[continued from previous message]

The administration has said that the country is in danger of being “overwhelmed” by “massive increases in illegal crossings” that will bring “horrible crime,” “unbelievably great taxpayer expense” and the loss of American jobs.

None of those claims are true.

Below, we've compiled some of Wonkblog's coverage highlighting the latest data and research shedding light on erroneous beliefs about immigration in the United States.

Myth No. 1: Undocumented immigrants are flooding into the United States

In fiscal 2017, apprehensions of immigrants entering illegally at the Southwest
border (a proxy for the total number of individuals crossing the border illegally) hit their lowest level in 46 years.

Apprehensions are up by about 12 percent in the current fiscal year. If that pace holds up for the rest of the year, we'll close out 2018 with the fourth-lowest number of illegal-immigration apprehensions in at least four decades.

Myth No. 2: Undocumented immigrants bring crime

The reality is just the opposite: A large body of social-science literature has
demonstrated that immigrants, legal or otherwise, commit crime at lower rates than native-born Americans. This chart, using Texas Department of Public Safety
data compiled by
the libertarian Cato Institute, illustrates this quite clearly.

The Cato study found evidence that undocumented immigrants are more likely to commit certain types of crime, including “gambling, kidnapping, smuggling, and vagrancy,” than native-born Americans. But those crimes accounted for less than 0.002 percent
of all crimes committed in Texas during the study period.

“Although ardent skeptics may remain unconvinced,” another recent study concluded, “the weight of the evidence presented here and in supporting work challenges claims that unauthorized immigration endangers the public.”

Myth No. 3: Immigrants take our jobs and lower our wages

This is a more complicated question than the previous two. The best information
comes from a massive summary of the literature published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) in 2017. “Most studies find little effect
of immigration on the employment of natives,” that report concluded. In other
words, no, immigrants are not taking your jobs.

There is no correlation between unemployment and immigration rates in the world's wealthy nations.

However, studies have shown potential negative wage impacts from immigration, particularly for less skilled or less educated native-born workers.

“Some studies have found sizable negative short-run wage impacts for high school dropouts, the native-born workers who in many cases are the group most likely to be in direct competition for jobs with immigrants,” the authors of the NASEM study wrote.
If low-skilled immigrants are competing with low-skilled Americans for low-skill jobs, that larger applicant pool may result in somewhat lower wages.

But that relationship is far from clear, and the report notes that other research has found little to no effect from immigration on low-skilled wages. The 2014 report, for instance, included the chart below, showing how 27 studies
estimated the effects
of immigration on wages. Most of the weight of the bars is clustered right around the zero line on the X axis, indicating, essentially, no effect on wages. A handful of outliers on either end indicates studies showing negative or positive impacts on
wages.

One reason immigration could have a positive effect on wages in the long run, the NASEM authors wrote, is that it's pretty clear that “immigrants are more innovative than natives; more specifically, high-skilled immigrants raise patenting per capita,
which is likely to boost productivity and per capita economic growth.” High-skilled immigrants may be more likely to start businesses, hire more people and increase more demand for workers in the long run — all of which is
likely to result in
increased wages.

Myth No. 4: Immigrants are a drain on the economy

In fact, research by the Cato Institute has found that poor noncitizens are considerably less likely than poor native-born Americans to use public assistance programs.

Not only that, but “the average value of benefits per recipient is almost always lower than for the native-born,” the report found. “For Medicaid, if
there are 100 native-born adults, the annual cost of benefits would be about $98,400, while for
the same number of noncitizen adults the annual cost would be approximately $57,200.”

The NASEM report found that, in the long run, the typical immigrant and that person's descendants will pay about $259,000 more in taxes than they receive in
government benefits. First generations tend to be more costly to governments, the report says, in
part because of the costs at state and local levels of educating these immigrants' children.

Those children, however, tend to grow up to be extremely productive adults. “As adults, the children of immigrants (the second generation) are among the strongest economic and fiscal contributors in the U.S. population, contributing
more in taxes than
either their parents or the rest of the native-born population,” the report concluded.

The report's bottom line, based on its analysis of hundreds of economic studies: “Immigration is integral to the nation’s economic growth. The inflow of labor supply has helped the United States avoid the problems facing other economies that have
stagnated as a result of unfavorable demographics, particularly the effects of an aging workforce and reduced consumption by older residents. In addition, the
infusion of human capital by high-skilled immigrants has boosted the nation’s
capacity for
innovation, entrepreneurship and technological change.”

* * *

Here's what we can say in conclusion. Current rates of illegal immigration remain extremely low by historic standards. Legal and undocumented immigrants are significantly less likely to commit most crimes than native-born citizens, making them a net
benefit to public safety. The research shows that immigrants are not taking jobs away from U.S. natives, and their impact on wages appears to be small to nonexistent, particularly across the long term.

Immigration appears to be crucial to economic growth, particularly as native-born fertility rates decline. More immigration leads to a stronger economy, particularly on the long-term horizon.

What's striking about these findings is they suggest an urgent need for a policy of greater immigration and more open borders at a time when the Trump administration is pursuing exactly the opposite. The true immigration crisis, as it turns out, may be
that we're not letting enough immigrants in.

***

Major studies suggest we might be better off letting in MORE immigrants. :)

While you toss around 'ideas' you apparently pulled out of your ass,
claiming the US "doesn't need any more fucking migrants". How the
fuck would you know? :)

A couple of other interesting facts:

The foreign-born share of the US population now is around 13.4%.
At its peak, back in 1910, the foreign-born share of the US population
was around 14.7%.

Indeed, going even further back, in 1870, the foreign-born share
of the US population was 14.4%. So, alarmists all through the late
1800s could have claimed America was going to hell in a handbasket. :)
It would have been bullshit then, and it's worse bullshit now.

Plus, over the last 30 years, around 20% of migrants were Mexican.
Iow, around 80% were not. Yet this CLOWN wants to spend BILLIONS
of our tax dollars building more huge walls on our southern border.
No. Stop trying to do stupid, useless shit that only wastes our
tax money while trampling other peoples' human rights at the same time.

And besides, a great many illegals coming here now either fly in
by airplane or take a boat. Just look at a fucking map. People from
either coast of Mexico can hop on a boat and land at any number of
places along multiple coastlines that aren't even along the Mexican
land border. And this is not new at all.

CBS News - (Note, this article is 8 years old)
Immigrants Turn to Sea to Enter U.S. Illegally https://www.cbsnews.com/news/immigrants-turn-to-sea-to-enter-us-illegally/

So even if dumb ass managed to waste billions in tax money by building
his idiotic wall, it wouldn't stop illegal immigration. If anything,
it would simply increase ocean and air travel to get here.

***

Personal note:

I've taken a rowboat across the Rio Grande back and forth into Mexico
and back to the U.S. on the very spot this article below is about.

US-MEXICO BORDER: RIO GRANDE CROSSING IS GETTING SMALLER EVERYDAY http://tinyurl.com/ydc93do9

Me and my friend Randy crossed here while camping in Big Bend about
25 years ago. :) We got rowed across the Rio Grande, then took a
pickup truck ride into dusty Boquillas. And man, what a strange
little community it was on the other side of that river. I was a fool
because I bought sodas and candy for some of the little Mexican kids
begging over there. Probably lucky I made it back across alive since
I was no doubt marked as a 'sucker' by doing that. And indeed,
there WAS a real danger of getting stuck in the mud and clay on
that river bank. We both came out of the adventure a bit muddy.
We did it back when you didn't even need a passport to go back
and forth there. :)

The only thing the 'immigration flap' has done for that area is ruin
most of the local economy by screwing up all the tourist exchange.

More to the point, note how it says the border along the 1000 miles
of the Rio Grande is "ever-shifting". Because rivers do that.
They also cut huge river canyons. Where exactly are you going to
build a wall along hundreds of miles of big river canyons? Up away
from those canyons, hopefully? But that would cost huge amounts of
money because those lands are highly inaccessible.

As the author of the article puts it: "Where does one build a wall?
In the middle of this river?" Well, of course not. But... where?
It's just not a good idea... anywhere around such areas.

***

The US has 12,000 miles of coastline, and close to 100 million
recreational boaters out on the ocean waters at any given time.
Do you really think anyone can stop most of the people who would
simply be resourceful enough to pay to hitch a ride on a boat?

There are more than 300 commonly used air, land, and sea ports of
entry to the US. There are also several navigable rivers that can be
entered from the ocean, where boaters can travel up into the US
quite a distance before disembarking, if necessary.

If we crack down on particular areas of entry, then the entries will
merely shift to more remote adjacent areas. It's as simple as that.

A bit of history to illustrate. In the early 1990s, we erected a
fourteen-mile fence at San Diego, the nation's busiest border port
of entry. It was strengthened by increased Border Patrol staffing.
But increased enforcement in San Diego had "little impact on overall apprehensions" of illegal entrants. That border barrier simply shifted
illegal traffic to more remote areas. The Border Patrol reported the
same number of apprehensions in 2004 (1.2 million) as it had in 1992.
The difference is that the bulk of the apprehensions shifted from
San Diego in 1992 to Tucson and Yuma, Arizona, in 2004.

An unintended consequence of this shift in migration paths was an
increase in migrant deaths. The 1990s annual average of 200 deaths
during attempted border crossings rose to 472 in 2005. So the main
thing that 14 miles of fancier fencing really did was shift the
entry points and make it more dangerous, thus killing more people.

A bigger example. Next, a 150-mile stretch of fence was added near Yuma,
and the Secure Fence Act of 2006 directed Homeland Security to build
an additional 850 miles of border fence. So what happened then?
A proliferation of tunnels got dug under border fences, that's what.

The Border Patrol also reported that fencing is most effective in
urban areas, where populated neighborhoods are only a short distance
away for border crossers. In areas of open land, it's better NOT to
erect elaborate fencing, so border agents can see as far as possible
without obstruction. So, in most of the remote areas, building a
stupid huge ass wall would actually make things HARDER for agents.

As to illegal entry, even 10 years ago the breakdown went like this:

Non-immigrant visa overstayers - 4 to 5.5 million
Border crossing card violators - 250,000 to 500,000
Entered illegally without inspection - 6 to 7 million

Notice that a large percentage, nearly HALF, historically have been
people who ARE authorized to enter the country, and then just overstay
their authorized time to be here. 'A wall' does nothing to deter that.
It couldn't stop it 10 years ago and still couldn't stop it now.

The best estimate for the current percent of illegal immigrants who
get into this country by simply overstaying their authorized VISAs
is... around 40%. Building "a wall" would only INCREASE this number.

Our current president is a bigoted idiot, and so are his supporters.
Even if he did get his way and build a giant wall, by taking money
AWAY from necessary spending and putting into 'stupid spending',
it would probably have very little overall effect on total immigration
in the long run. But what will possibly have an effect is if shithead
succeeds in also cutting down LEGAL immigration, which he is also
working very hard to do.

That's probably stupid too like most of the things shithead does. :)
Supporting factual data for this inflammatory opinion included above.

.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)