Simple, really. Every time an illegal immigrant checks into a hospital and doesn't pay for services rendered or ends up in jail or prison, or is discovered to be going to school here at the expense of the taxpayers, or fraudulently collecting welfare benefits, the bill ought to be deducted from the USAID money being sent to that immigrant's home country to offset the cost.
Additionally, if a foreign government doesn't want us executing their citizens who are convicted of heinous crimes, then fine: that country can pay for the cost of our continued incarceration of their citizen.
There. Fewer deportations, fewer harassing police stops, and a way off death row for illegal immigrants. Lower fiscal cost to the 1st world countries which find themselves swamped with large numbers of illegal immigrants. Win, win, win, and... uh... win.-- 21 Quest, Feb 23 2014 ...some dogs ride bicycles... http://www.youtube....watch?v=Vdto2MAsU0s [doctorremulac3, Feb 25 2014] Our wishes are to cut foreign aid to 10 times its current size http://www.csmonito...es-its-current-size [theircompetitor, Feb 25 2014] Net economic impact = ? http://en.wikipedia...n_the_United_StatesThere are many economic benefits of immigrants [sophocles, Feb 25 2014] Economic Impact Link http://en.wikipedia...n_the_United_Statesabove was not displaying correctly [sninctown, Feb 25 2014] Bun, bun, bun, and (dare I say) bun. [+]-- Grogster, Feb 23 2014 And the money goes to the hospital, prison, school? or back to the general fund ? or the taxpayer ?
not simple-- popbottle, Feb 23 2014 [MFD] advocacy (let's all), bad science.-- sninctown, Feb 23 2014 //And the money goes to the hospital, prison, school? //
Yes. Instead of the funds for that person coming from the budget allotment used to pay for a citizen's unpaid medical/prison/school expenses, it comes from the USAID allotment. The money saved could go toward paying off the federal deficit or used for other purposes, such as improving our nation's hospitals/prisons/schools.
A possible added benefit would be that it might discourage a number of would-be migrants from entering our country illegally if they know it'll have a direct negative impact on their friends/family back home. We have something on the order of 11 million illegal immigrants in the USA. In FY 2011 we gave something on the order of 300 million dollars in USAID money to Mexico and that amount did NOT include the amount spent on the 11 million Mexican citizens illegally residing in our country. (I use the Mexicans as an example because they are the largest group. The proposed piece of legislation would be applied equally to citizens of all countries who are residing in ours illegally)
Imagine the pressure those illegal migrants would face from back home to get back home ASAP because not only have they lost ALL their USAID funding but their government is getting a bill from the US government for the remaining cost that their USAID allotment was insufficient to cover.
The idea is not a "Let's All" or 'Advocacy'. It is for a very specific form of public immigration policy reform, posted in the 'public: immigration' category. How is it 'Bad Science'?
From the Help File: //advocacy - the post promotes or protests an existing, often widely discussed, issue X that is very important to the author, without inventing new means to bring about or stop the discussed issue//
Ok, so my post can be said to promote or protest an existing issue (illegal immigration) which is widely discussed. The new means the post aims to invent to stop the discussed issue is the policy of aid garnishment to cover the fiscal costs of the illegal immigrants and, by extension, billing the host nation if their entire USAID fund is depleted and the costs have not been fully covered by it.-- 21 Quest, Feb 24 2014 // [MFD] advocacy (let's all), bad science //
Disputed.
Not advocacy; a cogent exposition of a simple legislative reform.
"bad science" ?-- 8th of 7, Feb 24 2014 The real solution here is work visas. Have you considered that the aid may be reducing the # of people who would otherwise come?-- theircompetitor, Feb 24 2014 A better solution would be more and better engineered forms of support intended to improve the quality of life in those countries. Decreasing aid would, if it had any impact, only lower the quality of life in the country, causing more people to leave and head to [21q]'s doorstep.
But these international relations are easier to play as a zero-sum rather than non-zero-sum game, so very little is likely to have a positive effect.-- swimswim, Feb 24 2014 // the aid may be reducing the # of people who would otherwise come //
The per-capita amount of aid which trickles down through the sticky fingers of the governments to the people is not enough to make any significant or timely difference to the lifestyle and prospects of ordinary citizens.
The huge gulf between the quality of life in the developed and undeveloped regions represents a significant migration pressure.
The options may be presented thus:
1. Pay for building and maintaining high fences.
2. Pay others to build and maintain high fences, on the understanding that payments will be diminished or stopped if the fences are ineffective.
The "fences" would be both metaphorical and physical.
The problem for the USA might be Canada, where the concept of "payment" is not yet clearly understood; it may be better just to offer them beef jerky, or beaver pelts, trade goods that they understand.
Fortunately, most Canadians who end up in the USA have merely wandered across the border during the hours of darkness, attracted by the mysterious bright lights.-- 8th of 7, Feb 24 2014 //gulf between the quality of life in the developed and undeveloped regions represents a significant migration pressure//
Perhaps not for much longer - I was reading last year about young Portuguese migrating to Mozambique, because prospects were better there. Now, you can make disparaging remarks about Portugal if you like, but I think it's an early sign of something bigger.-- pertinax, Feb 24 2014 //A better solution would be more and better engineered forms of support intended to improve the quality of life in those countries.//
Such as...? With the extreme violence plaguing Mexico in recent years, it's dangerous sending people down there.
// Decreasing aid would, if it had any impact, only lower the quality of life in the country//
Exactly. The idea is to put the quality of life in their home country in their own hands. So many of them come here to make money and send it back to their own country to help the folks there. They can continue to come here and tax their own country further into poverty, or they can stay home and make a stronger effort to improve the situation in their home country.-- 21 Quest, Feb 24 2014 so to take this to its logical conclusion, we can increase aide for emigration?-- theircompetitor, Feb 24 2014 If the millions of illegal Mexican immigrants in the US put as much effort into fixing their own country as they did trying to get into ours, maybe Mexico wouldn't be in the sorry state it's in.-- 21 Quest, Feb 24 2014 I don't think the individual illegal imigrants will make the choice you want them to in this case. In the best case, there is a single illegal imigrant with a large family back home. They have two options: 1) Continue as is sending money back to their family where it is desperately needed. 2) Go home and hope that the increased charity from some country is going to trickle down and help their family.
And that doesn't count all the immigrants who have few or no relatives left in their home country that they care about.
I agree with what you're trying to accomplish, but I don't think this will make a significant impact.-- scad mientist, Feb 24 2014 //the individual illegal imigrants will make the choice you want them to //
The individuals are not the target of this policy. The target is the government of their country, specifically the greasy-handed gangsters who make the most from foreign aid. It is meant to send the message "Keep your huddled masses inside your own borders, or it will cost you unearned income."
You can always rely on graft, cynicism and venality. After all, it's worked fine for the kiddie-fiddlers in the Vatican all these centuries...-- 8th of 7, Feb 24 2014 There was a lot of anger about foreign aid in the fallout of the financial apocalypse. I'm not sure it's entirely justified. On the face of it... the UK was giving China aid. £27 million of it. Now, that's a lot of money to me. To the UK or China, it hardly seems worth bothering. I mean, that is likely to be less than the annual fortune cookie trade.
It's not likely to be working at face value though, is it? A few hundred years of international diplomacy probably have in place a few deals. A few million in "aid" here and Rolls Royce get the contract there...
Point is, aid is likely a diplomatic lever. Clever countries will also be using migration as a diplomatic lever.-- bs0u0155, Feb 24 2014 8th had it right. The main target is the foreign governments. The individuals choosing to leave is merely a hoped-for side-effect. Their costs are being at least partially offset, so getting rid of them becomes less of a priority. Not a non-priority (there's still the issue of them taking jobs, stealing identities, and depressing wages) but less of a priority.
Mexico stops paying its bill, we start talking about NAFTA in terms they don't like. As in, renaming it to UCTA (United States/Canada Free Trade agreement). It's time to play hardball with these guys.-- 21 Quest, Feb 24 2014 So, the solution is to take a poor, mismanaged country that people want to leave and make it a poorer country that more people want to leave. I get it now.-- RayfordSteele, Feb 24 2014 As the boring economist on here, here are some questions.
1) Is the US aid money more than the US makes on the revenue from cigarettes, fast-food outlets and other income generators?
2) Wouldn't it be a lot easier to put the bill on whoever it is in the US who is employing them?
3) Would it be more or less expensive for the US to completely choke off foreign illegal workers?-- not_morrison_rm, Feb 24 2014 No. The solution is to encourage, incentivize, and motivate people in poor countries, who are spending so much money and effort to get out, to redirect their energies into a more constructive effort to fix the problems in their country instead of running away from their problems. The vigilante groups engaged in combat operations against the drug cartels, clearing them out of occupied villages, ought to be a shining inspiration to their fellows.
(Note: this comment was a reply to rayford's anno)
In response to morrison: it might be easier to put the bill on the employers, and in fact would be at least somewhat in keeping with the spirit of Obamacare. However, that approach absolves the Mexican government of its responsibility for its citizens, and that, my friend, is no bueno.
On the other hand, it might not be easier at all. How do you find an undocumented worker's employer to send a hospital or prison bill to?-- 21 Quest, Feb 24 2014 Hospitals would probably double and triple charge these patients, knowing the bills will just come out of unpaid foreign aid funny money. To prevent fraud on the part of hospitals and other entities billing for care of illegal immigrants, one could use the infrastructure and rules set up for Medicare.-- bungston, Feb 24 2014 Yeah, the model's there.-- 21 Quest, Feb 24 2014 [mfd] advocacy:
//This includes ideas to...tax all people who do X//
In this case, X is illegally immigrating into the USA.
[mfd] bad science:
//bad science - the invention is intended as a serious suggestion, but is based on scientific "facts" that are widely known to be wrong.//
USAID spending is an order of magnitude smaller than the cost of border security, so billing Mexico for our security costs won't work. Specifically ~$411 million per year sent as aid to mexico vs. about $10 Billion per year spent on border security. Also, having hospitals check citizenship status is unconstitutional. Also, nearly all of the costs/problems you're complaining about are because of poor American citizens, not immigrants. Most likely, Mexico would respond by billing America for its arms exports, for a net loss to us.
[marked-for-deletion] because you don't want to read my political views disguised as ideas.-- sninctown, Feb 24 2014 I never mentioned funding border security. It's not a tax, it's a wage garnishment to pay their bills and bill their government for whatever amount their costs exceed their aid funding by. Widely disputed does not mean widely known to be wrong or even incorrect. Do you have anything else?-- 21 Quest, Feb 24 2014 //On the other hand, it might not be easier at all. How do you find an undocumented worker's employer to send a hospital or prison bill to?
Pretty easy I would have thought, why not try asking them? They have a van, write down the licence plate...start an illegal worker neighborhood watch scheme, many things could be tried but no one actually cares.
If nobody was willing to hire an illegal worker, they wouldn't leave their own country, so try rooting out the culture of employing illegal workers.
There is a problem but whose problem is it, in the US for employing illegal workers, or the illegal workers for coming there?
For example, would the southern states fruit farmers make a profit if they had to pay a real salary to the fruit pickers...-- not_morrison_rm, Feb 25 2014 //[MFD] advocacy (let's all), bad science.//
No, it's not a "let's all" proposition, it's suggesting a new process. When X event happens, it triggers Y process, and it's a very good idea.
It would be a way to send a message to countries that are creating these people who are so bent on getting out that they're unwilling to follow the process the new country has set out for immigration. Mexico has great respect for immigration laws, just not ours. Do you know you can't own property in Mexico if you're American? You can pay for it, you can live in it, but it's officially owned by a Mexican bank and ownership has to be "renewed". I believe you might be able to skirt those laws in some desert areas and by having a corporation buy the land but I can't just go to Mexico and buy a house. Likewise, I can't walk across the border and get welfare, healthcare and housing. Immigration laws in Mexico are sacrosanct. but only if it's their laws we're talking about. The topic doesn't come up a lot because people don't give up American citizenship to become a Mexican citizen. It may have happened but then again some dogs ride bicycles, it's just very, very rare.
My beef isn't with poor people doing exactly what I'd do in their situation. I'd get me and my family out of that country ASAP myself. My beef is with a corrupt, incompetent government of a country whose people all want to leave, that's why I like this idea. How about Mexico fixing the problems that make everybody want to leave?
And can we all knock off this MFD nonsense? Let people speak their mind.-- doctorremulac3, Feb 25 2014 I like. +-- blissmiss, Feb 25 2014 meh [/]-- Zeuxis, Feb 25 2014 The thing I like about this idea is that it involves the federal government taking responsibility for the health care costs of the uninsured. My Medicare anno alludes to this - the immigrants would essentially be on Medicare. Illegal immigrants are the population for which health coverage is most difficult. The good 21 has devised an excellent " sop for Cerebrus" in that the guise of punitivity (I assert that is a word) will make this more palatable for voters who disdain governmental endeavors that help the less fortunate. Well done!-- bungston, Feb 25 2014 Oooh boy howdy, there's a whole lot going on here.
On a general level and based on past experience, it seems that it should only be another 250ish years before the descendents of the current crop of illegal immigrants are bumping their gums about forrins and other undesireable types barging into the country without a care for How Things Are Done Round These Parts.
On a specific level, I tend to find that the debates that are had about the taxpayer-borne cost of having forrins in a country and how we can stop these forrins robbing from our pockets are had at a very high level, and all commence from the assumption that (a) forrins are having a clearly demonstrated appreciable negative impact on the finances of whichever country is pissed off with Romanians or whoever it is this week and that (b) notwithstanding the fundamental interconnectedness of the global economic system, the only correct basis for the discussion for whether or not the forrins are a bad thing and must be stopped is the impact (which is, typically, at this stage in the discussions, not properly demonstrated) that the forrins have at a national or local level, without considering, for example, that in fact forrins sending cash back to their reproductively incontinent affiliates in forrinland is having a positive cash impact on the local economies of forrinland.
What is interesting about the influx of Mexicans - it is Mexicans and other fruit-hatted forrins of the Central Americas that this idea is driving at, yeah? - is not its parallel (alluded to above) with the influx of White People into the territories of North America but the differences: the white people came into America and managed to see off the locals by force, thus destroying the locals' way of life. Here, though the forrins are coming in because they are acted on by economic forces themselves, but it is by them acting rationally (within the global capitalist superstructure) that they are all set to tear down the - essentially capitalist - freedoms of the greatest country the world has ever known. Insert crying eagle macro here.-- calum, Feb 25 2014 Also "garnishment" -- such a comical term.-- calum, Feb 25 2014 //garnishment// esp. since it makes possible the term "garnishee" which sounds like some kind of edible curio brought home from the British Raj.-- Zeuxis, Feb 25 2014 wow there calum, you said a mouthful. There are demographic statisticians that are predicting the eventual hispanization of the South West simply because the Rio Grande is not a sufficient natural border.
But putting manifest destiny aside, borders are more than just a useful fiction, so long as the citizens choose to pursue some sort of a coherent, joint policy. However we (in the US) got here, we do have a stake in how we go forward, and we do have a stake in managing both the growth, and division of the pie.
As the link shows, funny enough every one wants to cut US foreign aid -- to 10 times it's current size. This is a legit idea, just not a good one. It is not good because:
1. Wherever and however you think about foreign aid, it is already aimed at making things better over there. Decreasing it may make sense, but it won't reduce immigration, legal or otherwise.
2. The assumption here is that the drain on the system affects tax payers. While that is certainly true, I am highly skeptical that the net effect of cheap labor is not positive for those who actually pay taxes. In other words, a) I pay a lot in taxes already, so sure, part of that goes to caring for immigrants but, b) I pay less for snow removal or grass cutting or landscaping or fruits, I doubt I am hurt on a net basis.
3. I am much more interested in integration that I am in punitive measures. I would be perfectly happy to pay for school if we cancelled all the useless ESL programs, we would benefit more from that than from not having their kids go to school.
4. And I am certainly not in favor of legalization or citizenship, but I think work visas would be a pretty smart way to influence the ebb and flow while reducing border running.-- theircompetitor, Feb 25 2014 I can see that crying eagle macro! Wings spread in defense of Capitalism! Perched on the gauntleted Invisible Hand of Adam Smith. Ok the gauntlet is visible. The hand might be depicted in a sort of blue haze. Anyway - wonderful punctuation calum.
It is too bad about the term "cry" though because that sounds like the eagle is sad and it is not at all. Scream is not right either; it connotes rabidity. There should be a better term for the sound eagles make that means "I am an eagle and will talonedly kick your ass". Maybe other languages have that term? Zeno, you speak 6 or 7, no? Any bird noise terms handy for amalgamation into english?-- bungston, Feb 25 2014 I think, tc, that we are broadly in agreement on a proportion of the points here.
I am not mad keen on (though not entirely agin) the idea that borders dissolve to the point that we devolve to a version of history where mankind is free to travel to and set up home wherever he likes only this time he can get there a fucksight quicker and more easily than in the dim and distant. I don't have very good reasons for this, though and were it not for the fact that the country I live in it barely fit for human habitation and thus is only attractive to immigrants from fourth world hellholes (viz. in my experience, England and the US) I suspect that I would have a more xenophobic attitude to xenopeople and their curious ways and odours. But the main thing is that nations and national borders are manifestations of political convenience.
But as to your numbered points:
//1. Wherever and however you think about foreign aid, it is already aimed at making things better over there. Decreasing it may make sense, but it won't reduce immigration, legal or otherwise. // I agree that reducing the aid will not stop immigration. What might, if I was feeling morally expedient, is making it harder to send cash home. There is / was a case in the UK about a bank unilaterally withdrawing its service re money transfer from the UK to - I think - Somalia (citing compliance with the Bribery Act), which stoppage had a massive negative impact on the Somali immigrants in the UK, who were unable to tithe their relatively massive salaries for doing shit work to their families back home. If this approach were taken, then maybe it would discourage forrins from seeking work in the US. It might instead push the forrins to other countries with less sneaky discouragements but the idea we are discussing / not really delaing with is not concerned about stopping emigration from a non-US state, but about stopping immigration to the US alone.
//2. The assumption here is that the drain on the system affects tax payers. While that is certainly true, I am highly skeptical that the net effect of cheap labor is not positive for those who actually pay taxes. In other words, a) I pay a lot in taxes already, so sure, part of that goes to caring for immigrants but, b) I pay less for snow removal or grass cutting or landscaping or fruits, I doubt I am hurt on a net basis.// Exactly. This element of the economic impact appears to be elided in most online discussion on this point. Of course, it it hard to quantify, but pretending as if it is an impossibility and should be disregarded is not an honest way to approach the topic.
//3. I am much more interested in integration that I am in punitive measures. I would be perfectly happy to pay for school if we cancelled all the useless ESL programs, we would benefit more from that than from not having their kids go to school.// Getting the people into the US school system will do more for inculcation with US cultural norms than anything else.
//4. And I am certainly not in favor of legalization or citizenship, but I think work visas would be a pretty smart way to influence the ebb and flow while reducing border running.// I dunno, the opening of the EU borders has meant that there are now loads of quality, relatively inexpensive tradesmen and women in the UK, where previously this was the domain of robbing cowboys - back to the US West yeehawr!-- calum, Feb 25 2014 I believe the sound you are describing, bungston, is referred to as a raptor warcry.-- 21 Quest, Feb 25 2014 //Raptor Warcry
Funny you should mention that...-- not_morrison_rm, Feb 25 2014 The whole premise is wrong, and I find it shocking for the otherwise smart HB community to take it as a given. It's bad math. And, mean.
Immigrants pay $7,000,000,000.00 in social security taxes alone, & collect zero. They also benefit employers, & consumers who pay far less for produce, & services.
Google it & find the data. (see wiki link)-- sophocles, Feb 25 2014 Actually, that isn't true. Many immigrants DO collect. Only the ones using stolen identities (ie, illegal immigrants and only a fraction of illegal immigrants at that) are prevented from collecting SSI they contributed to. Hell, I'm a native born US citizen and there's a very real possibility that *I* won't be able to collect SSI when I reach that age. And as for all the immigrants getting paid cash under the table? The ones not on the books? They aren't paying Social Security or even income tax. And are identity theft and fraud really behaviors we want to encourage or turn a blind eye to just because we get a little extra tax revenue out of it? That's the definition of corruption.They hurt consumers by depressing wages and making jobs harder to find. If wages weren't so low, our citizens could afford to pay slightly higher prices.
Remember: this idea is about IILEGAL immigrants. The legal immigrants, the ones with Green Cards, Visas, and Temporary Work Permits, are excluded. We invited them.-- 21 Quest, Feb 25 2014 The "bad actors" here are not the hard working immigrants. The bad actors are the employers who are pushing down wages & exploiting the vulnerable & avoiding taxes.
So, I'd be giving croissants if you come up with ideas that punish the employers who hire these, OK?
& Yes, legal immigrants help enormously. BTW, I have a dozen patents, & most of them are with co- inventors that were not born in the USA. Those patents created hundreds of jobs for US workers as well as high-tech products that we all enjoy (chip equipment)-- sophocles, Feb 25 2014 //The legal immigrants, the ones with Green Cards, Visas, and Temporary Work Permits, are excluded.//
Can I have a slightly longer one please? my current visa needs extending twice as often as my phone contract. By kicking me out, the US government many incur the wrath of the Verizon billing dept. Which is scary for anyone...-- bs0u0155, Feb 25 2014 //Actually, that isn't true. // Actually, that is true, which is one reason I called [mfd] bad science.-- sninctown, Feb 25 2014 Y'all are chucking out straw men to avoid the real idea being proposed here like a C-130 deploying chaff and flares to avoid a guided missile.
I say again, my idea involves illegal immigrants. Did that 7 billion dollar SSI figure include ALL immigrants, or JUST the illegals? Because any legal immigrants who pay into the system should be able to collect later in life, and if you exclude the legal immigrants then that figure is going to drop considerably.
This idea was just to deal with the cost of the illegal immigrants. It doesn't punish them. I didn't suggest detaining them, or deporting them, or punishing them in any way. I merely suggested billing their host governments for the costs incurred by their citizens.
I'm IN FAVOR of going after employers who hire illegal immigrants. I've NEVER said we shouldn't go after them. But that's not a new idea, and therefore doesn't belong on the HB. It's also not going to solve the problem if it's your only solution. A lot of illegal immigrants, as I've said before, don't have regular employers. The ones who queue up outside Home Depot stores looking for household work don't have 'employers' you can go after, but they get hurt and have to go the hospital, and they get in trouble and go to jail/prison just like anybody else. I totally agree that we should nail those regular employers to the wall... but in ADDITION to going after the immigrants, not INSTEAD of. The employers certainly should get their share of the blame, but that doesn't mean the people who break the law to come work for them (and the governments that encourage their citizens to illegally enter another country) should get NONE of the blame and face NO consequences for their part in this criminal enterprise.-- 21 Quest, Feb 25 2014 //The ones who queue up outside Home Depot stores looking for household work don't have 'employers'
At the risk of sounding even more fatuous than usual, they do have employers, the people who come out of Home Depot and give them work. That`s presuming that standing outside that place will get them some work. I`m guessing that the whole area is covered by CCTV, so get working on that one.-- not_morrison_rm, Feb 26 2014 That's harder to stop than prostitution. "Oh hi, officer. Yeah, I'm just giving my cousin Jose a lift home."-- 21 Quest, Feb 26 2014 Maybe, just maybe, if the tourism dollars stayed in the countries being toured and the people were shareholders in this industry, then they might enjoy their stay there as much as we all seem to.-- 2 fries shy of a happy meal, Feb 26 2014 Id just like to say one last statement regarding my detractors' attempts to use equal criminality on the part of employers as justification for the behavior of the illegal immigrants they hire: two wrongs do not make a right. Just because someone else is also guilty of commiting a crime you have been found guilty of does not mean you had a right to do it.-- 21 Quest, Feb 26 2014 I think the problem here is human nature - it's in people's personal interests to move to places where they can get paid work, legal or otherwise. It's in people's personal interests to pay below the "going rate" to folks who are less encumbered by the prevailing legal system than those who are more formally described within it. Until you change the facts that drive those market forces - the behaviour will continue - whether you, or anyone likes it or not. That's the problem with a market-led system, rather than a socially conservative one - it's more prone, more susceptible to the perversities of extreme market-led consequences.
Or to put it another way, I don't think anyone gives (enough of) a damn how much money is sent back in aid to pay the salaries of NGO administrators and kick- backs for high/mid-level government employees - other than those who are direct beneficiaries of the same.
And if the enactment of a law is unlikely to drive change in the population, not only will it legitimise the behaviours you seek to change, it may also generate economic unusualness - i.e. funds so diverted from aid budgets might just end up skewing the amounts allocated to aid budgets in the first place.-- Zeuxis, Feb 27 2014 //guilty of commiting a crime you have been found guilty of does not mean you had a right to do it.
Damn, now you tell me..-- not_morrison_rm, Feb 27 2014 random, halfbakery