Thread: Numbers USA-New Report Debunks Pro-Amnesty Arguments

Comprehensive Amnesty Threat
New Report Debunks Pro-Amnesty Arguments



New Report Debunks Pro-Amnesty Arguments
Friday, May 29, 2009, 11:39 AM


With many pro-illegal alien groups pushing the Congress to take up "immigration reform" legislation sometime this year, many of these groups are publishing reports that detail, often falsely, the necessity of a "legalization program." One such report was published by Immigration Policy Center (IPC), a well known pro-amnesty organization.

Jack Martin, the Director of Special Projects at the Federation for American Immigration Reform, has penned a report, "Amnesty and the Economy: Myths, Lies, and Obfuscation," which details the fallacies and deliberate falsehoods found within the IPC report.

"Amnesty and the Economy: Myths, Lies, and Obfuscation" -- a Brief Summary
The IPC study claims that "[t]he 2007 immigration reform bill, which included a legalization program, would have more than paid for itself through increased tax revenue...." However, Martin is quick to expose this argument as a total sham. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimated that the 2007 amnesty legislation would have generated $48 billion in new revenue during 2008-2017, primarily through Social Security payroll taxes. However, this revenue would not have offset the additional costs associated with the mass amnesty over the same time period. $23 billion would have been spent in "new direct spending" (tax credits and Medicaid) and $43 billion would have been spent on "new discretionary spending" (immigration enforcement) during 2008-2017. Obviously, the IPC was wrong to say that the 2007 Bush Kennedy McCain amnesty bill would have paid for itself when it actually would have cost taxpayers $18 billion over nine years. Perhaps the IPC does not regard $18 billion as a lot of money, but most Americans do. Furthermore, the CBO estimated that "[t]he legislation would increase the unified federal budget deficit by only several billion dollars a year by 2027." Even by the year 2027, the 2007 amnesty bill would have cost taxpayers billions of dollars each year.

Would an Amnesty Really Increase Tax Revenues?

The IPC study also asserts that a "legalization would increase tax revenue" by bringing workers out of the shadows and making them legal employees, subject to federal withholding. What the IPC fails to note is that most of these illegal workers are low skilled and poorly paid. It is very unlikely that these, suddenly "legal", employees would find better, well-paying jobs. Instead, it is far more likely that these workers would remain in their low-paying jobs and would pay very little, if any, income taxes and would, therefore, become a net deficit to the IRS.

Martin succinctly refutes the IPC argument by saying, "[t]he implications of the tax system and low-wage workers are two-fold: either increased immigration enforcement would drive more of today's illegal workers off the books-and that would make them ineligible to apply for refunds because they would have no wages withheld-thereby decreasing the EITC drain on tax revenues, or the adoption of an amnesty would increase the number of those low-wage workers subject to tax withholding, thereby increasing the number of workers potentially able to claim ... tax refunds." Simply put, the IRS (and the national debt), would suffer as a result of any amnesty).

Better Wages for Legalized Workers?

Advocates of amnesty constantly claim that a mass legalization of illegal aliens would improve the working conditions and wages of these illegal workers. Martin uses the 1986 IRCA mass amnesty as an example of how an amnesty could actually harm illegal workers: "Since 1986, many studies have examined IRCA's effects on economic outcomes among Mexican immigrants. Research generally suggests that IRCA led to deterioration in the wages and working conditions of undocumented migrants, but studies have not yet identified the reasons for this change. Possible explanations include intentional discrimination by employers on the basis of legal status; a shift in employer hiring practices in sectors that employ undocumented workers; increased competition from newly legalized workers; and a general decay of economic conditions after 1986." It is clear that IPC is wrong to assert that a mass amnesty would have a positive effect on the illegal workforce.

Better Wages for Most Americans?

Advocates of amnesty also claim that the legalization of illegal workers would not only improve the wages of illegal workers, it would also improve the wages of most American workers. The IPC paper even cites "numerous studies" which promote this argument. The problem with these studies is that they fail to distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants. Legal immigrants tend to be better educated than illegal immigrants and are less likely to compete with low-skilled, low-educated Americans, i.e., America's most vulnerable. This competition would decrease, not increase, jobs for most low-skilled Americans because the newly-legalized workforce would be willing to accept lower wages and poorer working conditions then most low-skilled American workers.

The complete report, "Amnesty and The Economy - Myths, Lies & Obfuscation," by Jack Martin of the Federation of American Immigration Reform, can be found here.



http://www.numbersusa.com/content/news/ ... ments.html

The IPC study claims that "[t]he 2007 immigration reform bill, which included a legalization program, would have more than paid for itself through increased tax revenue...."

I thought the alien advocates are always trying to tell us most aliens already pay taxes. They really cannot keep their stories straight, one of the problems with dishonesty. They just change the "facts" depending on the particular agenda item. If protesting enforcement of immigration laws, they tell us one thing, when arguing for amnesty they tell us another.

This is a duplicate post but will leave open since a comment has been made.
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-157687-report.html+debunks
Please search before posting.
Thank you.