Adam –

In California, as in many other places I suspect, illegal immigrants can access a great number of benefits, from state-subsidized medical care to WIC benefits to free public education.

Personally, I propose a highly streamlined path to citizenship which more or less amounts to living the US for 5 years without using welfare or other need-based benefits. It’s simple, it’s fair, and it sets up an easily-understandable and practical path to citizenship.

If the illegal immigrant population were to be legalized, which way would they vote? Would they vote for the Democrats promising them handouts and racially biased privileges?

Or would they vote for libertarians?

Until the 1980′s, illegal immigration was not exactly en vogue.

Legal immigrants as a whole tend to be better educated and once here have more upward mobility due to the fact that they are better educated and seek out positions requiring said education and skills.

Yes, I know there are a lot of anecdotes about so and so illegal with a phd in rocket science. And of course there are plenty of legal immigrants with limited qualifications (like the Indian coal miner who now owns a best western somewhere in Texas). But these population level differences do exist and they are significant.

One thing I’ve noticed is that Affirmative Action now applies not only to black americans but hispanics as well. I find this interesting. With blacks there is the structural racism and slavery argument. The majority of hispanics however are recent immigrants or the children of recent immigrants. And yet they are ‘under-represented’. If they were in fact doing as well as legal immigrants and if they did in fact prosper in this nation, that would hardly be the case would it? I’m not an ‘under-represented minority’ and neither are my Asian contemporaries.

Legal immigrants and illegal immigrants are substantially different in a number of demographic ways, ranging from the conditions that prompted them to come here to their education levels to their facility with the English language.

On welfare. I did an internship at the state department of health. Even if its not called ‘welfare’ or ‘social security’ illegal immigrants get plenty of benefits. Everything from preschool to special tutoring to frivolous ‘healthcare’ (toenail fungus medication!).

But more importantly there is welfare and then there is concealed welfare. A progressive tax system is by its very nature a redistributive effort. After we eliminate social welfare from consideration, there is still the fact that while government spends roughly the same on each person, some pay far more than others for those government services.

The Jerry Pournelle link is a simple example of that concept. Which is that a disproportionate influx of people who really don’t pay all that much in taxes decreases the amount of revenue per capita.

The taxes paid by illegal immigrants pales in comparison to government expenditure on them, both in terms of welfare and infrastructure.

Illegal immigrants may give a boost to business, being a source of cheap wages. And as a sometimes dirty job worker, I can attest to the fact that it’s not that they do the jobs Americans won’t do, it’s that they do them for cheaper than we will. Which displaces Americans from jobs, and leaves the illegals making less than the Americans did.

A net increase in poverty as we’ve not only made the people working those jobs poorer, we’ve let in more people to be poor.

Pragmatically and politically it does not bode well for us.

In your estimation, would that also be the case in Switzerland?

That said, there is substantial evidence that the creation of small businesses is primarily driven by immigrants and that this is a massive plus to the American economy, far outweighing any of the supposed welfare costs. Until someone can show me evidence that contradicts the evidence the WSJ has provided, I\’m sticking with my opinion that immigration is good, even in our current semi-socialized environment.

People do not expand the pie by receiving the benefits of socialism. They do expand the pie by coming here and working. Depending on how much they add to the economy, versus the amount of our tax dollars they take, it may be a net negative. If the number of people eating the pie expands faster than the pie, it may not matter that the pie is expanding, no?

I personally think that’s not entirely the case here, because American socialism is a lot less enveloping than the European variety. But socialism is a net drain on the economy (i.e. not making the pie bigger), and adding in large numbers of low-wage workers is a drain on socialism. I still think the socialism in America is limited enough that immigration is a net positive, though.

I’m pro-immigration and anti-socialism. But if we had too much socialism, I’d be anti-immigration because of the amount of money it would take out of my pocket.

Brad and Nick, the belief that we can’t have socialism and open immigration also seems contrary to the evidence of our eyes. Now, don’t take that to mean I’m for our current socialism, I’m not. What I’m getting at is that essentially unrestricted immigration (leave aside whether it’s legal, or not) and social programs have not been the horrible problem that conservatives have constantly predicted.

If you’re a legal immigrant, you aren’t eligible for things like Social Security until you have a job and contribute. Ergo, you are no different than any other American worker. If you’re an illegal immigrant, you just aren’t eligible. Let’s also consider that a significant influx of young adult workers legally contributing to Social Security would do a lot to fix its financial woes! Probably one reason some Democrats would favor expanded legal immigration. Further, you guys are talking about the economy like it’s a zero sum game. I thought everyone here knew better?

Stopping immigration is a bad idea. Fighting illegal immigration will be the same sort of disaster for individual rights that the Drug War has been. Those immigrants are a huge economic plus, from everything I’ve seen, so you will be hurting the country, not helping it. All in all, I’m surprised that anyone here would follow the paleo-con line of thinking on this.

I want to see us address both problems.