response of receiving a few hundred illegals seems to be somewhat cold at least on the principal of sending them to sanctuary cities.

No it isn't. There are studies on the same subject with illegal immigrants. The result is still the same.

https://news.rice.edu/news/2020/economic-benefits-illegal-immigration-outweigh-costs-baker-institute-study-shows

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/making-sense/4-myths-about-how-immigrants-affect-the-u-s-economy

Because the US doesn't have an official language or the fact that people CAN LEARN the language if need be? It's not a reasonable hard stop to immigration. If that were the case I'd have to say we should take a trip down memory lane and send every European immigrant back over the last 200 years. You think people immigrating a hundred years ago were all fluent English speakers?

It's hypocritical at best and racist at worst.

If need be? This is the problem and something I've noticed with leftist. They would be completely OK if English was no longer the primary language spoken in the US.

Expediting the process and allowing anyone and everyone to come over isn't something I can get behind if people aren't willing to assimilate.

I have 0 issues with immigration but people coming in should absolutely be integrated. There's nothing to be gained with people living marginalized and vulnerable.

You'd have to first build an argument why language shift is an inherently bad thing, ignoring that your response is a deflection. People can still assimilate and learn English while not knowing it when becoming citizens.

Because English is a important part of American culture. You have said previously it isn't important because the US doesn't have an official language.

That is such a meaningless argument. It's also one that reeks of nativism and America First nonsense in many scenarios.

English is a terrible language in many ways. Outside of the fact most people here speak it, there is little value in it from an objective standpoint. It's hard to learn, has many problems with communication...the only thing worse might be German and at least they have a sense of humor about how bad German is to speak.

That is besides the fact that to "replace" English it would take generations, and even then it'd be pointless because a.) there'd still be majority English speakers and b.) over a few decades people would adapt.

I still think it's dumb we don't teach kids a romance language (Spanish, French, etc) in elementary school. Kids should be fluent in two languages when they're out of high school and maybe even working on a third.

That is interesting. Here in europe, pretty much everyone knows at the very least 3 languages once they are out of high school. Local Language, English, a third language you opt into: Italian/Spanish/Japanese/French/Arabic/ect.

Here in sweden Muslim Refugees sometimes know as many as 5: Local/Arabic/Swedish/English/Opt-In

Which is cool as hell.

Can't say I know enough French to get by. Detest that language really.

I learnt Italian. In my adulthood I also learnt German

So I can speak Swedish/English/Italian/German.

Kinda regret not learning Japanese with all the games Nintendo refused to localize >_>

So you're saying that all those Germans and Italians ruined American culture a hundred years ago?

Not sure how he came to that conclusion. German American is the number 1 ethnicity. Guess we should be speaking German.

The mental gymnastics from you two is cringe inducing. Tell me how many little Germany's do we have in the US? German immigrants learned English and left Germany behind. They assimilated. You both feel that isn't important.. so how does that compare to European immigrants?

Doesn't matter. Your argument leads to the conclusion that the largest group should be dominant. That was immigrants from Germany.

this is good compromise, texas should send them by the hundreds of thousands, millions even to these dem states. Its not fair for texas to shoulder the burden alone.

Also the way I see it, this is texas and california just being returned to mexico in a round about way. We did steal it from the mexicans a while back...so now its just going back to them LOL.

No my argument is that immigrants should assimilate to American culture. Germans did that.