Amp,

The majority of preembryos are spontaneously aborted, so “preborn” would be an incorrect term to describe those stages. “In utero” would emphasis birth as a dividing line, no?

I really don’t know enough about immigration to discuss it intelligently; I wouldn’t have brought it up if Michael hadn’ t asked the question.

Ampersand, I don’t know much about it either. The reason I asked was that when you say things, you pretty much have info and statistics to back you up. I have tried looking around for information on the subject and all I do is confuse myself. Sites I come across are either of the “Illegal Immigrants bad! Guns, barbed wire, good!” variety, or the “Open the borders! The more the better!” types. And even the sites that seem even minded contradict themselves when it comes to the numbers and money. So the more I look around, the more certain I become that there is no answer, at least no correct answer. Thank you for your reply.

And also, as a good member of the landed gentry, I’ve seen that there are positive social benefits to the immigration of people of a much lower socioeconomic status. I know that there are costs that aren’t directly perceived, but the benefit side of it is real.

Specifically, I am thinking of Chopi, a young Mexican/Indian girl who crossed the Rio Grande and ended up as a nurse and aide to my grandmother during the last ten years or so of her life, when she was living with my aunt and uncle in a guest house. Chopi got a standard of living about, oh, say, infinity times better than she left behind in Chiapas (I think); my family got loving personal care for someone who was very sick, which meant that grandma spent her last years surrounded by family who weren’t totally stressed out by the demands of her care instead of being stuck in a home, turned over three times a day by an orderly.

(After grandma died, Chopi stayed on in the guest house and tended the livestock and the garden and helped out around the house for my aunt; now my aunt is about to retire and Chopi and her somewhat-more-legal husband are buying a house in San Antonio.)

Yeah, if Chopi hadn’t been there to fill the job, Aunt Jan could have hired an American to do it…except the American would have wanted $75k a year,wouldn’t have wanted to live on-site, etc. Grandma would have ended up in the home.

I try and remember Chopi whenever I find myself thinking “close the border.”

As you say, it’s a complex question. Even with the correction you point out, it’s possible that the benefit of college-educated illegals (who, on average, pay higher taxes) to the US economy mitigates or overwhelms the costs of subsidizing tuition. I couldn’t say for sure either way.

However, given that illegal immigrants are going to live in the US no matter what, my reflex is to try and err (within reason) on the side of improving their lives.

If we charge illegals full tuition, and as a result they don’t attend college, we don’t lose money. We don’t gain any money, but it isn’t a loss. They aren’t coming, and we aren’t paying for the cost of educating them. The ones who do come, we make money from, as full tuition is more than cost.

If we charge them in-state rates, it’s a net loss. In-state rates are the subsidized rates; that tuition does not cover cost, not even close. The remainder is closed by direct state subsidies to the schools (which are going away here in Colorado; not sure about elsewhere.)
So they represent a drain on the state coffers if they’re paying in-state rates (as do legal residents - but legal residents are more reliably expected to keep their money in-state in future years, rather than remitting to family in Mexico).

So from the perspective of the University bursar, it is better to have a few illegals paying full freight than a bunch of illegals paying regular rates.

But as you say, it is very complex. Anybody who claims a sweeping up-or-down can be safely dismissed as a rhetorician.

When I talked about the economic benefit, I was thinking specifically of Social Security and Medicare. Even according to the link you provide, immigrants are a net benefit in these two areas:- “We estimate that illegal households create a combined net benefit for these two programs in excess of $7 billion a year, accounting for about 4 percent of the total annual surplus in these two programs.”

They go on to say that the positive effect here is overwhelmed by negative effects elsewhere, and to suggest that future legal changes may change the Social Security benefit.

Im not sure that the CIR - which is a very right-wing group - is necessarily providing the full story. Maybe they are telling the full truth - they seem pretty credible - or maybe not; I’m not qualified to tell.

Certainly, any overall accounting should include not just federal taxes, but also state taxes, sales taxes, and non-tax contributions (like money spent in the USA, benefiting American retailers).

Here’s some alternative arguments, suggesting that when you look at the total picture, undocumented immigrants are a net plus for the US economically (from the blog Detainment):

According to Alan Greenspan, Federal Reserve Board Chairman, congressional testimony, July 2001, “undocumented workers contribute more than their fair share to our great country”. He continued to inform Congress that immigrants, including undocumented workers, in essence donate $27 billion to state and local economies.

This is the difference between what they pay in taxes $70 billion and what they use in services $43 billion. Greenspan also testified that in Illinois alone “Illegal workers pay $547 million in taxes yearly, compared to $238 million in services used.” This is a net “profit” for Illinois of $309 million.

A recent February 2002 study by the University of Illinois found that even as undocumented workers paid federal and state income taxes -one study puts the amount of taxes paid at $90 billion per year-, they did not claim the tax refunds for which they were eligible. These unclaimed refunds amount to the donation of billions of dollars to the public coffers.

Another study by the Urban Institute found that undocumented workers contribute $2.7 billion to Social Security and another $168 million to unemployment insurance taxes. Because of their illegal status, these workers will not be able to access these programs even if they wanted to. In addition, the above tax donations, undocumented workers pay billions of dollars in local and state sales taxes when they purchase appliances, furniture, clothes and other goods.

According to The National Immigration Forum undocumented immigrants pay about $7 billion annually in taxes, subsidizing funds like Social Security and unemployment insurance from which they cannot collect benefits. In California, which accounts for about 43 percent of the nation’s undocumented population, or about 1.4 million people, undocumented immigrants pay an additional $732 million in state and local taxes.

A UCLA study found that undocumented workers contribute approximately 7 percent of California’s $900 billion gross economic product, or $63 billion. The contribution by each undocumented immigrant is therefore about $45,000, counting even children, the unemployed, and those too old or ill to work. Almost all undocumented workers receive wages near, and sometimes below, the legal minimum, which at $5.75 per hour equals an annual income of $11′ 960.

Policy Analyst Walter Ewing cited in his March 2002 study the 2000 Census, revealed that the number of undocumented immigrants in the United State stood at about 8.7 million, an increase of nearly 5 million since 1990. This increase was due not to increased immigration, but to greater efforts during the 2000 Census to reach undercounted minority groups missed during the 1990 Census. He also cited a 2001 study by Northeastern University’s Center for Labor Market Studies that estimated of the nations 19.1 million foreign-born workers comprised 12.8 percent of the total U.S. labor force in 1999 and 2000.

In addition, The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that in 2001 there were 14.7 million Hispanic workers in the United States, including 9.6 million of Mexican origin, spanning all occupational categories. According to a November 26, 2001, story in Fortune Magazine, the “nation’s 27.6 million legal immigrants produced an estimated 10% of U.S. GDP {Gross Domestic Product}” in 2000, while undocumented immigrants made all additional contribution of more than $200 billion.

An August 2001 North American Integration and Development Center study estimated that undocumented immigrants from Mexico contributed $154 billion to the U.S. Gross Domestic Product in 2000, including $77 billion to the Gross State Product of California, assuming the presence of 3 million undocumented Mexican immigrants nationwide. Using a higher estimate of 4.5 million undocumented Mexican immigrants, their contribution to the GDP rose to $220 billion. If undocumented Mexican immigrants were to have suddenly disappeared, U.S. economic output would have declined by $155 billion.

In addition, undocumented immigrants also contribute billions of dollars in income, property and sales taxes, although it is difficult to quantify the amount. A January 2001 report by the Social Security Administration concluded that undocumented immigrants “account for a major portion” of the more than $20 billion paid to Social Security between 1990 and 1998 that payees can never draw upon because the payments took place under names or Social Security numbers that don’t match the agency’s records. Such payments totaled almost $4 billion in 1998. The Urban Institute calculated that in 1995 undocumented immigrants in New York alone contributed over $1.1 billion in taxes.

I can’ t vouch for any of the above, but it - like the info you linked to - seems credible.

Regarding education, to count the tuition illegal immigrants pay as a net loss because legal immigrants pay more, is illogical. If we charged illegal immigrants full tuition, many of them would not attend college, meaning they pay no tuition at all - not a net benefit for school budgets.

Insofar as illegal immigrants cost money, it’s because they generally have low levels of income, which limits how much they pay in taxes. We should therefore view money spent educating illegal immigrants and their children as an investment; in the long term, better-educated workers (illegal or not) means more taxes paid and higher productivity, benefitting the whole economy.

Ampersand said:

In general, I think we should try to make our borders as open as possible. Immigrants bring an enormous benefit to America, culturally and economically. Many immigrants, illegal or otherwise, will work in the US for ten, twenty or thirty years - and then return to their country of original to retire, meaning that they’ve contributed to our tax base but we reap the benefits. Immigrants in effect subsidize many of our universities by paying full tuition rates; recent policy changes have made it harder than necessary for students to come study in the US, leading to a tremendous loss of revenue to universities.

I am not sure I understand the reasoning that “illegal immigrants” provide an economic benefit to the U.S..

From the CIS

“Most previous studies have focused on the state and local level and have examined only costs or tax payments, but not both. Based on Census Bureau data, this study finds that, when all taxes paid (direct and indirect) and all costs are considered, illegal households created a net fiscal deficit at the federal level of more than $10 billion in 2002. We also estimate that, if there was an amnesty for illegal aliens, the net fiscal deficit would grow to nearly $29 billion.”

“We estimate that illegal households create a combined net benefit for these two programs in excess of $7 billion a year, accounting for about 4 percent of the total annual surplus in these two programs. However, they create a net deficit of $17.4 billion in the rest of the budget, for a total net loss of $10.4 billion. Nonetheless, their impact on Social Security and Medicare is unambiguously positive. Of course, if the Social Security totalization agreement with Mexico signed in June goes into effect, allowing illegals to collect Social Security, these calculations would change. “

WRT illegal immigrants and school revenues
…the enormous impact of large-scale illegal immigration cannot be ignored. The total K-12 school expenditure for illegal immigrants costs the states nearly $12 billion annually, and when the children born here to illegal aliens are added, the costs more than double to $28.6 billion.

In 2000, about 126,000 illegal immigrants under 21 were enrolled in college, according to research from the Congressional Research Service.11 Using 2000 data, we calculated that at non-resident tuition rates, they would be paying between $503 million and $655 million annually. If they were made eligible for in-state tuition discounts, they would be paying less than one-third of that amount, i.e., $155 million to $201 million­leaving taxpayers to make up the difference of $348 million to $454 million.12

And none of that even touches the medical costs: In California alone Uncompensated medical outlays for health care provided to the state’s illegal alien population amount to about $1.4 billion a year. In Arizona, hospitals are closing or cutting back on services for everyone because of the costs of illegals.

Now, perhaps I am looking at things wrong. Maybe I am looking at the wrong numbers. But how are illegal immigrants benefiting the US economically?

“Hehe, Sarah, that’s what I meant as well by saying we’d be in good company. Not sure Heaven consists of a bunch of bible thumping Christians that lack any humility what so ever. In fact….”

*grin* Yeah, if that’s the after-life reward for giving yourself to God, then all the more of a reason not to believe in Him, I have to say (old testament wrathful deity it appears to be here) …. who was it that said: “Jesus, save me from your followers!”

Hehe, Sarah, that’s what I meant as well by saying we’d be in good company. Not sure Heaven consists of a bunch of bible thumping Christians that lack any humility what so ever. In fact….

[QUOTE] Taking the definition in this way, for myself I doubt that there are any real atheists outside of mental asylums. Someone who is an “atheist”? because he or she does not subscribe to the description in the immediately preceding paragraph is someone who has no values at all, who believes that there are no values, that the universe and human society are at bottom senseless. Such a person could not be a scientist (for science is founded on the opposite presumption) and we could not live with him or her in safety, for he or she would acknowledge no rights in anyone else. [/QUOTE]

even if she then backpedals to agree with Noodles and Jake Squid.

For the record: atheists are not better or worse people than god-believers. And speaking of living in safety: we have burned fewer people at the stakes then the god-believers.

Or at least, just taking a shot here …

“Would you move him indoors by force, perhaps to a locked facility, and medicate him involunarily?”

IF, and ONLY IF it were diagnosed that that man/woman was a danger to his/her own self and/or others. Then I think it’s our social responsibility as responsible members of a caring society to ensure that something is done about this. We have levels of culpability and mental ability in our society in other arenas of our culture, so I don’t see why this couldn’t stretch to this. Is it a perfect yardstick? Hell no, it’s certainly a framework that could be open to abuse. But I think it’s one of the best I have come up with.

“Or does he have the “freedom”? to live on the streets so long as he doesn’t break the law?”

I’m with noodles on this one. I think VERY few homeless people actually would describe living on the streets as ‘freedom’. We have people dying on the streets here in Chicago during the summer and winter, and that’s not freedom to them. BUT, that all said, should someone honestly decide for themselves that the streets is where they would rather be and they are in mental health, then I think it would truely be required of me to allow him/her her to do so.

I actually see this as a personal issue as gay youth are PHENOMENONLY overrepresented in the statistics of homeless youth. And often you hear from some conservatives “well, they chose to leave their parents’ homes”. Oiy. Yeah, there’s a choice, abuse and degradation with a roof, vs. scrabbling for scraps of food and being yourself. I was lucky when mine threw me out, I had a job so I was able to put myself through college. But I’m an exception in regard to youth thrown out.

In San Francisco, “Care Not Cash” is trying to move the hard-core homeless into rooms. An apartment of your own. However, they are also requiring a minimum standard of behavior - no drunkeness or dealing, you have to show up for appointments with a social worker, no attacking other tenants in the building, on and on. From accounts in the Chronicle, many of the mentally ill cannot, say, show up for appointments on time, or at all, mostly as a result of their illness (which, of course, is unmedicated unless they accept medication, which they tend not to). They end up being thrown out.

I know at least one mentally ill homeless man personally who would not - does not - accept the deal you outline, because it would restrict his ability to use marijuana (with which he is self-medicating, I believe). Truly unconditional help would be wonderful for this guy and many like him, but for a variety of obvious reasons that’s not so easy to come by.

Like you, I respect his freedom, though I wish we had better choices to offer him than shivering outdoors in the rain all winter.

My point was really just that there are problems without solutions; that even large-scale government-funded assistance would not necessarily reach everyone who needs it unless we are willing to compromise other values which are important to us.

Would you move him indoors by force, perhaps to a locked facility, and medicate him involunarily?

No. Absolutely not. I think it would be highly unethical. Forcing anyone to do anything, is unethical, and even more so for a mentally ill person. To me, that possibility is not even to be contemplated. (The image of the evil nurse in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest just came to mind…)

I don’t believe in ’sink or swim on your own’, but I don’t believe in help as something enforced against the other person’s will either. It’s a rather extreme proposition.

Or does he have the “freedom”? to live on the streets so long as he doesn’t break the law?

Yes, absolutely, as a principle. By definition, if someone is not breaking any law, or harming anybody else, they should be free to do whatever they want to do. Even if it’s against their wellbeing.

However, I also would put that “freedom” in quotes in this specific example, as it’s not very common for people to freely embrace a life on the streets after having voluntarily discarded better alternatives that were easily available to them… Plus I’m not fond of either/or choices and I would think there are other possibilities, to offer help without forcing it on people; persuading someone to accept help, by still respecting their dignity.

I guess it depends on individual cases but honestly I haven’t come across many examples of homeless people, mentally ill or not, who would refuse a hot meal and a nice bed at a centre set up specifically to help the homeless or a charity or such. Or even a temporary job. Of course, if there are conditions put on that help that put the person in an uneasy situation, then it’s not really help either. The ‘weaker’ and more fragile the situation that person is in, the more unconditional the help given has to be.

But it is a grave mistake to construe that to mean that I don’t have morality or ethics - all of us do.
Exactly, that was my point basically.

So really, what’s the difference between the far-rights preferred (and disproven) methods and the belief that one has no societal obligation to help those worst off in our community?

A very fair question. When someone advocates for a “solution” which has not, by and large, worked in the past, and which (oh by the way) doesn’t cost him anything (unlike governmental solutions, which raise taxes), then perhaps it is time to ask a few questions about how sincere this alleged desire to help might be.

I participate in a lot of blogs, including several very right-wing Catholic blogs. While these folks seem quite sincere in their worship, and are edifyingly (from my point of view) opposed to abortion, their attitudes when the homeless come up are anything but encouraging. It’s their own fault, they smell, they shouldn’t be in the church building (!!) and so forth. Thus I, like you, suspect that the alleged disagreement about the best method to help these people is, in fact, based on a reluctance to be inconvenienced to do anything.

Consider this, however, you lefties. Many people on the streets are mentally ill, as several have observed. Very many of these refuse to take medication for their illness (and many meds are only partly effective anyway). They further, perhaps under the influence of their illness, state that they do not want housing - at least not if having that housing requires that they respect the rules of the house or the other people living there. (I am thinking of one individual in particular here, though his numbers are legion.)

So. What would you advise? Making housing available to this person will not get him off the streets because he is (a) too sick to understand the situation, and (b) unwilling to respect the people he would live with. Would you move him indoors by force, perhaps to a locked facility, and medicate him involunarily?

Or does he have the “freedom” to live on the streets so long as he doesn’t break the law?

In any case, “sink or swim on your own” is not a value to be found in the teachings of Jesus, but hey, we wouldn’t want to listen to him at all, right?

It seems to me both that the religious right believes that it is sink or swim on your own (although that sometimes includes ones family or very local community) and that the religious right puts forth methods that have been proven not to work (charitable organizations) over the course of centuries. Look what’s happened just during the last 5 years - taxes lowered, social programs gutted and charitable contributions down by a huge percentage. So really, what’s the difference between the far-rights preferred (and disproven) methods and the belief that one has no societal obligation to help those worst off in our community?