Illegal Immigrants eligible for scholarships and in-state tuition (CA)

bandit0013 wrote:

I guess you guys are right though. I mean, according to that conservative rag, the LA Times in 2006 California was spending:

$970 million a year incarcerating illegals
$4 billion per year educating (K-12) the children of illegals
$500 million in welfare benefits to illegals
$775 million on health care to illegals

So yeah, ok, I can get on board with not punishing the children for the sins of the parents, but only if you stop the immigration problem first. Giving out amnesty, college benefits, etc without actually fixing the immigration problem only serves to reward and encourage more of the behavior that is causing the issue to start with. I think it's a pretty bold assumption that making these 2,500 kids "college educated tax payers" will ever break even on the $14.5 million in taxes paid, let alone put any dent in the $6-7 billion California is paying now.

That bolded part is pretty ideological because you can not stop illegal immigration. And even if there was a way, it would be so expensive to implement (and pretty intrusive on legals' rights). Not to mention, who is going to work the fruit and vegetable farms? That's a serious question.

I would imagine that incarceration rate has to do with gang activity.
I can't say I'm against educating children of illegal immigrants. After all, if they will become citizens one day, they should at least have some sort of education.
I can agree with cutting welfare benefits to illegals.
Universal healthcare will really knock that health care cost way down.

KrazyTacoFO wrote:

That bolded part is pretty ideological because you can not stop illegal immigration. And even if there was a way, it would be so expensive to implement (and pretty intrusive on legals' rights). Not to mention, who is going to work the fruit and vegetable farms? That's a serious question.

Many Americans complain about illegal immigration, but few Americans want to pay $10/lb for tomatoes. Solve for x.

clover wrote:
KrazyTacoFO wrote:

That bolded part is pretty ideological because you can not stop illegal immigration. And even if there was a way, it would be so expensive to implement (and pretty intrusive on legals' rights). Not to mention, who is going to work the fruit and vegetable farms? That's a serious question.

Many Americans complain about illegal immigration, but few Americans want to pay $10/lb for tomatoes. Solve for x.

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/pol...

Xenophobia isn't racism. If you're going to imply that I'm calling you a racist, you should at least know what that means.

I think it's a pretty bold assumption that making these 2,500 kids "college educated tax payers" will ever break even on the $14.5 million in taxes paid, let alone put any dent in the $6-7 billion California is paying now.

Seriously? They won't pay $5800 each in taxes over their lifetime? Look, I understand you don't like the program, but at least do the math before you make this kind of assertion.

As for the other, I don't think anyone has actually proposed making them responsible for illegal immigration costs. That would seem to be unreasonable. This discussion is more along the lines of "why do we have to treat everyone who goes into a hospital?" than whether some new citizens will be successful in life.

Malor wrote:

The way the California budget works is that a certain percentage of it absolutely MUST be spent on education. The voters have put shackles on the wrists of their government. It's something like a third, or maybe even a half, a really large fraction.

So they have to use it on something that's educational. They can't even opt not to spend the money. By voter mandate, they MUST SPEND IT, even if they're borrowing to cover their total budget.

So, given the fact that they HAVE TO spend it, they might as well spend it on people who are actually resident in the state, no? They probably looked at the options, and figured that helping with college for the children of illegal immigrants gives them the biggest overall payoff. And keep in mind that Pell Grants aren't very large... they'll cover books plus a little tuition, but not much else.

The legislators in California could fix the budget, except that the voters have absolutely 100% prevented it. If you feel you must point a finger at someone, blame the people of California. Citizen initiatives have made it illegal to cut spending, and nearly impossible to raise taxes.

This probably bears repeating.

Tanglebones wrote:
clover wrote:
KrazyTacoFO wrote:

That bolded part is pretty ideological because you can not stop illegal immigration. And even if there was a way, it would be so expensive to implement (and pretty intrusive on legals' rights). Not to mention, who is going to work the fruit and vegetable farms? That's a serious question.

Many Americans complain about illegal immigration, but few Americans want to pay $10/lb for tomatoes. Solve for x.

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/pol...

This should probably be its own thread, but this was interesting:

Article wrote:

Financial incentives aimed at getting unemployed Georgians and even criminals on probation to take their place picking crops were marginally successful, Black said, because the new workers were too slow and often quit because of the strenuous labor involved.

"A robust agricultural guest worker program, properly designed, will not displace American workers," Black said in remarks prepared for the hearing. "As my testimony shows, in Georgia, even with current high unemployment rates, it is difficult for farmers to fill their labor needs."

I do wonder how much of California would come screeching to a halt if illegal immigration were curbed before a different system was put into place, unless there's an Oklahoma-style pocket of unemployed Americans somewhere who would move there en masse to pick lettuce.

bandit0013 wrote:

I guess you guys are right though. I mean, according to that conservative rag, the LA Times in 2006 California was spending:

$970 million a year incarcerating illegals
$4 billion per year educating (K-12) the children of illegals
$500 million in welfare benefits to illegals
$775 million on health care to illegals

So yeah, ok, I can get on board with not punishing the children for the sins of the parents, but only if you stop the immigration problem first. Giving out amnesty, college benefits, etc without actually fixing the immigration problem only serves to reward and encourage more of the behavior that is causing the issue to start with. I think it's a pretty bold assumption that making these 2,500 kids "college educated tax payers" will ever break even on the $14.5 million in taxes paid, let alone put any dent in the $6-7 billion California is paying now.

Illegal immigration also allows for cheaper food, construction, gardening and many other services california tax payers consume everyday. Here is an older link: http://migration.ucdavis.edu/mn/more...

But, most studies show that illegal immigration ends up being a net benefit to Californians and the nation at large. If you're unhappy with the California budget priorities, tax policies, how over regulated the state is, I am fully with you. However, trying to hitch it on the back of people who are trying to go to college and better their lots in life then I cannot agree with you there. Educating more children and putting them through college is a direct benefit to Californians. California is completely ungovernable due to the ballot innovative system that mandates spending and the inability to raise revenues to meet the spending requirements.

NSMike wrote:

Xenophobia isn't racism. If you're going to imply that I'm calling you a racist, you should at least know what that means.

It also isn't a fear of illegal immigrants. Nothing posted indicates that either of the Ohioans(?) who responded are xenophobic.

Ulairi wrote:

California is completely ungovernable due to the ballot innovative system that mandates spending and the inability to raise revenues to meet the spending requirements.

See what happens when the unwashed masses are allowed to govern themselves?

I just always think it is funny when people say that illegals don't pay taxes. Sure, they don't fill out forms on the books - but their housing/gas/food/utilities is all part of the system, and the money they spend here is definitely taxed. I understand it is a complex issue, and am not commenting on the right or wrong of it (I am for open door immigration and amnesty, for what it is worth), but it is incorrect to imply that they make no economic footprint.

Also, it is funny to me that the people who protest the loudest about illegals not having to pay their fair share of taxes are the same people who don't want to pay taxes at all (hi, tea party!). Somehow racism/xenophobia are not involved.

MattDaddy wrote:
NSMike wrote:

Xenophobia isn't racism. If you're going to imply that I'm calling you a racist, you should at least know what that means.

It also isn't a fear of illegal immigrants. Nothing posted indicates that either of the Ohioans(?) who responded are xenophobic.

A fair point. Sorry Leap and bandit.

Putting on my technocrat hat - in terms of outcomes, does it make sense to scrimp on the money now, and probably consign these people to a menial/criminal life, or spend it, and potentially forestall future expenses to deal with them/grow the tax base?

Do illegal immigrants pay international student rates? If so I doubt the $5400 is really the deal breaker for these people, what am I missing here?

I was just about to ask if we should also eliminate scholarship programs for international students since they're not US residents or is that okay since they're here legally?

Kehama wrote:

I was just about to ask if we should also eliminate scholarship programs for international students since they're not US residents or is that okay since they're here legally?

Who pays for those scholarship programs? The school, or the gov'mint?

Kehama wrote:

I was just about to ask if we should also eliminate scholarship programs for international students since they're not US residents or is that okay since they're here legally?

I think the people who are upset have no problem with monies for people who are here legally, it's for the people that broke the law to come here. My only counter is that they are already here, living here, working here, paying taxes, and contributing to the economy. It's what we do next.

Jonman wrote:
Kehama wrote:

I was just about to ask if we should also eliminate scholarship programs for international students since they're not US residents or is that okay since they're here legally?

Who pays for those scholarship programs? The school, or the gov'mint?

Wouldn't it be taxpayers?

SallyNasty wrote:

I just always think it is funny when people say that illegals don't pay taxes. Sure, they don't fill out forms on the books - but their housing/gas/food/utilities is all part of the system, and the money they spend here is definitely taxed. I understand it is a complex issue, and am not commenting on the right or wrong of it (I am for open door immigration and amnesty, for what it is worth), but it is incorrect to imply that they make no economic footprint.

As an aside, it is a technically correct argument to make when discussing Federal dollars, as by and large all personal taxes heading to DC are paid for on income. Consumptive taxes such as sales tax and utility taxes either go to municipalities, or states.

Of course, this thread is discussing a state's spending, so...

Minarchist wrote:

As an aside, it is a technically correct argument to make when discussing Federal dollars, as by and large all personal taxes heading to DC are paid for on income.

Actually, most illegals pay tax on income. From Reason:

Close to 8 million of the 12 million or so illegal aliens in the country today file personal income taxes using [non-SS ID] numbers, contributing billions to federal coffers.

And if two-thirds pay income tax, I bet even more pay payroll tax. I actually found this number to be really impressive--I mean, if I were an off-the-books worker with no SSN, would I voluntarily pay income tax out of a sense of fairness? Likely not.

I stand corrected.

I think the people who are upset have no problem with monies for people who are here legally, it's for the people that broke the law to come here. My only counter is that they are already here, living here, working here, paying taxes, and contributing to the economy. It's what we do next.

Mark your calendars. I agree with Ulairi =)

clover wrote:
KrazyTacoFO wrote:

That bolded part is pretty ideological because you can not stop illegal immigration. And even if there was a way, it would be so expensive to implement (and pretty intrusive on legals' rights). Not to mention, who is going to work the fruit and vegetable farms? That's a serious question.

Many Americans complain about illegal immigration, but few Americans want to pay $10/lb for tomatoes. Solve for x.

I don't have time to look it up right now but there was a bigwig economics professor who quoted that if you increased the wage of harvesting tomatoes to $14/hr + benefits it would raise the price of a pound of tomatoes like 22 cents. I'll see if I can find that for you later.

I do find it interesting that I see a lot of people who generally lean to the left being ok with the argument that America simply MUST have labor that is paid below market wage and with little or no benefits or worker protections that if this a union argument they seem to feel American workers are entitled for.

No one finds this disconnect a bit... interesting?

bandit0013 wrote:
clover wrote:
KrazyTacoFO wrote:

That bolded part is pretty ideological because you can not stop illegal immigration. And even if there was a way, it would be so expensive to implement (and pretty intrusive on legals' rights). Not to mention, who is going to work the fruit and vegetable farms? That's a serious question.

Many Americans complain about illegal immigration, but few Americans want to pay $10/lb for tomatoes. Solve for x.

I don't have time to look it up right now but there was a bigwig economics professor who quoted that if you increased the wage of harvesting tomatoes to $14/hr + benefits it would raise the price of a pound of tomatoes like 22 cents. I'll see if I can find that for you later.

I do find it interesting that I see a lot of people who generally lean to the left being ok with the argument that America simply MUST have labor that is paid below market wage and with little or no benefits or worker protections that if this a union argument they seem to feel American workers are entitled for.

No one finds this disconnect a bit... interesting?

Um, could you clean up that second half of your last sentence? I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at.

Actually, its completely consistent. You consider the poverty and political climate they come from that drives them to travel hundreds of miles to get here. Then you realize that without legal status, they are desperate for work and vulnerable to abuse. It is not the ideal situation but it is reality. And then try and provide them avenues for growth through education, if not for them then for their children.

Its called attacking the problem from multiple angles. Which option do you think is more humane and constructive: deny them work and schooling for their children or give them an opportunity and choose school over crime for their children?

If they get college degree's, then who is going to mow my lawn or sealcoat my driveway?

bandit0013 wrote:
clover wrote:
KrazyTacoFO wrote:

That bolded part is pretty ideological because you can not stop illegal immigration. And even if there was a way, it would be so expensive to implement (and pretty intrusive on legals' rights). Not to mention, who is going to work the fruit and vegetable farms? That's a serious question.

Many Americans complain about illegal immigration, but few Americans want to pay $10/lb for tomatoes. Solve for x.

I don't have time to look it up right now but there was a bigwig economics professor who quoted that if you increased the wage of harvesting tomatoes to $14/hr + benefits it would raise the price of a pound of tomatoes like 22 cents. I'll see if I can find that for you later.

I do find it interesting that I see a lot of people who generally lean to the left being ok with the argument that America simply MUST have labor that is paid below market wage and with little or no benefits or worker protections that if this a union argument they seem to feel American workers are entitled for.

No one finds this disconnect a bit... interesting?

I lean to the left on some stuff, but sadly (I would guess 98% of Americans are) I am selfish and look after my own comfort/needs first; I at least admit it though. I know it's not "good", but whether you look to the left or the right almost everyone is. Plus the illegal farmers still have a standard of living higher than if they were still in Mexico. That's not to say that I actively support keeping them down, which I don't.

If that makes me an uncaring jerk so be it. But if the hourly wage was raised to $14/hr, you still would see mainly illegals doing it, because it is backbreaking labor. In fact I would bet there would be a bigger outcry from the Right about the "problem"* with illegals because of the lure of even more money.

*Edit- I actually don't think we have a big "problem" with illegals here. Sure there are issues, but the pros outweigh the cons.

Well, if it does not make us money, and does not better society, why waste resources fighting it? We can play spot the fallacy, or we can get "illegals" in the system, educated, employed.
Or we can be hoodwinked into ignoring real problems, instead focus on the myriad of scapegoats.

I think it's a pretty bold assumption that making these 2,500 kids "college educated tax payers" will ever break even on the $14.5 million in taxes paid

Okay, well, let's run the numbers.

14.5 million divided by 2500 is $5,800 per person.

California's tax rate, per their site, averages out to be about 5%; it's much higher on higher incomes, which college tends to be a requirement for. So the return on investment increases as wages increase, but the overall average rate is 5%. I'll use that number, although the reality of wages for college-educated workers likely means the result would be better.

That means that their total lifetime wage needs to increase by $116,000 to make that investment repay itself. If you assume a working lifetime of 40 years, that's about $2,900 per year of increased salary required to pay for the program. (and yes, money later isn't worth as much as money now, but we can safely ignore inflation for this purpose, because wages should go up as dollars go down. It's $2,900 per year now, but in 30 years it might be $29,000 instead. Either way, the actual value should be comparable.)

Not all of the children will remain in California, but if we assume half do, that means they need to increase their income by $5,800 per year, in 2011 dollars, to pay for the half that leave.

I think it would be hard to argue that a college education won't result in an extra $6K in yearly wages over the lifetime of a worker. It probably won't be that high at first, but by the time they're in their 30s and 40s, the difference will be much more substantial.

From what I can see, in fact, that looks like a screamingly good deal for the state. And that's running the numbers from a pessimistic viewpoint. If you believe that college-educated workers are likely to be in a higher bracket than 5%, which strikes me as nearly certain, then it looks very stupid not to do it.

Sounds like something they could repay just by getting a minimum wage ($8/hr) job. Something out of reach without education and yet a highly likely bare minimum outcome with an education.