The Cost To Remove Illegal Immigrants

• April 8, 2006

Hmm…

Cost to Remove 12M Illegal Immigrants Huge
AP – As Congress debates immigration reforms, some experts say the most extreme proposal — deporting millions of illegal immigrants — would be a huge legal and logistical morass, and ruinously expensive, too.
Officials at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, which would be responsible for deportations, said they have no projections on what it would take to rid the United States of an estimated 12 million people.
But the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank in Washington, has put the cost at $215 billion over five years.
The study assumed that a crackdown would prompt a quarter of the nation’s illegal immigrants to leave voluntarily, leaving 9 million men, women and children to deport.
“I think a lot of people are making emotional calls on this issue without thinking through the cost to taxpayers,” said study author Rajeev Goyle, a lecturer at Wichita State University. “It would be an unbearable cost that would bankrupt the treasury. It would cost more annually than the entire budget of the Department of
Homeland Security, twice that of the annual cost of the war in
Iraq.”
Finding and catching people would be the most expensive part, about $158 billion, Goyle said. The study calculated it would cost an additional $34 billion to detain them, $3 billion for extra beds, $11 billion for legal processing and $9 billion to put them on buses or airplanes.

The cost of deporting illegal immigrants en masse would, of course, be outrageous. $215 billion is probably at the low end of the scale. But what this line of thinking presumes is that being in favor of deportation means that we would try to do all of the deporting at once.
That just isn’t true and this premise is one of the biggest canards of the entire illegal immigration debate.
We can deport the 11 – 12 million illegal immigrants who are in this country now by using a systematic approach:

We stop the inward flow of illegal immigrants at the border with a wall and increased security.
We begin the outward flow of illegal immigrants by streamlining and speeding up the deportation process and making sure our law enforcement officials detain illegal immigrants when they find them (everybody gets stopped for a speeding ticket eventually, right?).
We reduce the incentive to illegally immigrate by a) making it easier to legally immigrate and b) cracking down on employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants.

Why people can’t grasp this common sense approach is beyond me.

http://www.freerepublicans.com/ FreeRepublicans.com

We could outsource the job to the Chinese and save a bundle.

 Lets have WalMart do it!  That SmileyFace dude is good at slashing things, put him to work on the Budget.
WOOF

We could outsource the job to the Chinese and save a bundle.
Epicurus

robert108,

The issue is the ennui associated with your rhetoric.

likwidshoe,

Being against illegal immigration does not equal "nativism".

Oh come on.  We are all aware that the use of this terminology is a mere stalking horse for nativism.  You can see it in the terminology used by Rob and others clearly demonstrates that.  In point of fact, to him and others it wouldn’t matter whether they were here "legally" or not.  Thus, its not the issue of legality which is at the crux of their concern, but these immigrants supposed ill economic, social, etc. effects on the U.S.  Rob and others go on and on about these so-called ill effects, and you cannot deny such.  Well, you can I guess, but that would just show a terrible amount of immaturity. 

Being against illegal immigration does not equal "anti-capitalistic" nor does it equal "immoral".

It certainly can be if the law which is in place, the law which one is defending, is both anti-capitalist and immoral.  Didn’t the 20th century, and its various legal immoralities teach you anything? 

Your constant self congratulation is a little sick.

I’m glad that I am can serve the same sort role (that of a of "gadfly" – his words) that Socrates did in Athens.  Its fun to dig up the absurdities that you live by and hold them up for public display.

The.Whistler,

The left just can’t understand that you can be pro-immigration and anti-illegal immigration.  If they’re too stupid to understand it they shouldn’t be allowed outside by themselves.

I have at yet to see any sign that Rob or others are truly "pro-immigration," that is in any totalistic sense.  They talk on and on about the need to only allow the educated into the U.S., etc., hoping to protect "American jobs," etc.  They are mercantilists when it comes to the labor markets and unwilling to allow individuals to make decisions about who to hire.  Basically, Rob and others are interested in an Affirmative Action type policy. 

docdave,

Either we are a country governed by the ‘rule of law’ or we are a country without laws, an anarchistic society playing to the whims of the mobs, a direction we seem to be increasingly heading.

We should oppose immoral laws.  In point of fact, if they aren’t opposed, how the hell can they be changed?  You essentially devolve your argument down to the absurd circular logic that because something is legal it should be followed, and we follow the law because its legal.  If anything, its you who fall into the whims of the mob, of mere majority rule.   

 
wickedpinto

This is prolly one of those false numbers.  They use the COST of deportation, then they include the COST of the time used by local officers to identify and retain the illegal, then they include the COST of the legal challenges, then they include the COST of an entire bus or airplane traveling to mexico PER individual.  It’s a tool that is used to kill real bills by using "cost" as an excuse.  They micromanage the cost, ignoring the fact that most of those "costs" are already being paid, and then taking the Particular costs, like the bus/plane back to mexico and multiplying it.  For instance, if there are 60 illegals on a single bus that costs $140 bucks to cross the border full, and return empty, then the math used in this method of deciet ACTUALLY says that the bus costs $140*60 or $8400  when in fact, it only costs 140.

 NEVER buy into the cumulative "costs" of these bills because the do two things, they GUT the fed, they GUT the local, and they are in-affective.   If these numbers are used, you have to have quota’s which is wrong, and it is also why the Fed is affraid to use local Law Enforcement for this task because the Fed will be fleeced.  Better to require a state, as a condition as a part of the Federalism to live up to the supreme laws of the land.   Federal Laws.

 I’m rambling sorry.
Epicurus

From here: http://www.reason.com/hod/bd040706.shtml

…

The solution to the legal crisis immigration represents won’t come through immigration law itself, which again and again has proven itself useless at fully stemming the irresistible tides of human desire for a better life. No matter how much money is spent or how the law is jiggered, it is not immigration policy that has created unnecessary tears and strains in America’s social order. Rather, the welfare state is at the root of any legitimate claim that immigration (legal or illegal) is an assault on the American nation. (There are plenty of illegitimate complaints, based merely on distaste for the often-imaginary hell of running into Spanish-speaking people in day-to-day life or seeing some flag not of your nation, but such complaints are not worthy of consideration.)

…

The free market, as it usually does, has created a system of mutually satisfactory interdependence, all of us serving each other and helping each other get what we want. The welfare state, in all its manifestations from medical care to schooling to pure giveaways, creates a negative sum game in which resources are forcibly redistributed making some a problem, or a perceived potential problem, to others, and allowing demagogues to obsess over precious "public" resources scarfed up by the invading Other.

As long as that system is around to breed resentment and anger—as well as counter-resentment and counter-anger such as that seen in the streets of L.A. of late—immigration will continue as a political crisis, no matter how many repeat cycles of jiggering with immigration law, or protesting it, we go through.

California’s Proposition 187, attempting to limit the provision of government services to illegal immigrants, was indeed, whatever the motives of its supporters, in spirit on the right track to a world where any immigrant ought to be, and can be, welcome; one where they are pure contributors at the same time to their own well-being and to everyone else’s as well. It’s the only permanent and just solution to the immigration conundrum. But it involves a significant reduction in federal power, money, and authority, rather than an expansion of it. Strangely, it’s a no-go in today’s Washington.
http://www.freerepublicans.com/ FreeRepublicans.com

What if we kill the ‘war on drugs’ and used that money to deport the illegals, build the wall between Mexico and the USA and further enforce our immigration laws?  We could probably do that and have money left over.

Yep.

And we’d still have money left over to keep the child molesters in the slammer longer than potheads. 
Epicurus

docdave,

Robert’s proposal will be about as successful as our WOD; not very.  Anyway, its pretty clear that his "legal immigration" program does not include a large section of the population that many employers seek out.
http://www.freerepublicans.com/ FreeRepublicans.com

If we paid more than the minimum wage, we could hire the illegals and have them deport themselves and collect income taxes on them to boot.

Whatchu talkin bout Willis? 
robert108

No: So, 100% of the illegals are employed?  You can’t possibly be that stupid.
Epicurus

wikedpinto,

It quite clearly is nativism, which is why rob gives into all the nationalistic rhetoric on the issue, arguing that illegal immigrants are acting like a pestilence on the body politic. 

As to the law, the law now in place is anti-capitalistic and immoral, and I’m not interested in supporting such laws. 
http://www.freerepublicans.com/ FreeRepublicans.com

If it was $215B in 1 shot, it’d be worth it.
The.Whistler

How about enabling local police to arrest someone for being an alien.  Then when they come afoul of the law (ie driving without a license)they’re turned over to the Fed and deported.  The advantage this is that we remove ourselves the worst illegals the soonest.

Of course the criminal-loving left will say then the illegals will fear calling the police.  I’m sure that’s true, but since they don’t respect our laws I’m ok with that. 

 
http://www.freerepublicans.com/ FreeRepublicans.com

I still say, all we really need to do is Deport Congress to Mexico, they can screw up that country and the Mexicans will go back.
The.Whistler

The left just can’t understand that you can be pro-immigration and anti-illegal immigration.  If they’re too stupid to understand it they shouldn’t be allowed outside by themselves.
realitybasedbob

If we paid more than the minimum wage, we could hire the illegals and have them deport themselves and collect income taxes on them to boot.
robert108

Don’t you all know by now that Epi is a superior academic, who knows better than the rest of us what we think?  He presumes to think for us because he is arrogant in his ignorance.  He should be pitied rather than censured.  He preaches from textbooks and can’t distinguish between the world of today and the world of Socrates’ time.  Poor fellow needs a nap.  He is insufferably self-righteous.
Epicurus

robert108,

*yawn*

Your nativist populism is extremely tiresome.  You’d make Bill the Butcher proud.

And the point that Doherty makes about Prop 187 is that it promotes a rational, capitalist version of immigration.
http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

The left just can’t understand that you can be pro-immigration and anti-illegal immigration.
Must be that "nuanced" thinking that they’re always patting themselves on the back for. Good to see that they’re not "black and white" on this issue.
http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

Epicurus said, It quite clearly is nativism, which is why rob gives into all the nationalistic rhetoric on the issue, arguing that illegal immigrants are acting like a pestilence on the body politic.
Being against illegal immigration does not equal "nativism".

As to the law, the law now in place is anti-capitalistic and immoral, and I’m not interested in supporting such laws.

Being against illegal immigration does not equal "anti-capitalistic" nor does it equal "immoral".

Your constant self congratulation is a little sick.
http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

Epicurus says, We are all aware that the use of this terminology is a mere stalking horse for nativism.
And you say this even as people like Rob and I advocate for increased legal immigration. That would negate your claim.

In point of fact, to him and others it wouldn’t matter whether they were here "legally" or not.

Only if you’re blatently ignoring what we are saying.

Thus, its not the issue of legality which is at the crux of their concern, but these immigrants supposed ill economic, social, etc. effects on the U.S. Rob and others go on and on about these so-called ill effects, and you cannot deny such. Well, you can I guess, but that would just show a terrible amount of immaturity.

You’re framing the issue negatively while avoiding the argument.

It certainly can be if the law which is in place, the law which one is defending, is both anti-capitalist and immoral.

True. But it is not. And it is not.

I’m glad that I am can serve the same sort role (that of a of "gadfly" – his words) that Socrates did in Athens. Its fun to dig up the absurdities that you live by and hold them up for public display.

What "absurdities" have you dug up again? You’ve consistently ignored the fact that we are for increased legal immigration, labelled and demonized your opponent (apparently differing opinions are a big no-no in your world), and have this incessant need to self congratulate. And you excuse it!

We should oppose immoral laws.

Sorry. Protecting private property, national sovereignty, and national security is not "immoral".

Here’s a note and a suggestion: we can disagree about what, if anything, should be done about the border. A discussion about this issue should be logical without all of the emotional rhetoric.
robert108

If you’re tired, take a nap.
wickedpinto

This, for the most part, is NOT "nativism" it is "legalism" or does the law only apply when the first ammendment is misappropriated?
robert108

It appears that all his information comes from textbooks and professors.  Thus, he is full of beliefs, but short on knowledge.  He speaks with the self-righteousness of the textbook intellectual, like Karl Marx.
robert108

Epi: Once again, you are wrong about me.  The statement you attributed to me was actually from Rob, the originator of this blog.  I am a reader and contributer;  we are two different people.  I advocate for legal immigration because I want immigrants to assimilate;  those that flood in here "looking for work" are here to take, not give.  I want a balance.  It has never been my purpose to "manage the labor market" as you wrongly state.  I want to prevent dilution of my culture, one that is the perfect environment for free people making free choices.  When unfree people come here, it takes a while for them to acculturate.  Invading us to get our goodies is neither good for the market nor for our culture.  As a proud American, I want those who come here to be committed to the American way of life.  If you think dilution of our culture is part of your test-tube "free market", you are dead wrong.  The market is an artifact of human consciousness, and so the quality of consciousness of its participants, along with their values, is vital.  When the first refugees from the Soviet Union came here, they experienced culture shock in supermarkets;  they had no experience of choice in merchandise that exists here.  They reported having anxiety attacks from having to make choices, where in their socialist utopia, things were decided for them.  That is just one example.

Every soverign state has the right to not only control its borders, but to decide who gets to immigrate, for the benefit of the citizens already there. 
Sniper Dan

look everyone is making this immigration thing more complacated than it has to be. these people are illegal. they are not allowed to be here. they are still mexican citizes and the way i look at it they all pose a threat to our nation from an economic poit and from a militant point mexico has 3 leading forms of income. 1. Patroulm a natural resource. 2. Toursim- money from mainly America 3. remittances- direct cash flow from mexicans in America to mexicans in mexico this money is taken and spent in mexico there for money loss from america to mexico. they also pose a direct threat to national security there are 12 million mexicans here illegally still considered mexican citizens if mexico wanted to attack america they would have 12 million troops behind our boarders. it would be very easy to cripple the nation with this amount of people. they must be deported if we cant find people to fill their job spots of unskilled labor i know there are many prisions in america with plenty of people that could do work. we dont need them they are a threat to this a great nation and their presance here is no more than a dilibrate attack on American culture and way of life. Im me at Blazenchevy0405
robert108

If we remove the incentives and increase the penalties, they will deport themselves.  Lock up the candy store.  What Epi said about Prop 187.  We don’t need to do any sweeps, but as they are found, they will be deported, no f*rting around with legalistic BS like the ACLU.  it’s time to get serious.
Epicurus

likwidshoe, 

Protecting private property, national sovereignty, and national security is not "immoral".

The current nativist, mercantilist and anti-capitalist legal system creates these sorts of negative externalities.  A free and capitalist system wouldn’t see people having to scurry across the border via deception; they would enter the U.S. via the roads, etc. that link us to the rest of the world.  In essence, the system which you defend, the system of walls, limited immigration for only certain groups, etc. creates the problems that you so despise. 
NoName

To Sniper Dan, some remedial tutoring in spelling and/or typing is in order. Your credibility suffers because of it. It’s also suspect when you don’t get the facts. There are about 2 million prisoners currently incarcerated in the US. How many of them are you willing to let out to fill the 12 million jobs that Americans don’t want?
LoadTheMule

"I’m glad that I am can serve the same sort role (that of a of "gadfly" – his words) that Socrates did in Athens.  Its fun to dig up the absurdities that you live by and hold them up for public display."

Listen up, you smarmy, self-congratulatory, and pretty much insufferable (not to mention infantile) ass.  I knew Socrates and believe me–you’re no Socrates.

Regards
Epicurus

robert108,

Right.  This is why, in all of my writings on this subject over the last couple of years, I have consistently encouraged making <em>legal</em> immigration easier.

For whom?  Note that last night you were all about limiting "low skilled" workers’ access to the U.S. labor market.  With you the devil is in the details. 

Don’t you all know by now that Epi is a superior academic, who knows better than the rest of us what we think? 

I know what you think on a matter based on your statements.  Yesterday you were bitching to high heaven about the need to control the U.S. labor market and prevent access to it by low-skilled workers.  If that doesn’t smack of the things that I describe, then I’ll be a monkey’s uncle.  Oh, and I’m not an academic; I am largely an auto-didact.  The only one who presumes to have knowledge of others that he lacks is you.   

He preaches from textbooks…

Not to be a pedant, but I have as yet to use any textbooks in any of my arguments.  I don’t read textbooks as a rule.   

…and can’t distinguish between the world of today and the world of Socrates’ time. 

Oh come on.  This is a rather hamhanded misreading of my statement.

Anyway, your over the top, emotional outburst was met with great mirth here.

likwidshoe,

And you say this even as people like Rob and I advocate for increased legal immigration. That would negate your claim.

Rob has consistently argued that so-called "low-skilled" immigrants are not welcome here; in light of the fact that "high-skilled" immigrants are already readily welcomed into the U.S., how pray reveal is he advocating increased immigration? 

What he, and apparently you, want is a check on a certain class of immigrants not because of any national security threat, but because of your mercantilist concerns about the U.S. labor market and also possibly because of some strange notion about a static U.S. society that needs to be "protected."  Its the "They Took Our Jobs!" approach.

Only if you’re blatently ignoring what we are saying.

I am relying explicitly on what Rob stated about so-called "low-skilled" individuals.  Neither you nor he can reverse history and deny his statements.   It seems though making claims that lack substance, such as this one sentence retort, is sort of thing I should expect from you folks. 

You’re framing the issue negatively while avoiding the argument.

No, I’m telling you exactly what Rob argued, something which he himself had the oppurtunity to deny here but won’t.  

True. But it is not. And it is not.

How is it not?  Muster an argument.  Defend your propositions with something more creative than mere unsubstantiated claims.

What "absurdities" have you dug up again?

The very positions which Rob holds and which I have described. 

You’ve consistently ignored the fact that we are for increased legal immigration

No, you are best for an increase in certain types of immigration, not for immigration as a whole. 

Here’s a simple way to prove my point: would you allow anyone without a serious criminal record and who posed no national security risk to enter the U.S. to seek employment?  Clearly Rob would not; he made that point quite clear in his rant about so-called "low-skill" labor.

, labelled aNo, you are at best in favor ofnd demonized your opponent (apparently differing opinions are a big no-no in your world),

The shoe fits Rob and therefore he should wear it. 

 
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

I’ll agree on the insufferably self-righteous part.  He seems like a bright fellow, I wonder if he gets that if he toned down the snobbery a bit people would be more likely to listen to him and take him seriously.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

You can see it in the terminology used by Rob and others clearly demonstrates that.  In point of fact, to him and others it wouldn’t matter whether they were here "legally" or not.

Right.  This is why, in all of my writings on this subject over the last couple of years, I have consistently encouraged making <em>legal</em> immigration easier.  Because I hate immigrants.

Epi, how about I would presume to speak for you and you not presume to speak for me?

SayAnythingBlog.com

The Cost To Remove Illegal Immigrants

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments