Hacker News Reader

Comment by JPKab | Hacker News Reader

By your logic, does Florida or Texas get to sue the US Federal government for the costs they incur housing these folks? Why are El Paso or Brownsville expected to incur the negative externalities of people who illegally cross into the US without any comments/concerns from national media, but a tiny fraction of that number in a northern city suddenly elicits an outcry?

Immigrants, both legal and illegal, are good for the economy in the LONG term. However, those economic benefits are spread out over both time and geography. On a highly localized level, initial waves create intense negative externalities on specific municipalities. And nobody who lives north of these areas cares.

View on HN

> Why are El Paso or Brownsville expected to incur the negative externalities of people who illegally cross into the US without any comments/concerns from national media, but a tiny fraction of that number in a northern city suddenly elicits an outcry?

Given that the Texas state government is funded largely off of sales tax and property tax--and undocumented immigrants are ineligible for most social services--undocumented immigrants are a net positive to Texas' revenue.They are subject to sales tax whenever they buy things and pay landlords' property tax via rent. All while being unable to use most social programs.

The reason Texas and Florida's political stunts elicit an outcry because is because those states are kidnapping and trafficking people--who may or may not be in the country legally--to make a political spectacle. People are commenting on the political spectacle that Abbott and DeSantis are knowingly and willingly creating.

They are not a net benefit tax-wise, and anyone who has lived in these areas can tell you. Public schools, which are utterly inundated and massively overcrowded in these places (as well as in other non-border towns that have large undocumented populations such as Springdale, Arkansas), are primarily funded by property taxes. And having lived in neighborhoods that were predominantly populated by undocumented migrants, they tend to rent apartments/houses and pack in 2/3 to a bedroom, which means that there is no net increase in property taxes. And if you think that sales taxes paid by a frugal new immigrant remotely covers the roughly $15K a year it costs to educate a pupil in a public school, you are absolutely not doing the math honestly.

The amount of willful blindness on this topic is amazing.

The only part of your response that makes sense is the last sentence.

> The reason Texas and Florida's political stunts elicit an outcry because is because those states are kidnapping and trafficking people

I highly doubt it's kidnapping. If I were a migrant and given the options:

1. Stay in Texas and sleep on the street in El Paso, or if you're lucky get to stay in some charity-run shelter.

2. Get on this free bus to New York City, where the government there will pay to house and feed you for free and you will have a much better living situation.

I would eagerly get on that bus.

>> Why are El Paso or Brownsville expected to incur the negative externalities of people who illegally cross into the US without any comments/concerns from national media, but a tiny fraction of that number in a northern city suddenly elicits an outcry?

> Given that the Texas state government is funded largely off of sales tax and property tax--and undocumented immigrants are ineligible for most social services--undocumented immigrants are a net positive to Texas' revenue.They are subject to sales tax whenever they buy things and pay landlords' property tax via rent. All while being unable to use most social programs.

That's just utter nonsense, and it's hard to imagine that someone could write that without misunderstanding the situation (willfully or otherwise). You're cherry-picking facts to an extreme degree to arrive at false "counterintuitive" result. And even if you weren't, no one cares so much about sales tax revenue to think like that.

Correct.

I live outside of Boulder, and the folks getting on buses to Denver are doing so voluntarily with full knowledge.

There is this very very weird (and almost bigoted) infantilization of these economic migrants. To endure the journey they have gone on to get to and then cross the border, they have to be enterprising, brave, and smart. I would bet money that the average IQ of these folks is above that of a typical American. They have smartphones, they pay close attention to the news, and treating them like hapless idiots is silly, insulting, and ineffective.

If we are presuming they are unable to use social programs because they aren't eligible, are we to also assume they are all subsistence farmers, since they aren't eligible to be hired?

Not saying they couldn't still be a net positive in terms of taxes vs. outlays.

Whether they are hired legally or illegally doesn't matter. Their mere existence in the state of Texas means that they pay state taxes. Texas doesn't have an income tax.

You can't live in Texas without paying sales tax. And you can't be housed in Texas without paying property tax (whether directly in the case or property ownership, or indirectly via rent).

You've missed my point. My point is they may very well use social programs they are ineligible for.

> Immigrants, both legal and illegal, are good for the economy in the LONG term.

Are illegal immigrants more likely to commit (other) crimes?

According to this study, illegal immigrants are less likely to commit any other crimes, whether violent or nonviolent.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2014704117

No.

Across the board, illegal immigrants are LESS likely to commit crimes. The exception are certain isolated crimes (like drunk driving) where the US has an aggressive cultural and legal framework of enforcement and social coercion/education.

Obviously, this has exceptions, and certain immigrant groups are going to have higher incidences than others.

> Across the board, illegal immigrants are LESS likely to commit crimes.

While true, it should be noted that part of this is because illegal immigrants can't be repeat offenders, unlike citizens. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 77 percent of former inmates are rearrested within five years [0].

[0] https://www.themarshallproject.org/2016/03/09/seven-things-t...

This isn’t my logic and I don’t think it’s sound at all. But expect that NYC will still sue using the logic.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com