5 ms·

I'm not going to comment on the article because most electively-undertaken fiscal projections are colored with the theories harbored by the authors. However, I

I'm not going to comment on the article because most electively-undertaken fiscal projections are colored with the theories harbored by the authors. However, I'd like to point out that the budget hawks of yesteryear (Reagan, Simpson, McCain) were at least logically consistent in that they were pro-immigration. Immigration's positive impact on US fiscal policy is so large that not even right-wing think-tanks can refute it. [1] It raises the fraction of the population currently in the labor force. As a separate, compounded effect, the average immigrant contributes more to the social services pot than they draw out. The bonus to Social Security is even larger because of the undocumented population, which pays payroll taxes but is ineligible for retirement benefits. This effectively foots the bill for 2-3 million American retirees. [2] So when today's populists peddle nativism while posing as budget hawks, it really fits in nicely with the rest of their bill of goods. [1] https://www.cato.org/blog/fiscal-impact-immigration-united-states https://www.cato.org/blog/fiscal-impact-immigration-united-s... [2] https://www.americanprogress.org/article/improving-lives-strengthening-finances-the-benefits-of-immigration-reform-to-social-security/ https://www.americanprogress.org/article/improving-lives-str...

koolba 2y ago
> However, I'd like to point out that the budget hawks of yesteryear (Reagan, Simpson, McCain) were at least logically consistent in that they were pro-immigration. Being pro immigration does not mean you’re pro illegal immigration. > The bonus to Social Security is even larger because of the undocumented population, which pays payroll taxes but is ineligible for retirement benefits. This effectively foots the bill for 2-3 million American retirees. If they don’t have social security numbers, they’re not paying payroll taxes.
- worstspotgain 2y ago
  > Being pro immigration does not mean you’re pro illegal immigration. This distinction is mostly out the window with today's populists, see e.g. repealing jus soli and all the other racist dogwhistles. > If they don’t have social security numbers, they’re not paying payroll taxes. They're using SSNs, often false or not their own. Read about the Earnings Suspense File at the SSA in the second link I posted.
  - ineedaj0b 2y ago
    >This distinction is mostly out the window with today's populists, see e.g. repealing jus soli and all the other racist dogwhistles. your enemies aren't all dumb. the smart ones aren't likely to talk to you based on your attitudes towards them.
  - koolba 2y ago
    > This distinction is mostly out the window with today's populists, see e.g. repealing jus soli and all the other racist dogwhistles. There are already some limitations on birthright citizenship, for example we do not grant it to children born to diplomats visiting the USA. It's not an unreasonable position to limit it to legal immigrants. Foreign embassies are considered US soil for jurisdictional purposes. If an army forced their way in to an embassy so that their pregnant battalion could deliver their babies within the embassy, should they get citizenship? If it doesn't apply to the embassy, how about if they do the same thing to a small island controlled by the USA or even the southern USA border?
    - worstspotgain 2y ago
      You're right, I can picture this. A pregnant battalion of the Mexican army breaches the border and invades the US to give birth, 18 years later the kids are employed cleaning American bathrooms. Mexico wins and America is not great once again.
    - pkaye 2y ago
      > There are already some limitations on birthright citizenship, for example we do not grant it to children born to diplomats visiting the USA. That's largely because the US is a signatory of the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations. Children of foreign diplomats born in the United States are not automatically granted citizenship because they are not considered subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
    - pkaye 2y ago
      > ...repealing jus soli and all the other racist dogwhistles. Australia did the exact thing. Switch from Jus Soli to Jus Sanguinis. Some Jus Sanguinis countries have switched to some hybrid system that allows legal immigrants to get citizenship at birth.
- silverquiet 2y ago
  > Being pro immigration does not mean you’re pro illegal immigration. I can't really know what anyone believes in their heart, but I doubt that the oligarchs who extol the free market (including the market for labor) really care about any of the demographic details of those they would employee as long as they produce as expected.
- mcculley 2y ago
  Fake and reused social security numbers work just fine for withholding. Most companies are not doing E-Verify. The companies profiting from illegal labor are working with the system as designed.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  There's a very simple fix to both issues you raise, change the immigration system to allow more legal immigration. We write the rules on what is and isn't legal. Writing the rules and then using them to say immigration is great unless it's illegal is very circular logic.
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
    Yes, as written that is circular. I believe it is shorthand for legal immigration << actual immigration (legal + illegal) and that people in favor of "legal immigration" are in favor of much lower, selective immigration. I do not see a logical flaw in this stance.
ineedaj0b 2y ago
aren't you sorta talking besides the point? I don't see how immigration less or more reduces government debt meaningfully. I understand paying for social security (SS) is a decent fraction of the debt load for the US but solving SS does not plug the holes. if I'm generous with your proposal; wouldn't you still find immigrants applying for citizenship and eventually pulling from SS? most immigrants are younger and we should both be able to agree, they'd likely want to stay if they could. I feel like your biases are coming through with a lot of this, the answer to our debt problems will not factor heavily with immigration.
- saintkaye 2y ago
  Outsized productive outcomes have been heavily immigrant created historically.
mensetmanusman 2y ago
If immigrants are unskilled the productivity per capita decreases which lowers effective wealth, this is a minor effect compared to a housing policy that assumes no immigration and ends up screwing the young and increasing the wealth of the elderly.
- worstspotgain 2y ago
  That's not how productivity works. In fact it's the other way around for the native born: to make X widgets it takes 1 CEO, 1000 middle managers, 10000 white-collar workers and 30000 blue-collar workers. If you bring in 30000 new immigrant blue-collar workers, you allow 11001 native workers to move up the ladder. As for housing, it's screwed because of land-use policies that intentionally strangle supply to artificially inflate property values, such as suppressive zoning. If there was less demand the cartel would just restrict supply further.
  - mensetmanusman 2y ago
    I should have mentioned the productivity accounting for entitlements. Assuming little to no entitlements, your analysis makes sense.
    - worstspotgain 2y ago
      The Cato paper linked above measured the net per-capita fiscal impact on the government. The receipts/outlays ratio for 2018 is 1.427 for immigrants and 0.757 for 3rd-generation natives.
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
    People who advocate for enforcing current, on-the-books laws on immigration are dog-whistle racists, but advocating for an underclass of laborers without regard to their ability to function effectively in society (due to the legal status) is somehow not racist? Legal or not, this is the "homo economicus" view of humanity. Working-class Americans don't suddenly become CEOs, Middle managers, and white-collar professionals because we import more working class. If that was the case, the Rust Belt and Appalachia would be booming. What actually happens is that the price of working-class labor decreases (due to more supply) and the higher classes make more money off the under-classes, leading to increased wealth inequality. Which is exactly what we've observed for the last 40-years.

koolba 2y ago

> However, I'd like to point out that the budget hawks of yesteryear (Reagan, Simpson, McCain) were at least logically consistent in that they were pro-immigration. Being pro immigration does not mean you’re pro illegal immigration. > The bonus to Social Security is even larger because of the undocumented population, which pays payroll taxes but is ineligible for retirement benefits. This effectively foots the bill for 2-3 million American retirees. If they don’t have social security numbers, they’re not paying payroll taxes.

worstspotgain 2y ago
> Being pro immigration does not mean you’re pro illegal immigration. This distinction is mostly out the window with today's populists, see e.g. repealing jus soli and all the other racist dogwhistles. > If they don’t have social security numbers, they’re not paying payroll taxes. They're using SSNs, often false or not their own. Read about the Earnings Suspense File at the SSA in the second link I posted.
- ineedaj0b 2y ago
  >This distinction is mostly out the window with today's populists, see e.g. repealing jus soli and all the other racist dogwhistles. your enemies aren't all dumb. the smart ones aren't likely to talk to you based on your attitudes towards them.
- koolba 2y ago
  > This distinction is mostly out the window with today's populists, see e.g. repealing jus soli and all the other racist dogwhistles. There are already some limitations on birthright citizenship, for example we do not grant it to children born to diplomats visiting the USA. It's not an unreasonable position to limit it to legal immigrants. Foreign embassies are considered US soil for jurisdictional purposes. If an army forced their way in to an embassy so that their pregnant battalion could deliver their babies within the embassy, should they get citizenship? If it doesn't apply to the embassy, how about if they do the same thing to a small island controlled by the USA or even the southern USA border?
  - worstspotgain 2y ago
    You're right, I can picture this. A pregnant battalion of the Mexican army breaches the border and invades the US to give birth, 18 years later the kids are employed cleaning American bathrooms. Mexico wins and America is not great once again.
  - pkaye 2y ago
    > There are already some limitations on birthright citizenship, for example we do not grant it to children born to diplomats visiting the USA. That's largely because the US is a signatory of the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations. Children of foreign diplomats born in the United States are not automatically granted citizenship because they are not considered subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
  - pkaye 2y ago
    > ...repealing jus soli and all the other racist dogwhistles. Australia did the exact thing. Switch from Jus Soli to Jus Sanguinis. Some Jus Sanguinis countries have switched to some hybrid system that allows legal immigrants to get citizenship at birth.
silverquiet 2y ago
> Being pro immigration does not mean you’re pro illegal immigration. I can't really know what anyone believes in their heart, but I doubt that the oligarchs who extol the free market (including the market for labor) really care about any of the demographic details of those they would employee as long as they produce as expected.
mcculley 2y ago
Fake and reused social security numbers work just fine for withholding. Most companies are not doing E-Verify. The companies profiting from illegal labor are working with the system as designed.
_heimdall 2y ago
There's a very simple fix to both issues you raise, change the immigration system to allow more legal immigration. We write the rules on what is and isn't legal. Writing the rules and then using them to say immigration is great unless it's illegal is very circular logic.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
  Yes, as written that is circular. I believe it is shorthand for legal immigration << actual immigration (legal + illegal) and that people in favor of "legal immigration" are in favor of much lower, selective immigration. I do not see a logical flaw in this stance.

ineedaj0b 2y ago

aren't you sorta talking besides the point? I don't see how immigration less or more reduces government debt meaningfully. I understand paying for social security (SS) is a decent fraction of the debt load for the US but solving SS does not plug the holes. if I'm generous with your proposal; wouldn't you still find immigrants applying for citizenship and eventually pulling from SS? most immigrants are younger and we should both be able to agree, they'd likely want to stay if they could. I feel like your biases are coming through with a lot of this, the answer to our debt problems will not factor heavily with immigration.

saintkaye 2y ago
Outsized productive outcomes have been heavily immigrant created historically.

mensetmanusman 2y ago

If immigrants are unskilled the productivity per capita decreases which lowers effective wealth, this is a minor effect compared to a housing policy that assumes no immigration and ends up screwing the young and increasing the wealth of the elderly.

worstspotgain 2y ago
That's not how productivity works. In fact it's the other way around for the native born: to make X widgets it takes 1 CEO, 1000 middle managers, 10000 white-collar workers and 30000 blue-collar workers. If you bring in 30000 new immigrant blue-collar workers, you allow 11001 native workers to move up the ladder. As for housing, it's screwed because of land-use policies that intentionally strangle supply to artificially inflate property values, such as suppressive zoning. If there was less demand the cartel would just restrict supply further.
- mensetmanusman 2y ago
  I should have mentioned the productivity accounting for entitlements. Assuming little to no entitlements, your analysis makes sense.
  - worstspotgain 2y ago
    The Cato paper linked above measured the net per-capita fiscal impact on the government. The receipts/outlays ratio for 2018 is 1.427 for immigrants and 0.757 for 3rd-generation natives.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
  People who advocate for enforcing current, on-the-books laws on immigration are dog-whistle racists, but advocating for an underclass of laborers without regard to their ability to function effectively in society (due to the legal status) is somehow not racist? Legal or not, this is the "homo economicus" view of humanity. Working-class Americans don't suddenly become CEOs, Middle managers, and white-collar professionals because we import more working class. If that was the case, the Rust Belt and Appalachia would be booming. What actually happens is that the price of working-class labor decreases (due to more supply) and the higher classes make more money off the under-classes, leading to increased wealth inequality. Which is exactly what we've observed for the last 40-years.