The Financial Costs of Obama's llegal Amnesty–$9 TRILLION

The Financial Costs of Illegal Immigration–$9 TRILLION Over Fifty Years

The cost of an illegal alien receiving amnesty from Obama is not a short term cost. In fact it has been worked out that over 50 years the cost is more than $9 TRILLION for the five million Barack is legializing. Barack really wants to bankrupt our nation. Of course the five million illegal aliens he makes “legal” will also challenge five million honest Americans, Hispanics, blacks, men, women and youth for available low pay jobs.
“The average illegal immigrant is 34 years old. If he receives amnesty, he will receive government benefits for 50 years. Some amnesty proposals suggest restricting benefit access for the first 13 years after amnesty, but that limit would have little impact on long-term costs.
Over the course of a lifetime, 11.5 million illegal immigrants granted amnesty would receive $9.4 trillion in government benefits after paying just $3.1 trillion in taxes.”

Obamacare is killing health care, jobs and the economy (the real economy, not the fantasy press releases from the White House) and now for the next two generations the costs of violating the law by the President is going to cost our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren. Shame on us for putting a community organizer in the White House.

 

Numbers like this are pulled out of thin air to make a political point.

 

yup by a right wing think tank that is often wrong.

 

That's how Obama thinks, he thinks money can be pulled out of thin air.

 

"Often"

You made the claim, care to list examples.

Now claiming that the right is usually right and the left is usually wrong would be historically correct.

 

>" Several misconceptions hamper the understanding of the fiscal cost of illegal immigration. First, few lawmakers and citizens really understand the current massive size of government and the scope of redistribution. Second, many conservatives believe that illegal immigrants will work more and harder than current citizens, leading them to be net tax contributors. Once again, the size of the U.S. welfare state discourages upward mobility, and illegal immigrants are no different from the general population in this regard. Lastly, many also view amnesty for the comparatively younger illegal immigrants as a way to deal with long-run fiscal strains of an aging society. But unlawful immigrants are, on average, net tax consumers. Furthermore, when these immigrants retire, they will draw roughly $3 for every $1 in FICA taxes they paid (adjusted for inflation). Moreover, taxes and benefits must be viewed holistically. It is a mistake to look at the Social Security trust fund in isolation. If an individual pays $3,700 per year into the Social Security trust fund but simultaneously draws a net $25,000 per year (benefits minus taxes) out of general government revenue, the solvency of government has not improved. "<

Sometime it helps actually following the links and reading the entire article.

I'll make it easier.-> http://www.heritage.org/research/re...ministration-can-fulfill-its-responsibilities

 

Well they hired Alan West...........that is very wrong.

They helped write the Contract on America that led to the collapse of the economy. Do you need more?

- - - Updated - - -

Using another think tank to support your first think tank, both funded by the Koch Brothers...... they do think you are stupid.

 

Lets work backwards, I didn't use another link, it was the same link found on the original post.

That was the link, check it out, it's easy to click on the link even a caveman can do it.

Re: Alan West
He wasn't a member of Congress in 1977.

 

First off it is the Heritage Foundation so right off the bat any figures are suspect as probably BOGUS. They are the tax numbers they gave for taxpayers is not even believable and the idiots are attempting to say that all these people are going to drawing every benefit possible forever and then they make the idiotic claim that Disability (SS) and SS is going to pay them anything, you do know you have to pay in to it to get anything and what you get is based on what you paid in. The sad thing is there are so many blatant BS claims only a moron would buy this as factual in any way shape or form. Nice try, utter failure.

 

Unless you're drinking the kool-aid, even well educated progressives stop and listen when the Heritage Foundation speaks.

 

LOL, I do not know well educated person Liberal or Conservative that considers them as a Non-Partisan source of anything.

 

Remember the RAND Corporation ??? The same think tank that got it wrong and got us in a shooting war in Southeast Asia back in 1965.

 

Yeup, and them being wrong does not make the Heritage Foundation correct. I know all too well about that little war in Southeast Asia.

 

If the Heritage Foundation were have been around during the 1960's they would have said the same thing former President Esienhower told JFK, don't get involved with South Vietnam or the corrupt Diem regime.

But JFK and LBJ listened to liberal Harvard grads known as the "young and brightest" and liberal think tanks.

 

If you say so but we will never know that now will we. Ok

 

Well there was a debate some years ago where the question was asked, "If Nixon were have won the Presidental election in 1960, would there have been an American Vietnam War" ?

This involved individuals who actually know their history not revisionism and were very knowledgable about Esienhower and his administration and JFK and LBJ and their administrations.

The consensus was, if Nixon were have been sworn in as POTUS in 1961 and he stuck to Esienhower's Cold War strategies and didn't get involved with the corrupt South Vietnamese government, there wouldn't be a wall with 58,000 names on it today.

Not so funny how the cemeteries in Cook County, Illinois were able to change history, isn't it ?

 

Good grief! Two pages of denying the legitimacy of research by the Heritage Foundation because...Koch? Really, shouldn't you be able to point to a string of poor research to justify your disbelief?

Or....just take it from first principles. What is it about the argument, that the majority of illegals getting amnesty will be on the "tax consumer" side of the benefits equation throughout their lives. What is it about that premise that you guys disagree with?

 

All these numbers would be easy to verify - but I see no mention of the 3 million immigrants Reagan gave amnesty to over 25 years ago ... if anything is true about this study, then those 3 million immigrants would have racked up over 500 billion dollars in costs ... I would suggest this hasn't happened, but since the author of the original posts is adamant about it's veracity, he should be able to back up his claim with numbers on the 3 million (I'm sure the Republicans have kept track of how much a Reagan program has cost).

... right?

 

There is a big difference between a 50 year projection and a look back after the fact, but yes you're right. There has been at least one study I've been able to find that looks back at the cost of the IRCA of 1986.

Measuring the Fallout The Cost of the IRCA Amnesty After 10 Years

You can check it out yourself, but the summary is that the 10 year cost of Reagan's amnesty is 78.7 Billion dollars.So an amortized cost of Reagan's amnesty over 50 years would be 393.5 billion dollars. So your guesstimate of 500 billion wasn't that far off the mark.

 

You might want to rethink that, Eisenhower sent in the first advisors and support the government of South Vietnam from the beginning.
Political Background to American Advisors in Vietnam

'In September 1954, right after the Geneva Accords were signed on 20 July 1954, dividing Vietnam into north and south at the 17th parallel, President Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote to the new Prime Minister of the Bao Dai government, Ngo Dinh Diem, promising United States support to ensure a noncommunist Vietnam. Following through on that commitment, direct United States aid to South Vietnam began in January 1955, and American advisors began arriving in February to train the South Vietnamese army.

By early 1955, Diem had consolidated his control by suppressing the religious sects in the Mekong Delta and brutally suppressing unrest in Saigon. He also launched a campaign against Communists in South Vietnam, in which 25,000 Communist sympathizers were arrested and more than 1,000 killed according to claims by the Communists. In August 1955, Diem issued a statement formally refusing to participate with the North Vietnamese in consultations to prepare for national elections as called for by the Geneva Agreement. In October, he easily defeated Bao Dai in a seriously tainted referendum and became President of the new Republic of Vietnam.

Partly in response to Diem's anti-Communist campaign, the Vietnamese Communists stepped up terrorist activities in the South, assassinating several hundred officials of the Diem government. In 1957, Diem' Saigon government arrested another 65,000 suspected Communists and killed more than 2,000. Repression by the Diem regime led to the rise of self-defense units in various parts of South Vietnam, units often operating on their own without any Communist party direction, in armed opposition to Diem.

During 1955-1956, North Vietnam concentrated on political struggle, still recovering from the war with the French and influenced by the Soviet Union, then in a period of peaceful coexistence with the West under General Secretary Nikita Khrushchev. However, by 1957, with the reunification elections called for by the Geneva Accords overdue, observing that a potential revolutionary situation had been created by popular resentment of the Diem government, and fearing that the government's anti-Communist policy would destroy or weaken party organization in South Vietnam, the Communist leadership determined that the time had come to resort to violent struggle."
I doubt you will take with where that came from:
http://olive-drab.com/od_history_vietnam_advisors.php

 

Thank you.

I do notice that in the fine print of the study, the authors admit that many of the costs would have occurred with or without the amnesty.

 

I don't see the part you are referring to. However probably the educational costs of illegal children would probably be similar since they tend to attend public schools regardless of immigration status.

 

Remember there was no MACV untill 1962. Before MACV there was MAAG (Military Assistance Advisory Group) who were established in Vietnam in 1950 by President Truman, not Esienhower.

Some say Esienhower use to be a five star general and won a major war in some place called Europe. President Esienhower being a military strategist he observed the French Indochina war. Paid attention to all the mistakes France made, studied the maps of Southeast Asia.

Esienhower strategy of containing and stopping communist expansion in Southeast Asia was simple. Only an idiot would try a massive military invasion across the 17th parallel. (I been there and I concur.) Gen. Giep the commander of all NVA forces also knew this and Giep was no idiot. The key to containing and stopping the Soviet backed expansion of communism was in Laos not at the 17 parallel. Control Laos the Soviet backed North Vietnamese would be denied access to all of the roads and trails that led from North Vietnam through Laos and Cambodia into South Vietnam. It would be known as the Ho Chi Minh Trail.

Esienhower also knew a conventional war in South Vietnam couldn't be won in South Vietnam without it being fought as total war.

I think it was in 1958 when Esienhower moved a Marine Amphibious Regiment from Okinawa to Thailand and the Soviets got nervous. Now the Soviets held Esienhower in awe, they feared him but highly respected him as a war time general.The Soviets contacted Esienhower and asked if he intended to put American combat troops in Laos ? Now the Soviets knew that America could fight and win a conventional war in Laos and they backed off for a few years until there was a new President in the White House.

Esienhower had given up on President Diem. Diem refused to listen to the advice of MAAG advisors and his government was just to corrupt.

On a cold morning in January of 1961 in Washington DC at the White House the incoming President was having coffee with theout going President. (It's an Americana thing when there's a change of power in Washington, it has to be coffee.) President Esienhower told President elect John F. Kennedy two things.

#1. There's a CIA backed invasion in the works of Cuba. Esienhower warned JFK, DON'T SIGN OFF on the Bay of Pigs landings untill two things can be accomplished. A There has to be a popular Cuban government in exile. Then America must provide naval and combat air support for the troops on the beach.
(As we see, JFK ignored Esienhower and signed off on the Bay of Pigs landings.)

#2. Esienhower warned JFK not to get involved in South Vietnam. That President Diem was to corrupt. Esienhower also warned JFK if your going to make a stand against communist expansion it has to be done in Laos. What ever you do don't fall back to the 17th parallel.

(JFK would confide with Esienhower a few more times during 61 and 62 and Esienhower kept telling him the same thing. JFK instead ignored Esienhower's warnings and instead relied on his Harvard buddies known as the "young and brightest" who thought they were smarter that their elders. In 1963 JFK decided on regime change in the RVN and signed off on the CIA backed military coups to remove Diem from power. Well the coups backfired, Diem and his brother were murdered and on that day America owned Vietnam, it became America's problem. A few weeks later JFK would meet the same fate in Dallas, Texas. The rest is history.)

Note: After the (*)(*)(*)(*) up by JFK in 63 the world watched, what will America do ? If SEATO failed, NATO in Europe would probably fail. We were stuck in South Vietnam. The Vietnam War was just one battle fought during the Cold War.

 

I think the financial and environmental burden of illegal immigration could be reduced if pregnant illegal aliens underwent mandatory abortion procedures. It seems like a cost/effective approach.

 

Man, math really is a Conservative's Kryptonite isn't it? So, so sad.

But it's ok, just remember, that for every illegal that takes a job that takes taxes out of the paycheck is an illegal that won't get Social Security.