http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/us/01immig.html?hp

But while the number of immigrant senders declined, the total amount of remittances actually rose slightly between 2006 and this year, the study reported. It estimated total remittances to Latin America at $45.9 billion in 2008, an increase of $500 million over 2006. The amount did not decrease more sharply because Latino immigrants who continued to send funds home sent more money more frequently, the survey found.

Yes. But we also have tourists that come here to. The falling value of the dollar is also causing this to increase, because foreign money is now worth more here. It would be the patriotic thing to vacation here, just like it would be the patriotic thing to buy an American made car.

This is the fundamental argument between those who want GDP and those who want GNP and it is really hard to decide which one is a "better" measurement of how the economy is functioning. Illegal immigrants quite often lack a good education.

We could simply ignore the fact that they are illegal and continue to extort them for their cheap labor, but the fact is that they are illegal and that illegal immigration is bad just because the people doing it are doing it illegally. We could lighten up the restrictions, but we have to know who's here.

I agree. They do have a positive impact on the functioning of the American economy. However, the fact that they are illegal also hurts us significantly, and we should throw out all the illegals, build a wall, and then ease up restrictions on legal immigration.

__________________
.

"It is extremely difficult for our contemporaries to conceive of the conditions of free banking because they take government interference with banking for granted and as necessary"

-- Ludwig von Mises

Soitenly!

Latino immigrants sending $45 billion home in 2006

It would have to create one heck of a lot!
Illegal Immigrants' Cost to Government Studied
That's a 2004 report, guess they're to embarrassed to tell us what it's costing us now.

Can you please cite the source?

__________________
Barack Obama's Executive Flop

If Obama couldn't lead such a small organization as the Chicago Annenberg Challenge to success, how can any one bellieve he can lead this country to it?

William Boyes and Michael Melvin, Microeconomics (Boston & New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2008 ), p. 353

"Labor is a resource - it is used to produce goods and services, and the ages and salaries provided to workers are part of the costs of doing business. So, when the cost of labor declines, the costs of doing business also decline. A typical firm will produce more and earn greater profits. As firms increase their output and new firms enter the business, the market supply of products being produced by the unskilled labor will rise, and the market price of the good or service will decline. This is what happens with illegal immigration. Illegal immigration has reduced costs in certain businesses. The lower costs lead to lower prices."

More

"The net effect of these costs and benefits (about illegal immigration) varies according to the study, but most studies conclude that the first generation of illegal immigrants imposes costs that exceed the benefits they create, but every generation thereafter creates more benefits than it costs."

They are "immigrants," not illegal immigrants. Please recognize the distinction.

It'd be an uneconomic thing to do so because your statement is built on the premise that consumers should only buy products that are American-made instead of rational calculation based on lowest price and highest equality. In another word, the fact that buyers purchase products based on calculation of price and quality creates competition among firms; and competition fosters innovation, a driving force that made American economy vibrant and dynamic, highly adaptive to change.

If the American people buy American goods based only the criteria that they are American goods, American economy will be in a prolonged economic recession, one major factor that contributed to the "lost decade" of Japan in the 90s economic downturn.

Because all the illegal immigrants report to the government how much money they take back home.

EXACTLY MY POINT. It is the economic thing to do to go overseas because the cost is worth the trip. Even if immigration is a good thing, illegal immigration is not.

__________________
.

"It is extremely difficult for our contemporaries to conceive of the conditions of free banking because they take government interference with banking for granted and as necessary"

-- Ludwig von Mises

I notice yours isn't a web link, why? If you can't cite anything verifiable by the web, I will assume it's bunk. Sorry, you quote no figures, cite no easily verifiable sources or even legitimate studies.

I have a study that says illegals cost the United States Tax Payers $100 Billion dollars a year.

John Shultz and Frederick Bultion, Illegal Immigrations Hidden Costs (New York: Double Day, 2008 ), p. 257


I admit I made that up, see how easy that was. Now please post something verifiable or it will be discarded with the rest of the trash.

See you can read the story for yourself.

__________________
Barack Obama's Executive Flop

If Obama couldn't lead such a small organization as the Chicago Annenberg Challenge to success, how can any one bellieve he can lead this country to it?

The $46 billion sent back home were from legal immigrants, not illegal immigrants. If you argue that it is bad for America then it would become an entirely different argument here.

However, I'm sorry I don't understand what you mean by "because all the illegal immigrants report to the government how much money they take back home," can you clarify that?

It was my microeconomic main textbook. And I used the Chicago style citation.
The authors are certified Ph.D economists, you can double check that.

Not that hard, I googled the authors and their names did not come up.
You can google the name of the authors and the book to verify the source.

How is it your point. I'm sorry I didn't see the connection.

Illegal immigration is not economical? An overwhelming economists think it is; reason, as I've argued above.

So? That doesn't mean they are right, I can cite dozens of studies that contradict their theory. What's your point?

Stephen King wrote a lot of books too, does that mean the contents are true?

2 Economist from the same university constitute an overwhelming opinion? How about some facts and figures, rhetoric is precisely that, rhetoric.

By the way, the last time William Boyes was in school was 1974, and Michael Melvin 1980. They sound like dinosaurs to me.

__________________
Barack Obama's Executive Flop

If Obama couldn't lead such a small organization as the Chicago Annenberg Challenge to success, how can any one bellieve he can lead this country to it?

Then please cite the studies by other economists, I'm willing to listen to the argument.

They are not simply rhetoric. They are supported by economic theory of the labor.

They are currently professors and academia.

CIS Noted Authors:

http://www.cis.org/articles/index.html


Theory? Two guys have a "theory" and somehow that's a fact? let's see some numbers, facts and figures to support that claim.


They are still that.

__________________
Barack Obama's Executive Flop

If Obama couldn't lead such a small organization as the Chicago Annenberg Challenge to success, how can any one bellieve he can lead this country to it?

First of all, let's recognize a few fundamentals.

First the increase on labor increase the supply of labor, leading to the reduction in the cost of labor.The reduction of labor leads to lower input prices to company. Ultimately, firms will have more capital to increase production.

This sequence is illustrated if you draw the supply and demand curve of the labor (with y axis as price and x axis as output). An increase in the supply of labor leads to the supply curve shift down, leading to a decrease in price and increase in output.

Second, economists measure the welfare of a country based on its ability to produce goods and services (a principle of economics). Therefore, to calculate the cost of illegal immigration in turn of the national welfare based on government fiscal number is economically erroneous.

Now let's tackle the impact of illegal immigration in specific case.

Illegal immigration constitutes an increase of the labor supply. This lowers the cost of labor. As a result, firm will have more capital to increase their production and investment. The increase in production and investment leads to higher ability to produce goods and services, improving the national welfare.

An example, the lower in the cost of labor allows firm to reduce prices of goods and services; this reduction in prices is transferred to individual households, allowing them more capital to increase their individual welfare.

The study did not address this fundamental economic fact.

Second, the imbalance in fiscal revenue due to illegal immigration. First and foremost, there is an economic fundamental that is capital depreciation over time.

An example, take a machine in a factory as an example. The machine will naturally wear and tear; the factory owners must invest to repair the machine to maintain the same productivity.

Similar logic, human is a form of capital and the capital depreciation applies as well. Human get sick, get wear and tear if not provided care, leading to reduction of productivity. As a nation owner (the government), it makes economic sense to invest money to take care of this capital to maintain this capital productivity, which is the basis of economists' measurement of national welfare.

Therefore, imbalance of fiscal measure due to illegal status does not diminish a nation welfare.

In brief, the study proposed by the previous poster calculate on the the accountant profit of the government, meaning the explicit cost and benefits (services vs. tax payment). However, it failed to take into account the implicit cost & benefits for instance disorder, unlawful behaviors etc vs. reduction in input cost, increase in investment and production, increase saving etc.

If one argues that illegal immigrants break the law and don't deserve such capital maintenance, that falls under the realm of morality not economics.