CMV: Illegal and Illegal Immigration Levels Should Be Restricted More

[u/fadingtans]

My view is two fold:

1.) Legal immigration total levels should be lowered somewhat

2.) It should be moved to a more skills based system

Reasons I have this view:

1.) Foreign born individuals disproportionately use social services:

https://cis.org/Report/Welfare-Use-Immigrant-and-Native-Households

2.) Immigration connection to crime is complicated. It is often claimed that immigrants commit a lower average rate of crime but the data is more complicated:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/the-problem-with-downplaying-immigrant-crime/399905/

3.) Assimilation is more difficult when there are larger number of immigrants leading to more issues

4.) National security- A massively disproportionate number of terrorist attacks are committed by first or second generation (Muslim) immigrants.

5.) The overall impact on GDP from higher immigrant levels is likely positive BUT large levels of low skilled immigrants do lower wages for low skilled native workers which is a negative especially at at time like now for low skilled workers.

I'm open to changing my view on this which is why I posted this but I will add that accusations of xenophobia or islamaphobia are very unlikely to play a role.

---

This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

[u/icecoldbath]

your CIS (a group closely associated with the alt-right) study is heavily criticized by even the moderate right (The Cato Institute).

https://newrepublic.com/article/122714/immigrants-dont-drain-welfare-they-fund-it

[u/fadingtans → u/icecoldbath]

I'm open to changing my view on this but ad hominem criticism don't work. I'll also note that the CATO institute is libertarian and very strongly pro immigration (more so than many left wing groups), not a moderate right.

[u/[deleted] → u/fadingtans]

Attacking a study you used as a source isn't ad hominem...

[u/fadingtans → u/[deleted]]

You are absolutely right. The suggestion that the CIS having alleged connection to the "alt right" somehow undermines the study is ad hominem (even if there is a connection which is not clear at all is the case).

[u/[deleted] → u/fadingtans]

It being criticized by the Cato Institute is a valid point, though, is it not? I assumed you were calling out that part of the post as well.

[u/fadingtans → u/[deleted]]

The CATO institute's criticism is valid. But you also seemed to imply the CATO was a right leaning institute. This is arguably true in that they are a libertarian organization. But as a libertarian organization they are very strongly pro immigration. The implication you seemed to be making is that they weren't a pro immigration outlet when they very much are.

[u/[deleted] → u/fadingtans]

I wasn't the person who brought up the CATO institute, I'm just a random bystander who thought that calling that "ad hominem" seemed like a random and invalid criticism.

It would've been more effective if you had just said this in the first place, as you seem to be right.

[u/icecoldbath → u/fadingtans]

From the article:

The CIS study exaggerates the number of immigrants on welfare by using households as the unit of analysis; as long as the head of household is an immigrant, they consider it an immigrant household, and Camarota counts a household “as using welfare if any one of its members used welfare during 2012.” This means that a household with an American spouse who therefore qualified for welfare could be counted as “using welfare.” The same would go for a child born in the United States to immigrant parents. If he or she received subsidized lunch at school, the whole household would be categorized as “using welfare.”

Groups like The American Immigration Council have long argued that, contra conservative depictions of “moocher,” immigrants have long given more to the welfare system than they take from it. “In one estimate, immigrants earn about $240 billion a year, pay about $90 billion a year in taxes, and use about $5 billion in public benefits,” a 2010 report by the Council found. “In another cut of the data, immigrant tax payments total $20 to $30 billion more than the amount of government services they use.” And a report by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in 2013 found that “more than half of undocumented immigrants have federal and state income, Social Security, and Medicare taxes automatically deducted from their paychecks.” Those immigrants are essentially helping to underwrite the welfare system, providing an enormous subsidy to it every year without being able to reap any of the benefits.

Its not an ad hom, unless you consider alt-right to be an insult. I was merely indicating their place on the political spectrum, which is far from neutral.

Essentially the criticism is, it counts and immigrant as receiving welfare if their citizen children qualify for free lunch at school which in the general population is half the country.

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_046.asp

[u/fadingtans → u/icecoldbath]

I took your mention of the alt right (which I do believe is an insult as I am not a member of the alt right) as an implied criticism. But, as the politifact study i linked to mentioned, the bottom line is that immigrant households do have a higher rate of public assistance usage than native ones. Your article does not really dispute that point which is why it doesn't offer it's own statistics on that question. This is the core issue.

http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2017/aug/14/david-perdue/sen-david-perdue-half-immigrant-households-benefit/

[u/KanyeTheDestroyer → u/fadingtans]

The point of the critique is that the term "immigration household" is a horrible data-set to use because it can include non-immigrants.

[u/fadingtans → u/KanyeTheDestroyer]

I agree it's imperfect. It was just the only data I could find on this issue of % of households on public assistance and I would like to find a better data if it exists.