The Cost of a Border Wall vs. the Cost of Illegal Immigration

SickNasty

Now that's a tasty burger.
Joined
Nov 25, 2014
Location
Philthy
The findings of this analysis show that if a border wall stopped a small fraction of the illegal immigrants who are expected to come in the next decade, the fiscal savings from having fewer illegal immigrants in the country would be sufficient to cover the costs of the wall. This analysis takes the likely education level of illegal border-crossers and applies fiscal estimates developed by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) for immigrants by education level. NAS calculates the future fiscal balance immigrants create — taxes paid minus costs. NAS reports fiscal balances as "net present values", which places a lower value on future expenditures than on current expenditures.

Based on the NAS data, illegal border-crossers create an average fiscal burden of approximately $74,722 during their lifetimes, excluding any costs for their U.S.-born children. If a border wall stopped between 160,000 and 200,000 illegal crossers — 9 to 12 percent of those expected to successfully cross in the next decade — the fiscal savings would equal the $12 to $15 billion cost of the wall.1

Among the findings:

  • There is agreement among researchers that illegal immigrants overwhelmingly have modest levels of education — most have not completed high school or have only a high school education.

  • There is also agreement that immigrants who come to America with modest levels of education create significantly more in costs for government than they pay in taxes.

  • A recent NAS study estimated the lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) of immigrants by education. Averaging the cost estimates from that study and combining them with the education levels of illegal border-crossers shows a net fiscal drain of $74,722 per illegal crosser.2

  • The above figures are only for the original illegal immigrants and do not include any costs for their U.S.-born descendants. If we use the NAS projections that include the descendants, the fiscal drain for border-crossers grows to $94,391 each.

  • If a border wall prevented 160,000 to 200,000 illegal crossings (excluding descendants) in the next 10 years it would be enough to pay for the estimated $12 to $15 billion costs of the wall.

  • Newly released research by the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) done for the Department of Homeland Security indicates that 170,000 illegal immigrants crossed the border successfully without going through a port of entry in 2015.3 While a significant decline in crossings from a decade ago, it still means that there may be 1.7 million successful crossings in the next decade. If a wall stopped just 9 to 12 percent of these crossings it would pay for itself.

  • If a wall stopped half of those expected to successfully enter illegally without going through a port of entry at the southern border over the next 10 years, it would save taxpayers nearly $64 billion — several times the wall's cost.
Important Caveats and Observations About These Estimates

  • In addition to crossing the border surreptitiously, aliens join the illegal population primarily by overstaying a temporary visa. A southern border wall would not address this part of the illegal flow.

  • A large share of the net fiscal cost of illegal immigrants is at the state and local level, not the federal level. The costs of building the wall will be borne by the federal government.

  • To create its long-term fiscal estimates for immigrants by education level, the NAS uses the concept of "net present value" (NPV). This concept, which is commonly used by economists, has the effect of reducing the size of the net fiscal drain that unskilled immigrants will create in the future. The NAS does this because costs or benefits years from now are valued less in economics relative to more immediate costs. But this means the actual net lifetime fiscal cost of illegal border-crossers, given their education levels, is possibly $140,000 to $150,000 each in their lifetimes if the NPV concept is not used.4
Methodology

The Importance of Educational Attainment. There is a good deal of agreement among researchers that the education level of immigrants is a key factor in determining their net fiscal impact. As a recent study by the NAS states, the education level of arriving immigrants is one of the "important determinants" of their fiscal impact.5This finding is similar to a 1997 study by NAS that also examined the fiscal impact of immigrants.6 This conclusion also is mirrored by a 2013 study from the Heritage Foundation. Referring to the education level of household heads, Heritage concluded that "Well-educated households tend to be net tax contributors." But at the same time, "Poorly educated households, whether immigrant or U.S.-born, receive far more in government benefits than they pay in taxes."7 My own research has come to the same conclusion.8 The reason for this is straightforward: Those with modest levels of education tend to earn low wages in the modern American economy, and as a result tend to make low tax payments and often qualify for means-tested programs. The less educated are a net fiscal drain, on average, regardless of legal status or if they were born in the United States or a foreign country.

Education Levels of Illegal Immigrants. In terms of the educational attainment of illegal immigrants, there is a good deal of evidence that they have modest levels of education, much lower than native-born Americans or legal immigrants. The Heritage study discussed above estimated that, on average, illegal immigrants have 10 years of schooling. My own analysis for all illegal immigrants (visa overstayers and illegal border-crossers together) is that 54 percent of adults have not completed high school, 25 percent have only a high school degree, and 21 percent have education beyond high school.9 The Pew Research Center has estimated that of all adult illegal immigrants, 47 percent have not completed high school, 27 percent have only a high school education, 10 percent have some college, and 15 percent have a bachelor's degree or more.10 These figures are for all illegal immigrants, including those who overstayed a temporary visa, not just illegal border-crossers.

Education Level of Border-Crossers. Since the border wall would by definition only impact the flow of those who cross the border illegally and not those who overstay a temporary visa or are smuggled into the country, it is necessary to estimate the education level of illegal border-crossers separately. Illegal crossers tend to be the least educated component of illegal immigration because they are mostly from Latin America and because more educated foreign nationals wishing to come to the United States can often qualify for a temporary visa, which they can then overstay.11 For example, a person with few years of schooling, a low paying job, and no property in their home country is not likely to qualify for a tourist visa or other temporary visitor visa. American consulates overseas would typically deny such a person a tourist visa (B2) or business traveler visa (B1) because the assumption is that such persons may be coming to stay permanently. They are "intending immigrants" in the terminology of the consular service. This is especially true for the primary sending countries of illegal immigration, which are all developing countries.12 A more educated person is much more likely to qualify for a tourist visa, or for that matter a guestworker visa or a student visa, which they can then overstay.

Because illegal border-crossers are overwhelmingly from Mexico and the rest of Latin America, we use the education level of illegal immigrants from Latin America to estimate border-crossers' education profile. My analysis of illegal immigrants from Latin America indicates that they have the following education: 57 percent, less than high school; 27 percent, high school only; 10 percent, some college or associate's degree; 4 percent, bachelor's only; and 2 percent, more than a bachelor's.13 These educational levels provide a baseline for estimating the fiscal impact of illegal crossers. However, as we will see, even if we use somewhat different estimates of education, the fiscal impact of illegal border-crossers is still large and negative.

Fiscal Impact by Education Level. The 2016 NAS study mentioned above projected the lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) of immigrants by education. These estimates are expressed as a net present value. This is a concept used in fiscal studies to express the sum total of costs or benefits over long periods of time — in this case a lifetime. NPV represents the fiscal balance (taxes paid minus costs) if we had to spend the money today. Later in this report we discuss in more detail the concept of net present value, both its usefulness and it shortcomings.

In addition to the original immigrant, the NAS study also has separate estimates for the descendents of immigrants over 75 years.14 In this analysis we focus only on the fiscal impact of the original immigrant. The tax payments and costs created by the descendants of immigrants over 75 years are speculative, whereas the estimates for the original immigrants are more grounded in current reality. The NAS study does not report separate estimates for illegal and legal immigrants. Rather, they simply estimate tax payments and expenditures on immigrants as they appear in Census Bureau data, primarily the Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement. As result, the education estimates from the NAS are for both legal and illegal immigrants.

The NAS fiscal projections include eight different scenarios, each with different assumptions about future spending, tax rates, and the future flow of immigrants. It is not entirely clear what set of fiscal assumptions are best, and the NAS study itself does not identify the one best scenario. In Table 1 we simply take all eight scenarios and average them together by education level.






It should be pointed out that in every scenario from the NAS, as shown in Table 1, immigrants without a high school education are a significant net fiscal drain during their lifetimes. That is, they pay less in taxes than they use in services. Those with only a high school education are a net fiscal drain in seven of the eight scenarios. In contrast, the most educated immigrants, those with at least a bachelor's degree, are a net fiscal benefit in all eight scenarios.

Calculating the Fiscal Impact of Border-Crossers. The first column of Table 2 reports the average fiscal effect of immigrants by education level, taken directly from the bottom of Table 1. Column 2 in Table 2 shows the education level of illegal border-crossers as discussed above. Column 3 multiplies the average cost by the share of border-crossers who fall into that educational category, and the bottom of column 3 adds up the costs to give a weighted average. This means that using the NAS average fiscal costs of immigrants by education and assuming the educational distribution of illegal border-crossers shown in the table means that the lifetime net fiscal drain per illegal crosser is $97,759. However, for reasons discussed below we think this figure somewhat overstates the fiscal costs.






As already mentioned, the NAS fiscal analysis includes all immigrants — both legal and illegal. Although illegal immigrants do access some welfare programs and create other significant costs, it is still the case that less-educated illegal immigrants create smaller net fiscal costs than less-educated legal immigrants. Unfortunately, the NAS study has very little discussion of how legal and illegal immigrants differ in their fiscal impact. The study does state: "Unauthorized immigrants as a group may have a more positive fiscal impact than authorized immigrants."15 We agree with this conclusion and so we adjust the fiscal drain created by less-educated illegal immigrants so it is less than that of less-educated legal immigrants.

To estimate the adjustment factor, we use the 2013 study by the Heritage Foundation mentioned above. That study has estimates for immigrants by education and legal status.16 While adjusting has the effect of reducing the fiscal costs for less-educated illegal immigrants, it also reduces the fiscal benefits for immigrants who are more educated. This reflects the fact that while higher-skilled illegal immigrants are assumed to create a fiscal surplus, they often are unable to find work commensurate with their education level because of their legal status and so have to work at lower paying jobs. As a result they do not have as large a positive impact on public coffers as their legal counterparts. Since there are relatively few illegal border crossers in the higher education categories, adjusting for the most educated crossers makes only a modest difference to the results.

The right lower corner of Table 2 shows that the fiscal costs of border-crossers, including the adjustment, is $74,722. Adjusting does significantly reduce the fiscal costs — by 23.6 percent. However, it is still the case that every 100,000 individuals who cross the border illegally cost taxpayers nearly $7.5 billion. It must be remembered that these are the present values of the lifetime net fiscal costs (taxes paid minus services used) for illegal border-crossers only, with no costs for their children or descendants.

Do Net Present Values Make Sense? Net present values are created by reducing or "discounting" costs or benefits in the future based on how long in the future they take place. Page 325 of the NAS study states that they used a 3 percent annual discount rate, which is common in this kind of analysis. So, for example, the fiscal balance (whether a net drain or benefit) an immigrant creates two years after arrival is reduced by about 6 percent. After 10 years the amount is reduced by about 26 percent, and at 20 years the discount is 45 percent. This means events that occur further in the future have a smaller impact on the total costs or benefits today. Comparing the net present value fiscal costs of illegal border-crossers to the costs of a wall can be seen as reasonable because the wall has to be paid for up front while the fiscal drain accrues over time. Using an NPV makes the costs of the wall and illegal border-crossers more comparable.

The primary downside of using NPVs for fiscal estimates is that it masks the size of future outlays created by less-educated illegal border-crossers. For example, using a 3 percent annual discount rate, as the NAS study does, means that if an illegal immigrant creates a net fiscal burden of $10,000 in the 23rd year of the projection, it will be reported and added to the total NPV as only $4,900 because of discounting. Without discounting, the actual outlays associated with illegal immigrants are much larger. This fact is worth keeping in mind when looking at the NPVs.

Making Different Assumptions. There are four key variables in the above calculations. The first is whether to include the children of illegal crossers. Many of the descendants of less-educated immigrants struggle, earning low wages and using a good deal in public services. If we use the NAS study's estimates that include the progeny of immigrants, the fiscal drain increases to $94,391. But, as already mentioned, the tax payments and costs created by the descendants of immigrants in the NAS study go out 75 years and are speculative. Therefore it makes more sense to focus on the original immigrants only.

The second question is what fiscal scenario from the NAS study should be used. (All the scenarios are shown in Table 1 of this report.) Scenario 1 makes assumptions that are most favorable to the fiscal impact of immigrants. If we use only this scenario, then the net fiscal costs drop significantly, to $20,092 for each illegal crosser. While significantly less than our estimates shown in Table 2, which reflect all the NAS scenarios averaged together, the best possible fiscal scenario for immigrants still shows a substantial net cost that would equal $2 billion for every 100,000 illegal border-crossers. This reflects the fact that even if one makes very favorable assumptions about immigrants it is still the case that less-educated immigrants, which account for most illegal crossers, are a large fiscal drain.

By way of contrast, if we use Scenario 8 from the NAS study, which makes the least favorable fiscal assumptions about immigrants, the net fiscal impact of each border-crosser increases dramatically — to $125,141, or $12.5 billion for every 100,000 illegal immigrants. This is a good deal more than when all NAS scenarios are averaged together, as reported in Table 2. But what is important to note is that no matter what NAS scenario is used, there is a significant lifetime net fiscal deficit for illegal border-crossers.

The third key assumption in our estimates is the education level of illegal border-crossers. As already discussed, there is widespread agreement that illegal immigrants are a relatively unskilled population. Further, illegal crossers are the least educated component of illegal immigration because they are mostly from Latin America and because, as already noted, more educated foreign nationals can often qualify for a temporary visa, which they can then overstay. The poor and less educated from Latin America typically have no other realistic option for getting into the United States than surreptitiously crossing the southern border.

If we assume that border-crossers are as educated as Pew estimated for all illegal immigrants, not just border-crossers, the average fiscal cost would still be very large — $57,778.17 While somewhat less than our estimated cost of $74,722, it would still mean that each group of 100,000 illegal border-crossers creates a net fiscal cost of more than $5.8 billion during their lifetimes. Again, Pew's figures show that about three-quarters of illegal immigrants have less than a high school education or only a high school education, and this makes them a large fiscal drain.

Finally, there is the question of the difference between the net fiscal impact of all immigrants (legal and illegal) by education level, which is what the NAS estimated, and the fiscal impact of illegal border-crossers. In Table 2 we adjust the fiscal impact of illegal border-crossers significantly, reducing the costs of less-educated illegal immigrants relative to immigrants of the same education by almost 24 percent. If we more than doubled this reduction to 50 percent for all educational categories, the net fiscal costs of border-crossers would still be $48,879. Under a 50 percent reduction, each 100,000 illegal immigrants still create a cost of nearly $5 billion, a very sizeable impact.18 Like the other assumptions, the adjustment factor matters, but the education level of illegal crossers drives the results and the fiscal balance is decidedly negative.

Overall, different assumptions can affect the results. But because the overwhelming share of illegal border-crossers have not completed high school, or have only a high school education, it would require highly implausible assumptions to avoid a substantial net fiscal drain from those who cross the border illegally. In short, illegal border-crossers are a large net fiscal drain because of their education levels and this fact drives the results. Therefore, a border wall would pay for itself even if it only stops a modest fraction of those expected to successfully cross in the next decade.
Source: http://cis.org/The-Cost-of-a-Border-Wall-vs-the-Cost-of-Illegal-Immigration
 

Tapout

Bringing Sexy Back
Site Donor
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Location
Los Angeles via Chicago
And the cost of everything goes up signifcantly putting more strain. They do jobs that most wouldn't do for the pay. Paying a citizen to do the same work for that money will be harder. Like farming and such.
 

Miz

mortality, ka, and the Tower
Joined
Nov 25, 2011
I think we combine with Mexico and build a wall at the southern most part of their border. Much smaller wall.

For real I think a wall is silly.
 

Trodden

Currently running late for my funeral
Joined
Aug 18, 2014
This is easy, the wall is pointless as most drugs come in thru ports and tunnels, not walked across a desert

And if there was a way to tax the income, we would MAKE money off of workers without wasting billions on a wall that doesn't work

I can't imagine there are such problems with immigrants that only a wall, that can be beat by tunnels, rope, ladders, or catapults, is the only way to keep us safe

Remind me again why the only solution is a wall?

Makes no sense as most come here to work, and the Canadian border is WIDE open
 
  • Like
Reactions: Miz

Trodden

Currently running late for my funeral
Joined
Aug 18, 2014
So we should be okay with people coming here illegally if they're coming to work?
The question here is cost

Not right and wrong

But these immigrants aren't taking dentist jobs

Citizens dont apply for the jobs they take

If you can say otherwise you're repeating news clips

Ive lived in California and Texas for a number of years each


No American that can work anywhere is complaining about losing work


But fuck all tangents, the argument here is cost

Just cost, is a wall worth the money, will it save money and/or pay for itself?


I don't see how
 

chrisc

Ninja
Joined
Aug 27, 2008
Location
Pensacola, Florida
The question here is cost

Not right and wrong

But these immigrants aren't taking dentist jobs

Citizens dont apply for the jobs they take

If you can say otherwise you're repeating news clips

Ive lived in California and Texas for a number of years each


No American that can work anywhere is complaining about losing work


But fuck all tangents, the argument here is cost

Just cost, is a wall worth the money, will it save money and/or pay for itself?


I don't see how
I'm not a fan of the wall. Just your last sentence seemed off, as if you were okay with people here coming illegally if it was for work.
 

Trodden

Currently running late for my funeral
Joined
Aug 18, 2014
I'm not a fan of the wall. Just your last sentence seemed off, as if you were okay with people here coming illegally if it was for work.
Who's OK with what shouldn't matter
Politicians should make decisions based on facts not fears

Anyone who can't separate opinion from fact should never be making decisions for others

Ironically that's my opinion, take it for what it's worth
 

Kano

My New Challenge
Site Donor
Joined
Dec 3, 2014
Location
Icebox of the Nation
Who's OK with what shouldn't matter
Politicians should make decisions based on facts not fears

Anyone who can't separate opinion from fact should never be making decisions for others

Ironically that's my opinion, take it for what it's worth
It's very unfortunate but our whole political system is based on fear.
 

Trodden

Currently running late for my funeral
Joined
Aug 18, 2014
Facts and experience are the best ways to fight fear
[DOUBLEPOST=1487646962,1487643455][/DOUBLEPOST]In regards to this article, for anyone who wants to quote anything from here as facts, here's this tidbit

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Immigration_Studies

The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) is a conservative[2] non-profit research organization "that favors far lower immigration numbers and produces research to further those views."[3] It was started as a spin-off from Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) in 1985.[4] The Center's self-described mission is to "provid[e] immigration policymakers, the academic community, news media, and concerned citizens with reliable information about the social, economic, environmental, security, and fiscal consequences of legal and illegal immigration into the United States."[5]

Reports published by the CIS have been widely deemed misleading and riddled with basic errors by scholars on immigration; think tanks from across the ideological and political spectrum; media of all stripes; several leading nonpartisan immigration-research organizations; and by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The organization has also drawn criticism for its financial and intellectual ties to extremist racists.[6][7][8][9]

As of 2017, the Southern Poverty Law Center has designated CIS as an anti-immigrant hate group.[10]
Always question the source, and CIS is pretty flawed and biased IMO
 

Trodden

Currently running late for my funeral
Joined
Aug 18, 2014
You could say that about the SPLC, as well.
so you have examples where the SPLC:

-published reports that have been widely deemed misleading and riddled with basic errors by scholars?

-presents false data to influence politicians on immigrants for a secret political agenda?

-was founded by members of white supremacists and eugenics organizations founders, such as John Tanton?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tanton
(dont you just love those pro-selective breeding people!)

-is seen as a front for the alt-right?

-has constantly picked up writers deemed racist to publish their articles, like Jason Richwine?


No? well I would say comparing the SPLC to CIS in anyway makes you seem like you dont know what the fuck youre talking about
 

SandyWH

CHAOS KREATOR
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Location
الأرض هي الوطن
Illegal border crossers......

OPTION 1
Arrest them. Determine that they are truly illegally in the country. Make a raft. Put them on it. Drop them in the middle of the ocean.

They didn't want to be in their country. They were illegally in ours. We don't want to burden another country with them. Sounds like international waters are the place for them.

We deport a few hundred illegals to the middle of the Pacific. I bet we see a lot fewer illegals.

OPTION B

Since supporters say that they are coming here to grow and pick produce and do the manual labor jobs that Americans don't want (like landscaping, building, etc).

We collect the illegals we catch and deport them to Africa. Lord knows they are starving over there and need the agricultural expertise, building expertise, and even if those fail, they can teach the Africans how to get the fuck up and move to somewhere where they have the resources they need to provide for their families.

I like option B. No longer America's problem. And we get to help all these starving, under developed African nations. Because of their moderate education they could be in line to achieve the "better life" in a third world nation.

Not to mention that the we could be protecting Western interests from Muslim radicals. Since Hispanics are traditionally Catholic they can help slow the spread of Islam through Africa where the intelligence community fears the next great wave of Muslim extremism is building.
 
Last edited:

Trodden

Currently running late for my funeral
Joined
Aug 18, 2014
Illegal immigration fix

Option A, let them work and tax them more than American workers

Option B, none needed







problem solved
[DOUBLEPOST=1487688327,1487687717][/DOUBLEPOST]dont forget, this has been done before, in terms of cracking down on immigrants from south of the US border. It looked great on paper, but cost all of us money in higher food costs and lower supply

http://business.time.com/2012/09/21...me-billion-dollar-losses-on-immigration-laws/

U.S. Farmers Blame Billion-Dollar Losses on Immigration Laws

Ralph and Cheryl Broetje rely on roughly 1,000 seasonal workers every year to grow and pack more than 6 million boxes of apples on their farm along the Snake River in eastern Washington. It’s a custom they’ve maintained for over two decades. Recently, though, their efforts to recruit skilled labor, mostly undocumented immigrants, have come up woefully short despite intensive recruitment efforts in an area with high rates of unemployment.


The Broetjes and an increasing number of farmers across the country say that a complex web of local and state anti-immigration laws account for acute labor shortages. With the harvest season in full bloom, stringent immigration laws have forced waves of undocumented immigrants to flee certain states for more-hospitable areas. In their wake, thousands of acres of crops have been left to rot in the fields, as farmers have struggled to compensate for labor shortages with domestic help.

“The enforcement of immigration policy has devastated the skilled-labor source that we’ve depended on for 20 or 30 years,” said Ralph Broetje during a recent teleconference organized by the National Immigration Forum, adding that last year Washington farmers — part of an $8 billion agriculture industry — were forced to leave 10% of their crops rotting on vines and trees. “It’s getting worse each year,” says Broetje, “and it’s going to end up putting some growers out of business if Congress doesn’t step up and do immigration reform.”

Roughly 70% of the 1.2 million people employed by the agriculture industry are undocumented. No U.S. industry is more dependent on undocumented immigrants. But acute labor shortages brought on by anti-immigration measures threaten to heap record losses on an industry emerging from years of stiff foreign competition. Nationwide, labor shortages will result in losses of up to $9 billion, according to the American Farm Bureau Federation.

In Arizona, Nan Walden’s complaints mirror those of the Broetjes. Walden is vice president of the family-owned Farmers Investment Co., the largest grower and processor of pecans in the world, with 6,000 acres (2,500 hectares) of farmland in the Santa Cruz Valley, 35 miles (56 km) from the U.S.-Mexico border. Walden says the state system in place for luring seasonal workers is wholly inefficient and adds that Arizona’s infamous SB1070 immigration law has only compounded the problem, creating a climate of fear for Arizona employers and employees. “This has led to people leaving our state, going to other states without these ambiguous clouds and legal sanctions hanging over employers’ and employees’ heads,” says Walden.

Farming operations nationwide, from New York to Georgia to California, are reeling from similar labor shortages despite offering domestic workers competitive packages that include 401(k) plans and health insurance. Almost in unison, farmers complain that even when they are able to lure domestic workers to what often amounts to high-skilled, grueling work, it’s not long before they abandon the job.
and that was in 2012

somehow 2017 is going to be different?
 

BadKarma

Active Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2014
so you have examples where the SPLC:

-published reports that have been widely deemed misleading and riddled with basic errors by scholars?

-presents false data to influence politicians on immigrants for a secret political agenda?

-was founded by members of white supremacists and eugenics organizations founders, such as John Tanton?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tanton
(dont you just love those pro-selective breeding people!)

-is seen as a front for the alt-right?

-has constantly picked up writers deemed racist to publish their articles, like Jason Richwine?


No? well I would say comparing the SPLC to CIS in anyway makes you seem like you dont know what the fuck youre talking about
I was just citing your last line about CIS being flawed and biased. The same could be said for the SPLC, which is considered in some circles to be a far-left group. So let's stop jumping to conclusions about who knows what.
 

Trodden

Currently running late for my funeral
Joined
Aug 18, 2014
I was just citing your last line about CIS being flawed and biased. The same could be said for the SPLC, which is considered in some circles to be a far-left group. So let's stop jumping to conclusions about who knows what.
first off, if you cant separate opinion from fact, you cant join in on a political conversation and be respected by me

second, the only ones who call SPLC flawed or biased are the ones they call out

numerous politicians, federal agencies (such as ICE), and respected think tanks call CIS flawed and biased





so if you can separate the opinions from facts there you will see you have no argument, but Ill just cut out the next needless round of interaction

people who have actual statistics, as its their job to have them (such as ICE) have called CIS's findings flawed

calling someone biased is a point of view


one is a quantifiable fact, the other is an opinion
 

Mr. Cornute

Prince of Saiyan...stuff.
Joined
Jul 14, 2014
Location
Ohio
Wait, so are we saying paying people more money to do a job would be detrimental and make the cost go up?
Paying people who are barely being paid much of anything at all and in turn have no benefits at all is vastly different than employees that are fully accounted for but their time/pay is manipulated to avoid paying overtime and profits of a business being kept away from entry level employees. An employee at McDonald's (and any other fast food joint) being paid say $15 an hour plus benefits can be done if the company were to use some of their profits towards their hourly employees. Further they could simply raise the price of a value meal by a damn dollar per meal and not only be able to pay their employees more provide benefits AND still make a profit. Do the executives get as much of money in bonus'? No. But they still get money and their employees are taken care of.

Immigrants who work these field jobs for a few pennies on the dollar compared to what an American worker would even at minimum wage demand of course would make the price of goods go up, because right now they're artificially low. The reason why veggies/fruits are relatively low cost as they are now is due to the fact that the American agriculture industry absorbs immigrants who they can use to undercut people who would demand minimum wage.
 

Trodden

Currently running late for my funeral
Joined
Aug 18, 2014
Immigrants who work these field jobs for a few pennies on the dollar compared to what an American worker would even at minimum wage demand of course would make the price of goods go up,
it really is a catch-22, but without them the work doesnt get done

thats been proven several times, such as the article I posted earlier. I wish there was an easy answer
[DOUBLEPOST=1487690657,1487690583][/DOUBLEPOST]
There are fixes for illegal immigration that could work, but they'll never be implemented because they don't preserve racial and cultural homogeneity or allow certain people to get the visceral satisfaction of inflicting harm upon people they dislike.
 

BadKarma

Active Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2014
first off, if you cant separate opinion from fact, you cant join in on a political conversation and be respected by me
Don't want it, don't need it. But thanks for the offer.

second, the only ones who call SPLC flawed or biased are the ones they call out
Wrong. Try again.

The facts are out there if you dare to take the blinders off. Here are a few links that skew mostly conservative, but still provide an opposing viewpoint to what you are saying (if I had more time, I would take a deeper dive into this, but this is all I had time for).

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/penny-starr/
http://www.conservapedia.com/Southern_Poverty_Law_Center
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/southern-poverty-law-center/
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/343115/splc-and-slant-patrick-brennan

I'm not saying you're completely wrong. What I'm saying is, if you think SPLC is not flawed or unbiased, which is all I was pointing to, then you are wrong.
 

Palma

I am chaos
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Location
Sacramento, CA
Facts and experience are the best ways to fight fear
[DOUBLEPOST=1487646962,1487643455][/DOUBLEPOST]In regards to this article, for anyone who wants to quote anything from here as facts, here's this tidbit

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Immigration_Studies



Always question the source, and CIS is pretty flawed and biased IMO
And that's just it. People are so happy to hear what they want, they never dig deeper than the headline.
[DOUBLEPOST=1487695127][/DOUBLEPOST]
so you have examples where the SPLC:

-published reports that have been widely deemed misleading and riddled with basic errors by scholars?

-presents false data to influence politicians on immigrants for a secret political agenda?

-was founded by members of white supremacists and eugenics organizations founders, such as John Tanton?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tanton
(dont you just love those pro-selective breeding people!)

-is seen as a front for the alt-right?

-has constantly picked up writers deemed racist to publish their articles, like Jason Richwine?


No? well I would say comparing the SPLC to CIS in anyway makes you seem like you dont know what the fuck youre talking about
I don't think they are biased to that extreme, but they have certainly been misleading to further agenda.
 

Trodden

Currently running late for my funeral
Joined
Aug 18, 2014
I don't think they are biased to that extreme, but they have certainly been misleading to further agenda.
it may be possible, but Id like to go on facts, not opinions

Im not accusing you of anything, but Ive heard that about SPLC before, and when Ive asked people what they base that on, its off of media portrayal, which in itself is often written with a level of bias, subconscious or not

Id be willing to accept they have twisted data to further an agenda, but until I see proof (that Ive never found or been presented with, but I cant say doesnt exist) I refuse to believe the SPLC labels groups 'hate groups' without merit


and thats what this argument is about, the immigration study done by a biased group, and one wiki article about the publishers of the study (CIS), and one person trying to argue an opinion as a fact, which leads us to here

everything I can find on CIS thats measurable has shown their studies to have incomplete, manipulated or misrepresented data, and then a lot of opinion

everything I can find on SPLC thats critical in someway is opinion without any facts. but if you have any, please share
[DOUBLEPOST=1487695924,1487695728][/DOUBLEPOST]
if you think SPLC is not flawed or unbiased,
what Im saying is, if somethings flawed you can show how its wrong

if its biased or not, its an interpretation and not fact

one can be argued, one cant

this thread is about the cost of a wall versus immigration and the article had glaring flaws, and was written by a group thats known for such work

I dont give a shit about arguing opinions. vanity is for the weak
 

unforgivn

Nunquam Fidelis
Joined
Jul 1, 2009
Location
Columbia, SC
First, SPLC is not unbiased. No advocacy group is. Being an advocate requires having a preference in the first place. Second, SPLC is great but by no means flawless. Their list of supposed anti-Muslim bigots includes Maajid Nawaz, for example, who is a liberal Muslim.

Third, anyone who thinks Conservapedia is a source respectable enough to be worth referencing needs some serious realignment of perspective.
 
Last edited:

Trodden

Currently running late for my funeral
Joined
Aug 18, 2014
can we please not argue opinions

it never works and no one ever changes their minds


facts are what we need
 

BadKarma

Active Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2014
First, SPLC is not unbiased. No advocacy group is. Being an advocate requires having a preference in the first place. Second, SPLC is great buy by no means flawless. Their list of supposed anti-Muslim bigots includes Maajid Nawaz, for example, who is a liberal Muslim.

Third, anyone who thinks Conservapedia is a source respectable enough to be worth referencing needs some serious realignment of perspective.
I hadn't had my daily dose of hate yet, that's the only reason I included it (and to troll, I'll admit).
 

Palma

I am chaos
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Location
Sacramento, CA
it may be possible, but Id like to go on facts, not opinions

Im not accusing you of anything, but Ive heard that about SPLC before, and when Ive asked people what they base that on, its off of media portrayal, which in itself is often written with a level of bias, subconscious or not

Id be willing to accept they have twisted data to further an agenda, but until I see proof (that Ive never found or been presented with, but I cant say doesnt exist) I refuse to believe the SPLC labels groups 'hate groups' without merit


and thats what this argument is about, the immigration study done by a biased group, and one wiki article about the publishers of the study (CIS), and one person trying to argue an opinion as a fact, which leads us to here

everything I can find on CIS thats measurable has shown their studies to have incomplete, manipulated or misrepresented data, and then a lot of opinion

everything I can find on SPLC thats critical in someway is opinion without any facts. but if you have any, please share
[DOUBLEPOST=1487695924,1487695728][/DOUBLEPOST]

what Im saying is, if somethings flawed you can show how its wrong

if its biased or not, its an interpretation and not fact

one can be argued, one cant

this thread is about the cost of a wall versus immigration and the article had glaring flaws, and was written by a group thats known for such work

I dont give a shit about arguing opinions. vanity is for the weak
When I studied Journalism in college, I basically came to the realization that it's impossible to 100% objective in any capacity. So, I think what you have to say about the media's portrayal SPLC and what i think of the agenda of the SPLC are both valid. But to what extent? I think it's impossible to know.

From what I have read, the SPLC has purposefully leftout certain demographics in spefic studies to steer the outcome of the studies toward a favorable direction of their cause.

The closest evidence of factual information would be an interview with someone who was privy to this, even that couldn't be considered fact, even if it were true.
[DOUBLEPOST=1487696738][/DOUBLEPOST]
First, SPLC is not unbiased. No advocacy group is. Being an advocate requires having a preference in the first place. Second, SPLC is great buy by no means flawless. Their list of supposed anti-Muslim bigots includes Maajid Nawaz, for example, who is a liberal Muslim.

Third, anyone who thinks Conservapedia is a source respectable enough to be worth referencing needs some serious realignment of perspective.
Well said.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

Latest posts

Latest profile posts

Rammstein's "Deutschland" is the best music video ever.
Ya'll are so lucky today, you don't know how good you have it. I was born in 1932, we were so dumb, we listened to tap dancers on the radio.
Bandcamp is bad for my wallet.
The trick to flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.

Forum statistics

Threads
42,273
Messages
1,098,119
Members
2,347
Latest member
cmcgregor
Top Bottom