Mass immigration & economic problems in USA and Europe

[Greg Boyles]

Europe and the USA have major debt and economic problems in common.

 

Australia's debt and economic problems are no where near as big.

 

Europe and USA also have virtually uncontrolled mass immigration from Africa and Mexico respectively.

 

Australia has a very much small immigration intake.

 

I wonder how closely uncontrolled mass immigration and debt and economic problems are linked.

 

Clearly third world immigrants require significant welfare and services when they first arrive in a western country. The more immigrants the bigger the bill to the government.

[imatfaal]

Greg - could you explain how your assertions about net migration fit with this table http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_migration_rate - before we start to discuss any correlated data

[Greg Boyles]

Greg - could you explain how your assertions about net migration fit with this table http://en.wikipedia...._migration_rate - before we start to discuss any correlated data

 

 

"This article's factual accuracy may be compromised due to out-of-date information"

 

I think this list strains credibility when it lists Australia as having almost twice the immigration intake of the USA and 3 times the immigration intake of Britain.

 

 

Based on these figures the USA would currently have an immigration intake of.....

 

 

300,000,000 / 1,000 = 300,000 x 4.31 = 1,293,000

 

 

Ahhhhh I see. Quoting the figures as number of immigrants per 1,000 head of current population is misleading.

 

 

You appear to have cherry picked some figures in a format that gives the appearance that my hypothesis in immediately invalid.

 

 

If you examine the figures in terms of total immigration intake by country, as above, then both the USA and Britain are well above Australia and the list, in terms of out three countries that have well developed social equity programs, fits my hypothesis.

Edited August 8, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[swansont]

Europe and the USA have major debt and economic problems in common.

 

Australia's debt and economic problems are no where near as big.

 

Europe and USA also have virtually uncontrolled mass immigration from Africa and Mexico respectively.

 

I quoted actual statistics in another thread, which questions the characterization as "virtually uncontrolled"

[CaptainPanic]

Ahhhhh I see. Quoting the figures as number of immigrants per 1,000 head of current population is misleading.

Why?

I do not undertstand why you say that... and I think we must clear this up before we can proceed.

[swansont]

Ahhhhh I see. Quoting the figures as number of immigrants per 1,000 head of current population is misleading.

 

Why is immigration rate misleading vs the total number? One could argue that the total is misleading because the US is bigger (much bigger if we use arable land as the basis for comparison) and has more population. A million immigrants in the US represents only a third of a percent of the population, while for Australia it's 4.5% and any purported negative impacts would be proportionally larger. How is a straight-up number not misleading?

[Greg Boyles]

Why?

I do not undertstand why you say that... and I think we must clear this up before we can proceed.

 

Because quite clearly quoting the immigration figures in terms of 1000 head of population distorts the picture, because the USA have substantially larger populations than Australia does. Hence the immigration intake of both those countries is 'diluted' when you quote them in terms of 1000 head of population.

 

It is patently clear that Australia DOES NOT have a larger total immigration intake than Britain and the USA.

 

Those figures clearly have some statistical purpose but they are not useful, in that form, for determining the validity of my hypothesis.

 

Why is immigration rate misleading vs the total number? One could argue that the total is misleading because the US is bigger (much bigger if we use arable land as the basis for comparison) and has more population. A million immigrants in the US represents only a third of a percent of the population, while for Australia it's 4.5% and any purported negative impacts would be proportionally larger. How is a straight-up number not misleading?

 

 

We need to estimate the total social welfare bill vs the number of immigrants taken in annually.

 

Clearly not all social welfare recipients will be immigrants but it is also clear that the vast majority third world humanitarian and illegal immigrants don't end up as entirely self funding citizens high up on the social ladder when they land in a western country.

 

Clearly we would also have to examine how much each country spends annually on social welfare, what proportion of illegal and legal immigrants receive some sort of social welfare from the government and how much that social well fare bill is contributing to the country's debt.

 

Immigration per 1,000 head of population does not provide an intuitive indication of ranking on annual immigration intake.

 

I quoted actual statistics in another thread, which questions the characterization as "virtually uncontrolled"

 

The USA, for example, has between 10 and 12 million illegal immigrants currently residing in the country - 3-4% of the total population.

 

In 2008, about 344,000 children were born to parents of whom at least one was an illegal immigrant. These babies were, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, American citizens from birth. The children represented eight percent of the 4.3 million births in the United States that year.^[

 

A smaller number of unauthorized migrants entered the United States legally using the Border Crossing Card, a card that authorizes border crossings into the U.S. for a set amount of time. Border Crossing Card entry accounts for the vast majority of all registered non-immigrant entry into the United States – 148 million out of 179 million total – but there is little hard data as to how much of the illegal immigrant population entered in this way. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates the number at around 250,000–500,000.^[20]

 

The USA very clearly has almost uncontrolled illegal immigration and an enormous illegal immigrant population. Then of course the USA has an equally large legal immigration intake added to that. The presenter in the youtube video 'population and gum balls' (or something like that) quotes the legal annual immigrant intake at about 1 million.

 

 

 

 

 

The reason why I have proposed this hypothesis is that there is barely a new report from the US about their debt without a republican politician complaining that medicare and social welfare spending is to high and the cause of the debt.

 

Apart from African Americans, who would be the major recipients of all forms of welfare..........espanic and other third world immigrants of course. And the USA takes in at least a million third world immigrants per year.

Edited August 8, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[CharonY]

I still fail to see why the absolute metric should be more important than the relative value, especially for a) comparative purposes and b) to assess burden. Both of which are points of the OP. And secondly, how do illegal immigrants get access to welfare? Legal immigrants on the other hand are only allowed to immigrate if they can demonstrate the ability to take care of themselves and are therefore influencing the economy in a positive way.

As already state above, the basic premises should be cleared before we can move to the next step (which would include to put some numbers on the actual burden- and ideally from non-partisan groups).

[swansont]

It is patently clear that Australia DOES NOT have a larger total immigration intake than Britain and the USA.

And it's patently clear that Australia has a lower total population then the US and Britain.

 

Taking your view, Australia would not have an immigration problem until it has an influx similar to the US or Britain. Do you really think that is the case? A half a million immigrants a year would cause no problems?

[Greg Boyles]

I still fail to see why the absolute metric should be more important than the relative value, especially for a) comparative purposes and b) to assess burden. Both of which are points of the OP. And secondly, how do illegal immigrants get access to welfare? Legal immigrants on the other hand are only allowed to immigrate if they can demonstrate the ability to take care of themselves and are therefore influencing the economy in a positive way.

As already state above, the basic premises should be cleared before we can move to the next step (which would include to put some numbers on the actual burden- and ideally from non-partisan groups).

 

Because it is patently clear that the person posted those figures for the express purpose of discrediting my hypothesis from the get go....... because the USA and Britain were below Australia in that list, i.e. less immigrants per 1000 head of population than Australia, when my hypothesis is that their economic problems and debt are partly a result of the fact that they both have a vastly larger annual immigration intake than Australia and therefore vastly more people dependant on government welfare.

 

So now that we have established that this list does not discredit my hypothesis from the start, can we move on!

 

And it's patently clear that Australia has a lower total population then the US and Britain.

 

Taking your view, Australia would not have an immigration problem until it has an influx similar to the US or Britain. Do you really think that is the case? A half a million immigrants a year would cause no problems?

 

 

Yes precisely! A smaller population means less people dependant on welfare!

 

A large population does not necessarily mean more economically productive and entirely financially independant citizens or residents.

 

And Half a million immigrants per year would lead to greater economic problems than Australia currently has but less than the USA currently has! But we also need to remember that, due to the ecology of our continent, Australia has far less capacity for productivity particularly when it comes to fresh water supply and food production capacity.

 

We currently have a surplus of food that we export. But if we increase our population to take up that excess then our export earning will be significantly reduced with little capacity to replace them. Not to mention the third world countries that are dependant on our excess food.

 

And water availability also restricts mining activites. If it is taken for mining then less is available to support large local (to the mines) populations.

Edited August 9, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[swansont]

Yes precisely! A smaller population means less people dependant on welfare!

 

A large population does not necessarily mean more economically productive and entirely financially independant citizens or residents.

 

It doesn't necessarily mean the opposite, either. So the claim that a smaller population has fewer people on welfare (or proportionally fewer) is unsupported. You could have a population of 10 million with half of the people on welfare and a population of 100 million with 10% on welfare. The big country has twice the number of people on welfare, but which one is going to be better off?

 

And Half a million immigrants per year would lead to greater economic problems than Australia currently has but less than the USA currently has! But we also need to remember that, due to the ecology of our continent, Australia has far less capacity for productivity particularly when it comes to fresh water supply and food production capacity.

 

We currently have a surplus of food that we export. But if we increase our population to take up that excess then our export earning will be significantly reduced with little capacity to replace them. Not to mention the third world countries that are dependant on our excess food.

 

And water availability also restricts mining activites. If it is taken for mining then less is available to support large local (to the mines) populations.

 

So you have a smaller population and a much smaller area of usable land in Australia, and yet you think that you could support a huge influx of immigrants? Each (supposedly burdensome) immigrant is supported by the productivity of the 23 million inhabitants, while in the US, they are supported by more than 300 million. How, exactly, is this a win for Australia? Why again should we not normalize the numbers?

 

Your reasoning escapes me.

[Greg Boyles]

It doesn't necessarily mean the opposite, either. So the claim that a smaller population has fewer people on welfare (or proportionally fewer) is unsupported. You could have a population of 10 million with half of the people on welfare and a population of 100 million with 10% on welfare. The big country has twice the number of people on welfare, but which one is going to be better off?

 

My hypothesis is that there is a population threshhold, unique to each country and related to its ecological productive capacity of the country and its resource base, beyond which the economic productivity decreases and welfare dependance in western countries or poverty level in third world countries increases for most individuals. Not including a the rich ellite that is always present in all countries.

 

Similar thing with the size of cities. There is a sweet spot where economic paramaters are perfect and sense of individual well being is and availability of opportunities is optimal. Beyond this sweet spot cities become increasing dysfunctional and politically unstable.

 

Increasing population eventually starts pushing up the cost of living, driving down wages and conditions and increasing welfare dependance. Economics 101.........

 

So you have a smaller population and a much smaller area of usable land in Australia, and yet you think that you could support a huge influx of immigrants? Each (supposedly burdensome) immigrant is supported by the productivity of the 23 million inhabitants, while in the US, they are supported by more than 300 million. How, exactly, is this a win for Australia? Why again should we not normalize the numbers?

 

Your reasoning escapes me.

 

I just told you in clear terms why objected to the use of normalised figures, but you have chosen to ignore it.

 

"they are supported by more than 300 million"

Of course by this you have made the clearly false assumption that none of the 300 million are already significantly welfare dependant.

 

According to these figures: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_welfare_spending_40.html

The USA has a welfare bill, including pensions which is also a form of welfare or income support, in 2011 of just over 1.5 trillion dollars. And they add at least 1 million additional recipients each year through their humanitarian immigration intake.

 

Clearly all 1000 Americans are not supporting each additional 2-3 immigrants.

Edited August 9, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[CaptainPanic]

I demand that we regard all European countries as individual countries (and not as one big European Union) to make the immigration problem of the Netherlands (where I live) smaller. The Netherlands has nowhere near as many immigrants as the USA, and probably less than Australia too. And for the sake of comparison, we're an independent nation, just like Australia or the USA. And because according to Greg Boyles way of regarding immigration (which I use too now), and because we shall regard all the EU as independent nations, we can say that the 27 countries which are a part of the EU have no immigration problem, because it is a lot less than Australia.

 

Also interesting: For example, in Lampedusa (a small island, part if Italy), there are only 35,000 immigrants per year... and let's face it, compared to the Big Picture, 35,000 people isn't much, is it?

So, I guess we can say that there is no immigration problem in Lampedusa?

Edited August 9, 2011 by CaptainPanic

[Greg Boyles]

I demand that we regard all European countries as individual countries (and not as one big European Union) to make the immigration problem of the Netherlands (where I live) smaller. The Netherlands has nowhere near as many immigrants as the USA, and probably less than Australia too. And for the sake of comparison, we're an independent nation, just like Australia or the USA. And because according to Greg Boyles way of regarding immigration (which I use too now), and because we shall regard all the EU as independent nations, we can say that the 27 countries which are a part of the EU have no immigration problem, because it is a lot less than Australia.

 

Also interesting: For example, in Lampedusa (a small island, part if Italy), there are only 35,000 immigrants per year... and let's face it, compared to the Big Picture, 35,000 people isn't much, is it?

So, I guess we can say that there is no immigration problem in Lampedusa?

 

You appear to be agreeing with me that original poster of these normalised figures was attempting to use them is as a way to minimise the immigration intakes of the USA and Britain in an attempt to make it appear that immigration is not related to debt and economic problems.

[CaptainPanic]

You appear to be agreeing with me that original poster of these normalised figures was attempting to use them is as a way to minimise the immigration intakes of the USA and Britain in an attempt to make it appear that immigration is not related to debt and economic problems.

I would suggest that I appear to be mocking you. Although my post suggested that I agree with you, my reasoning was clearly flawed, and the final link shows that a very small island can have a HUGE immigration problem with just 35,000 people.

[Greg Boyles]

I would suggest that I appear to be mocking you. Although my post suggested that I agree with you, my reasoning was clearly flawed, and the final link shows that a very small island can have a HUGE immigration problem with just 35,000 people.

 

And as I have said........

 

The problems do not arise due to the population exceeding a universal absolute threshhold. The threshhol will be specific to each nation and dependant on ecological factors, the resource base and the size of the country....which I failed to mention.

 

But put it to you that the immigration intake of all western countries is universally unsustainable what ever the absolute figures are, but particularly so in the US and Britain. It goes some way to explaining why they are both becoming economically and politically unstable.

[imatfaal]

You appear to be agreeing with me that original poster of these normalised figures was attempting to use them is as a way to minimise the immigration intakes of the USA and Britain in an attempt to make it appear that immigration is not related to debt and economic problems.

 

if you are going to impute motives to me you could at least use my name. in fact I posted those figures because your argument struck me as entirely fallacious, from its premises to its conclusion. rather than argue the conclusion - I put up a link that showed that I felt your initial postulate was false. frankly the idea that absolute rather than relative migration is better yardstick shows to me that you are determined to have your conclusion whether the facts back it up or not.

[swansont]

My hypothesis is that there is a population threshhold, unique to each country and related to its ecological productive capacity of the country and its resource base, beyond which the economic productivity decreases and welfare dependance in western countries or poverty level in third world countries increases for most individuals. Not including a the rich ellite that is always present in all countries.

 

By this metric there is no way to compare countries, because they will each have a unique threshold. You have not determined where each country is positioned with respect to that threshold.

[Greg Boyles]

if you are going to impute motives to me you could at least use my name. in fact I posted those figures because your argument struck me as entirely fallacious, from its premises to its conclusion. rather than argue the conclusion - I put up a link that showed that I felt your initial postulate was false. frankly the idea that absolute rather than relative migration is better yardstick shows to me that you are determined to have your conclusion whether the facts back it up or not.

 

And you seem just as determined to refute my hypothesis without reasonably considering it. Not very scientific!

 

The immigraton figures you posted prove nothing other than the USA and Britain have large populations than Australia, which is in fact consistent with my hypothesis.

 

You folks that refuse to acknowledge that humans, or more precisely the large number of us, are a major part of the problems (environmental, political, social, racial) we face amuse me as much as the climate change deniers.

 

You will twist, contort and misconstrue ad norseum in order to avoid facing the fact.

 

I did not say that it is fact that it is fact that economic problems are caused by large populations and immigration intakes, merely that it is my hypothesis.

 

Put your biases and emotions aside and test the hypothesis rationally.

Edited August 9, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[swansont]

I just told you in clear terms why objected to the use of normalised figures, but you have chosen to ignore it.

 

And I told you that I think the reasoning is deficient and offered a rebuttal

 

"they are supported by more than 300 million"

Of course by this you have made the clearly false assumption that none of the 300 million are already significantly welfare dependant.

 

I made no such assumption. Each additional immigrant is supported by the aggregate support of the other citizens. Some individual contributions of that will be negligible, or perhaps even negative.

 

According to these figures: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_welfare_spending_40.html

The USA has a welfare bill, including pensions which is also a form of welfare or income support, in 2011 of just over 1.5 trillion dollars. And they add at least 1 million additional recipients each year through their humanitarian immigration intake.

 

Clearly all 1000 Americans are not supporting each additional 2-3 immigrants.

Pensions are not welfare and immigrants who have not worked for a company (the government, in this case) will not draw a pension from them. You have not shown what level of "drain" immigrants have on social programs.

 

Because it is patently clear that the person posted those figures for the express purpose of discrediting my hypothesis from the get go

 

And this excuses you … how? Anyone is free to disagree with your hypothesis and attack it. You have done precious little to support it. Few, if any, are going to simply assume it's true just because you say so.

[Greg Boyles]

By this metric there is no way to compare countries, because they will each have a unique threshold. You have not determined where each country is positioned with respect to that threshold.

 

Well it is certainly easy to determine the ecological threshhold. If there is ongoing environmental damage and biodiversity loss, despute using arguably best agricultural practice, in any country then the population has clearly exceeded the ecological threshhold of sustainability. In that respect Australia has been over populated for decades and our long term ecological sustainable threshhold may well be around 12 million as many respected environmental scientists have suggested.

 

As for optimal size for economic and sustainable purposes in the short term, that is more difficult to determine. I am surprised that no anthropologists have attempted this. What ever figure they come up with, it has to be reconciled with the ecological threshhold.

[imatfaal]

And you seem just as determined to refute my hypothesis without reasonably considering it. Not very scientific!

i believe your postulate fails - no need to continue. If the supposed facts that you base an argument upon are incorrect - no matter how good the logic - the conclusion is worthless.

The immigraton figures you posted prove nothing other than the USA and Britain have large populations than Australia, which is in fact consistent with my hypothesis.

no - that's not true either. they are relative figures - so the absolute size of the nation is removed from consideration, by dealing in a figure per thousand of the population.

You folks that refuse to acknowledge that humans, or more precisely the large number of us, are a major part of the problems (environmental, political, social, racial) we face amuse me as much as the climate change deniers.

again with the imputation of an ulterior motive.

You will twist, contort and misconstrue ad norseum in order to avoid facing the fact.

I have nothing against the norse and do nothing to them.

I did not say that it is fact that it is fact that economic problems are caused by large populations and immigration intakes, merely that it is my hypothesis.

Put your biases and emotions aside and test the hypothesis rationally.

ok - a rational test of a hypothesis starts with the question - do I agree with the factual basis of this hypothesis. I do not. Because a) in relative terms you are wrong to make the statement you did; or b) Using absolute figures is a nonsense as CaptP demonstrated brilliantly.

[Greg Boyles]

i believe your postulate fails - no need to continue. If the supposed facts that you base an argument upon are incorrect - no matter how good the logic - the conclusion is worthless.

 

In you opinion.......you sound more like some one dismissing a hypothesis that offends you anthropocentric sensibilities!

 

There can never be to many humans therefore anything that suggests that humans are at the centre of our problems is false and not worth considering.

 

Spherical Earth deniers and evolution deniers all did much the same thing but in the end they were consigned to the fringes.

 

 

no - that's not true either. they are relative figures - so the absolute size of the nation is removed from consideration, by dealing in a figure per thousand of the population.

 

The figures you quoted assume that each 1,000 head of population economically supports the X immigrants as far as welfare goes. But that is clearly a false assumption. Some of those 1,000 will themselves be recpients of welfare. And it also depends on how much tax each of those 1000 head of population generate.

 

So in and of themselves they prove nothing either way as far as my hypothesis goes.

 

All I said is that they are consistent with, but does not prove, my hypothesis that because the USA has a large population, and immigration intake, it has debt and economic problems.

 

again with the imputation of an ulterior motive.

I have nothing against the norse and do nothing to them.

ok - a rational test of a hypothesis starts with the question - do I agree with the factual basis of this hypothesis. I do not. Because a) in relative terms you are wrong to make the statement you did; or b) Using absolute figures is a nonsense as CaptP demonstrated brilliantly.

 

OK then please elaborate on why the factual basis of my hypothesis is wrong! Your say so that it is wrong is not good enough I am afraid.

Edited August 9, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[DJBruce]

Greg, I do not necessarily agree with the assumptions of your hypothesis, nor do I understand why you dislike relative data, and instead what to compare absolute numbers to some index that is impossible to actually quantitatively create. However, ignoring all of that lets just look at the rest of your post.

I wonder how closely uncontrolled mass immigration and debt and economic problems are linked.

 

Well, to be honest there are differering opinions on how immgration effects an economy, however...

 

There's no dispute that a larger pool of workers -- whether legal or illegal -- boosts gross domestic product. More workers means more output. More people means more consumers spending money on food, rent and a range of necessities and luxuries.A better question is: How do immigrants affect the size of the economy per U.S.-born citizen?

 

"GDP per domestic person goes up," said James Smith, a senior economist at the Rand think tank in Santa Monica and lead author of the National Research Council's study "The New Americans: Economic, Demographic and Fiscal Effects of Immigration."

 

Since 1980, he said, all immigrants, including both undocumented and legal, have boosted GDP by $10 billion per year. "That's not to be sneezed at," he said. "On the other hand, we have a $10 to $11 trillion economy" so proportionately, it's a small impact.

 

http://www.sfgate.co...&type=printable

 

The NRC report found that although immigrants, especially those from Latin America, were a net cost in terms of taxes paid versus social services received, overall immigration was a net economic gain due to an increase in pay for higher-skilled workers, lower prices for goods and services produced by immigrant labor, and more efficiency and lower wages for some owners of capital. The report also notes that although immigrant workers compete with domestic workers for some low skilled jobs, some immigrants specialize in activities that otherwise would not exist in an area, and thus are performing services that otherwise would not exist, and thus can be beneficial for all domestic residents.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Americans:_Economic,_Demographic,_and_Fiscal_Effects_of_Immigration

 

Clearly third world immigrants require significant welfare and services when they first arrive in a western country. The more immigrants the bigger the bill to the government.

 

Umm, proof of this please?

[iNow]

Greg, I do not necessarily agree with the assumptions of your hypothesis, nor do I understand why you dislike relative data, and instead what to compare absolute numbers to some index that is impossible to actually quantitatively create. However, ignoring all of that lets just look at the rest of your post.

 

 

Well, to be honest there are differering opinions on how immgration effects an economy, however...

In addition to what you shared here, I also shared similar numbers with Greg in another thread. Interestingly, he stopped responding after this happened, and chose to create this thread here instead.

 

 

This is actually untrue. I know that facts can sometimes get in the way of a good story, but immigration has more benefit on the economy than detriment.

 

http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/01/news/economy/immigration_economy/index.htm

 

In the heated debate over the impact of illegal immigration on the U.S. economy, Andrew Sum is one of those focusing on the negative.

 

The economist - the director of labor market studies at Northeastern University in Boston - argues that the large supply of immigrants has displaced low-skilled U.S.-born workers, particularly the young and the poor, from jobs.

 

"About 85.5 of every 100 new workers are new immigrants in this decade," he said. "At no time in the last 60 years have we come close to this. They're really displacing young workers at a very high rate."

 

But even Sum would concede that the U.S. economy is larger, and growing faster, due to the supply of illegal immigrants, and that most Americans with higher job skills are better off for their presence.

 

"Without the immigrants, we would have a decline in labor force of 3 to 4 percent," he said. "We couldn't have grown nearly as much as we did in the '90s if we didn't have immigrants. And in the last few years our growth would have been slower. The only thing I've argued is that we've ignored that illegal immigration has put a lot of young adults into economic jeopardy."

 

Sum's views point out the dichotomy that many economists see when looking at the impact of immigration on the economy.

 

Few economists will argue with the concept that the economy is stronger for the presence of the low-cost labor force.

 

And while most admit they have to make guesses rather than the educated estimates they would like to make, most say that economic growth would be a half a percentage point to 2 points lower without immigrant workers.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_illegal_immigrants_in_the_United_States#Economic_Benefits_of_Undocumented_Immigrants

 

Illegal immigrants pay social security payroll taxes but are not eligible for benefits. During 2006, Standard & Poor's analysts wrote: "Each year, for example, the U.S. Social Security Administration maintains roughly $6 billion to $7 billion of Social Security contributions in an "earnings suspense file" -- an account for W-2 tax forms that cannot be matched to the correct Social Security number. The vast majority of these numbers are attributable to undocumented workers who will never claim their benefits."

<...>

When the wages of lower-skilled workers go down, the rest of America benefits by paying lower prices for things like restaurant meals, agricultural produce and construction. The economic impact of illegal immigration is far smaller than other trends in the economy, such as the increasing use of automation in manufacturing or the growth in global trade. Those two factors have a much bigger impact on wages, prices and the health of the U.S. economy. But economists generally believe that when averaged over the whole economy, the effect is a small net positive. Harvard's George Borjas says the average American's wealth is increased by less than 1 percent because of illegal immigration.

 

Even if you dismiss the numbers, the data doesn't support your position that immigration (illegal or legal) is a significant cause the economic problems being faced today by the US. That story is more accurately told by referencing a lack of demand, and a volatile governing body.