Thread: Personal Comment re: Blanket Amnesty/Path to Citizenship

Offering mass, blanket amnesty/paths to citizenship to only an "estimated", yet statistically undetermined, number of illegal immigrants would be completely irrational, fiscally, environmentally, and socially irresponsible, and totally absurd. It's interesting that pro-illegal immigrant supporters ONLY refer to the low estimate of 12 million rather than the much higher, more realistic estimates. What, exactly, will the powers that be do if they pass such legislation to reward these pathways to citizenship and their estimates fall short by 10-20+ million??????

At this time of financial distress, it would not only be irresponsible but it would also be immoral to subject American taxpayers to additional costs associated with an amnesty. How much can struggling, uninsured Americans be expected to pay for benefits to lawbreakers? How can seniors on a limited and shrinking income be expected to subsidize cheap labor?

The elites won't be happy until the American Citizens are calling a box from a Maytag appliance a home. The powers that be, will continue to stuff this down our throats until we can't take it anymore, and they will shove even more on us after that.

Unless you are referring to people who cross the border later and claim to qualify as already here by lying it is impossible for the number to be under by 20 million because there are not that many here. If you include immigrants not abiding by the terms of their status and dependents of illegals it is ten million or so higher than twelve million but twenty is too high an estimate without someone having applyied systematic calculation error.

Originally Posted by Richard

it is ten million or so higher than twelve million

Even at 22 million, if Congress seriously considers any type of immigration reform, the failure to account for an additional 10 million would be devastating.

The methodology for counting unauthorized immigrants relies on a lot of assumptions which call into question the accuracy of the results. Twelve million may be the most popular number cited for illegal immigrants, but some estimates, like one from Bear Stearns, believe the count is actually closer to 20 million.

The different estimates stem from the varied methodologies used to arrive at a figure. Most approximations of the size and characteristics of the illegal immigrant population use the "residual method," pioneered by Jeffrey Passel of the Pew Hispanic Center. It is Dr. Passel who first came up with the estimate of 12 million illegal immigrants. The most recent estimate by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on the unauthorized population also uses the residual method.

The residual method uses a 2000 U.S. Census survey as its starting point because it yields an estimate on the number of foreign-born residents. Researchers subtract the number of immigrants who were authorized to come to the U.S. from the number of foreign-born residents counted by the Census Bureau. This number is then adjusted using estimates of immigrant deaths and migration, and to account for Census undercounting.

Because the estimate of foreign-born individuals living in the U.S. derived by the Census relies on survey respondents to answer the Census questionnaire honestly, and because the survey was done eight years ago, neither the estimate of foreign-born individuals nor the 12 million illegal immigrant estimate can be trusted. Are we to believe that houses full of illegal immigrants would give an accurate count of the people inside their home to Census takers? Even more absurd is the belief they would even fill out the survey or be found by the Census in the first place.

DHS anticipates the undercounting and adjusts their illegal immigrant estimates by a rate of 10% to account for it. But the adjustments amount to nothing more than guesswork; they are made without any means of precision.

‘Outmigration' also throws off estimates of illegal immigrants. Outmigration occurs when authorized immigrants leave the country or die. The events-which are projected from norms rather than recorded-alter the accuracy on the legal resident immigrant count used to calculate the number of illegal immigrants. Even Dr. Passel confesses that Outmigration is "hard to measure."

In 2005, Bear Stearns analysts determined that the surveys conducted by the Census Bureau undercounted the number of illegal immigrants by far more than 10%. Through discussions with illegal immigrants, Bear Stearns found that immigrants avoid responding to Census questionnaires and work very hard to conceal their identities.

As an alternative to the residual method, Bear Stearns used micro-economic indicators to project an alternative estimate. They examined trends in school enrollment, foreign remittances and housing permits in states with high populations of undocumented immigrants like Texas, California, and New York.

Underpinning Bear Stearns' estimate of 20 million illegal immigrants is the identification of two patterns: 1) a trend of sharply increased demand for public services in communities that have become gateways for immigration, and 2) increases in foreign remittances (money sent back to an immigrant's native country), housing permits and border-crossings.

Given the unrecorded nature of the illegal immigration population, it is unlikely that a well-founded or rigorous method of measurement will be developed. The reality is, the math is fuzzy and the most definitive conclusion one can make is that the measurements of illegal immigrants in the U.S. are subject to extreme inaccuracies.

We need to also count those hiding in the shadows.

How many illegals answered the Census honestly? How many came here on a visa and never left, like Obama's auntie? How many are coming through our ports and borders every day that are not caught? How many are hiding their identities with fraudulent papers that "prove" they are US citizens? None that are charged with oversight have any clue, so how can anyone presume to estimate the unknown accurately?

An Amnesty or a Nuke, what's the difference? Both will destroy America as we know it.

Originally Posted by Molly

An Amnesty or a Nuke, what's the difference? Both will destroy America as we know it.

A nuke would be much less devestating and we could rebuild after it, amnesty will be like 10 nukes every year!

Originally Posted by Bowman

Originally Posted by Molly

An Amnesty or a Nuke, what's the difference? Both will destroy America as we know it.

A nuke would be much less devestating and we could rebuild after it, amnesty will be like 10 nukes every year!

No kidding there...except that's 10 nukes a year for eternity!