Dobbs again cited discredited Heritage immigration figures
SUMMARY: Lou Dobbs claimed that "[i]f the Heritage Foundation [hadn't gotten] involved," a recent immigration bill passed by the Senate "would have approved 100 million immigrants into this country." But independent analysts have questioned the methodology and results of a Heritage study to which Dobbs was referring; the study claimed that the Senate bill would allow more than 100 million people to legally immigrate to the U.S. over the next 20 years.
On the July 14 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, Dobbs claimed that "[i]f the Heritage Foundation [hadn't gotten] involved" in the immigration debate, a recent bill passed by the Senate "would have approved 100 million immigrants into this country." Dobbs's statement about Heritage getting "involved" was a reference to a study issued by Heritage claiming that the Senate bill would allow more than 100 million immigrants to enter the U.S. over the next 20 years. The study has been credited with generating support for an amendment to the Senate bill that would reduce the number of immigrants allowed in the U.S. under the bill's proposed guest worker program. However, independent analysts have questioned the methodology and results of the Heritage study, as Media Matters for America noted when Dobbs previously cited it.
The Heritage study, conducted by Robert Rector, originally claimed that "[i]f enacted, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act [CIRA, S.2611] would ... allow[] an estimated 103 million persons to legally immigrate to the U.S. over the next 20 years -- fully one-third of the current population of the United States." Rector later reduced that number to 66 million after the Senate passed Sen. Jeff Bingaman's (D-NM) amendment that would limit the number of legal immigrants who could enter the United States under the bill's guest worker program. According to a May 23 Knight Ridder (now known as McClatchy) article, the Heritage study "helped persuade" the Senate to pass Bingaman's amendment.
The Rector study, which Dobbs has previously cited, has received widespread criticism. For instance, in a June 2 article, The Washington Post noted criticism of the study by an analyst at the Cato Institute:
Alan Reynolds, a senior fellow for the libertarian Cato Institute, said Rector's estimates "are preposterous." He accused Rector of compounding numbers to reach an alarming total and not taking into account that most immigrants who would become legal citizens already live in the country.
"They're basically saying, 'Gee, if we keep illegals illegal, then we would have fewer legal residents,' " Reynolds said.
Further, the Knight Ridder article quoted William Frey of the Brookings Institution stating that Rector's conclusions are "widely unrealistic," and that Rector arrived at the original 103 million figure by "assum[ing] the maximums, pull[ing] out all the stops for every loophole, possibility, and mak[ing] some assumptions -- some unrealistic -- about how many family members will be brought in."
Also, government projections for the Senate bill prior to Bingaman's amendment differ significantly from Dobbs' 20 year pre-Bingaman estimate of "100 million" total legal immigrants, or Rector's pre-Bingaman 10-year estimate of 49 million total legal immigrants. As the Knight Ridder article noted, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), in a May 16 report, concluded that the Senate bill without Bingaman's amendment would have allowed an additional 8 million immigrants to enter the United States legally over the next 10 years through a guest worker program. In addition, the bill would allow a one-time reclassification of about 11 million immigrants who have resided in the United States for more than 5 years to become citizens if, according to an ABC News article, "they pay $2,000 in fines, pass a background check, learn English, and work for six years." The bill would also allow current legal immigration levels of approximately 1 million a year to continue. Adding the CBO's 10-year projection of 8 million for the guest worker program, plus the one-time reclassification of 11 million for immigrants who have resided in the United States for more than 5 years, and adding 10 million (1 million per year for 10 years) for immigration through the current legal system, yields about 29 million total legal immigrants over the first 10 years of the program. After the first decade of the program, immigration numbers would likely be reduced because applicants under the one-time reclassification provisions would presumably become citizens, as allowed, six years after passage of the bill.
From the July 14 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight:
DOBBS: And the Senate would send everyone in this country, every citizen, straight to hell if they had their way. They didn't read the legislation that they wrote, and this -- and it just keeps coming up, creating the requirement to consult with the government of Mexico, before building a fence. I mean, it's just one thing after another. If the Heritage Foundation doesn't get involved in this, the Senate would have approved 100 million immigrants into this country, in addition to what we have over the next 20 years. I mean, they don't even know what they're doing.
may be a bit high, but you cannot just dismiss family reunification numbers. many of the people proposed for amnesty are men here by themselves and have a wife and several children back home. as citizens they would be allowed to bring in immediate family. you're talking a lot of people to add to our present population of 300 million. and that is on top of the present one million a year legal immigrants.
Whether the numbers are accurate or not is NOT the issue. The point is that no one in Congress has any idea HOW MANY would come and, worse, don't seem to care.
Where is YOUR outrage about the LACK of DIVERSITY in this Latino movement?.... there is a tremendous unbalance in the immigrant anarchy... which turns out to be either AFFIRMATIVE ACTION for Lations (read: Mexicans) and/or MASSIVE DISCRIMINATION IN FAVOR of Latinos/Mexicans.
Either way, IT'S TIME to focus on other parts of the world AND put limits on immigrants.... and deport illegals who are fugitives (490,000 of them) from law (for felonies) and the 300,000 illegals in our jails nationwide....
"Whether the numbers are accurate or not is NOT the issue."
Yeah, we don't want pesky little things like ACCURACY to get in the way of a policy discussion.
"The point is that no one in Congress has any idea HOW MANY would come and, worse, don't seem to care."
The point is the non-partisan CBO made a good faith estimate, using standard demographic and statistical tools, to arrive at a reasonable estimate. Dobbs didn't like those numbers, however, because they don't comport with his world view, so he used cooked numbers from the highly partisan Heritage Foundation. Is this what you want from journalists?
"...and deport illegals who are fugitives (490,000 of them) from law (for felonies) and the 300,000 illegals in our jails nationwide...."
You love numbers when they suit your purposes, don't you?
Ever question where they come from? Ever question whether they're accurate?
If you spenabout 12 minutes to do a little research here's what you would find:
Presently, there are only about 90 million Mexican citizens in their entire country--you know, the country everyone is all up in arms about. Cencus figures show that their population has doubled on average about every 45 years.
Now stop what you're doing and think about this logicaly for just a moment. Lets say there was a poulation explosion, and Mexico's population doubled in say 20 years. There would be 180 million Mexicans. And lets say that, oh I don't know, half of them wanted to come to the USA for whatever reason. That would be 90 million of them here. Now add about 10 million from other nations, and you got yerself 100 million immigrants.
Gee, I guess it is entirely possible.
I DON'T THINK SO!
a million, ten million, as long as the cons can get a mental image of a huge sea of brown-skinned, mustached, sombrero wearing felons in the quivering minds of enough people, we're in for more of the same.
That's not to mention men marrying men while they burn flags and throw bibles in the trash while wearing turbans.
Hey, I oughtta get some work on a GOP campaign.
even before this present amnesty proposal the census bureau was estimating a population of 400 million, at the minimum, by 2050. most of that tied to immigration. this will just increase it. i'm sure you're a big environmentalist, i am, but you just put down any questions about this to racism. the late senator gaylord nelson of wisconsin was the founder of earth day. he wanted immigration strictly limited because of environmental concerns. and who made this statement on nov. 1 2005: "our nation has a limited capacity to absorb excessive immigration." that would be the catholic bishops conference of the dominican republic. racism?
As soon as we get all the Christians out of America and any heterosexuals that are left, there will be plenty of room for more illegals. Political parties have to have priorities and I'm afraid that homosexuals and non-Christians have priority in America...you know, only the minority is allowed to have their vote counted in this democratic society.
That's why, for example, you hardly ever see white, Christian conservative males pontificating on the news media. It's all dominated by homosexual minorities.
It's so hard to be a Christian heterosexual male in America. No access to the levers of power, can't marry who they want, can't worship as they please. I tell you, to be a Christian heterosexual male in America today is to be a victim.
Exactly!!! So, you agree with what I'm saying then? Man, I thought I was the only one thinking that to be in the majority means you have no voting power. It's good to see I have a sight to go to where others feel the same way. Thanks for your support.
The right will come up with anything they can to scare the crap out of everyday JoeRedneck, and keep them voting for the dark side--"Gotta stop these illegal aliens before they take over the country."
What's next? Democrats will raise your taxes, start a war or two, raise the price of gas to over $3, allow us to be attacked on our own soil, take from the poor, give to the rich, raise interest rates, and stagnate the economy?
ya right, it's all a big rightwing scare tactic out to demonize all immigrants? i guess that's why your president publicly denounces illegal immigration but his policies and inept inactivity to secure our borders and prosecute employers who hire illegals, is well known. and tell those that are affected by the influx of illegal immigrants the most - the poor whose jobs are being taken away by them, driving down the price of labor, the gangs in our cities where many flourish, the taxing of our services such as hospital emergency rooms, you name it. ya, it's all another big right wing conspiracy. wake up.
and not following the RWing talking heads and their crisis du'jour. There's one surefire way to get the ignorant to the polls--scare the hell out of them.
Tommy, I'm glad to see you're writing to me again, however, your boggotry is showing once again. How can you criticize people who are trying to make a better life for their families, who come here and work hard doing jobs that we probably wouldn't consider doing?
Oh yes, I agree that they should be here legally, so lets make the process easier. After all, what differenciates an illegal from a legal allien?
And by the way, read my post above which gives facts and figures that show how improbable this right wing rhetoric actually is. I will back these up with links if you prefer, but it will take a while before I can do this because I have to go cash my unemployment check after I visit the welfare office, so my Caddillac payment won't be late.
Thnks for the "real smart" thing.
For a moment there I thought you weren't paying attention.
do you know that you and bush are in absolutely in lock step on this issue. two peas in a pod. so to say it's a right wing thing is ridiculous. bush is mr. right wing, right? and you two agree 100% on this issue. in fact, your post above sounds like his recent speech on the subject. congratulations, you are now an official right winger.
i won't address your other points because of the inflammatory racist charge, i don't take that race bait, sorry.
tell me I'm "race baiting." Example--"tell those that are affected by the influx of illegal immigrants the most - the poor whose jobs are being taken away by them, driving down the price of labor, the gangs in our cities where many flourish, the taxing of our services such as hospital emergency rooms, you name it. "
It read as though you are saying-- Illegal immigrants take substandard jobs, then slash each other up after work in their gangland fights, then don't pay their hospital bills.
We're talking about Latinos, so I must infur you believe whites don't cause these problems.
Finally, if I am in lock step with Junior on this issue, I would point out that it only took him 5-1/2 years to get something right.
And again, congratulations for doing what the right always does--skirting the issue you disagree with which is supported by facts in order to speak of something which you can win.
i made absolutely no reference to race of any kind. that was your unfounded leap. pitiful. expected. enjoy the conversation.
I'm interested in what studies have been done that show the taxation of our public healthcare, and extra police force man hours that are attributed to illegal aliens.. A lot of people talk about it, but I rarely see any numbers to support the information other than opinion. I'd also like to see the estimated amount of taxes that illegal immigrants do pay in terms of goods and services while they are here.
I personally lean towards the mindset that they are already here, might as well make sure we are taxing them on a federal level and making sure they are contributing to our social security. All this talk of marching them out of the country seems to be a little bit rash without much real thought to the consequences and net effects of doing that. Securing the borders to stop the problem from growing seems like a wise idea to me, however.
i have never advocated marching them out of them country, an unrealisitic and unworkable solution. the key is the employers. if we show them we are serious about cracking down on their hiring of illegals, much of the carrot of coming here illegally will be gone. enforce the borders with teeth and meaning, prosecute employers to the fullest - then discussions about how to proceed can go on.
however, I reserve the right to flipflop after further pondering. My point which you failed to address was that the problem has been exagerated by right wing talk, and Fox "News."
My first post pointed out that there are only 90 million Mexican citizens, their population doubles about every 45 years, and that it's very unlikely that there would be 100 million illegals in the USA in the next 20 years.
Where am I logically wrong?
there are presently about 106 million mexicans in that country. there were 36 million in 1961. that's tripling not doubling. and you are misreading what was said. we are not discussing a population increase because of 100 million illegal aliens. the population increase is because of legal and illegal immigration, family reunification by those who are granted citizenship, and the higher birth rates of immigrants. and do you have any comments on my original post on this? you would seem to disagree.
"do you have any comments on my original post on this? you would seem to disagree."
Sure, here goes--
"100 million may be a bit high."--I disagree, I think that it is impossibly high (over the 20 years they predicted). I find this hard to believe because right now, estimates say that there are about 10-12 million illegals. An average of about half of that total would have to be met every year for the next 20 years to meet the 100 mil prediction. Even if one counts legals from all venues into the total, it still seems unlikely.
"you cannot just dismiss family reunification numbers"-- I'm not certain of this because the numbers I saw from the US cencus was counting all, not just heads of housholds, and there was no breakdown of what percentage were here without their families. I'm assuming that "X" percent of the illegals are men or women who left their families home, but I've seen no hard data on what "X" would be, or the number who were left home. I may be missing your point here, and if I am please set me straight.
Paraphrasing--'Presently-- legal immigrants = about one million a year.' -- I think that's correct.
I'm not claiming to be a statistition (hell I'm not even sure I can spell it), I'm simply pointing out what I feel is the underlying message here; "Be afraid, be very afraid."
I truley believe that the problem is being manufactured in much the same way as the same sex mariage issue. The reason I believe this is simple--we heard little about this (except for Pat Buchannan) over the years, now it's an issue on the brink of an election where it appears that the Republican's may very well lose control of one or both houses. Hmmm.
you are concentrating solely on illegals. that's not the question. it's the total number of people who would be allowed in. you're also ignoring what i said about the census bureau's prediction of a population of over 400 million by 2050, and that was before this proposal. any comment on what gaylord nelson said about immigration? is there no effect on the environment? know who joanne woodward is? paul newman's wife? she is on the board of a group called negative population growth that is adamantly opposed to further immigration. is she a racist? was nelson? you can say this is just some manufactured issue, but it's been around for years and it still doesn't negate the questions just by saying that.
was a ballot initiative in california in 1994 to deny services to illegals , excepting emergency medical. it was national news well before and after the election. nothing new about this debate. [ it passed. a court struck it down.] and let me make clear again i don't think this bill by itself will bring in 100 million people. but i don't think 50 or 60 million is unreasonable over 20 years. look at any news film of people caught at the border. it's single men usually. many of them have families they send money to. those families would be eligible to come here.
with you about 50 or 60 million.
Again, I'm no statistician (I really should look up the spelling of st. . .), just expressing my gut feeling on this issue.
So, lets say that it is 50 million, what is the answer?
I'm all for zero (or near zero) population growth. And I fully realize that this is contradictory to allowing large numbers of aliens in--legal or not. I'm all for raising the min wage to a level that would allow a decent life those who's capabilities are limited, yet I know that this could trigger more aliens coming here and drive economic problems.
But my biggest fear is that our country becomes something less that that on which it was founded. Unfortuneately, it appears this could happen regardless of what we do concerning immigration.
Perhaps I haven't answered your questions, but my knee-jerk is to allow non-criminals to come here. My other knee-jerk is to not believe the problem is as bad as Fox "News" has been selling it to be.
Upon checking back at my first two posts I found that I wasn't responding to your initial post. I was first responding to Ellington, then posting a new comment. He (or she) was the one making the comments concerning illegals, and I thought I'd jump in.
But...I still, ... I'm not ...er, I just don't know about this 50 or 60 million thing. But I am absolutely certain that I'm not sure.
so i wasn't clear on that.
A new immigration thread and I'm late. . .
There's lots of data out there if one bothers to look. Here's a sample:
Auerbach, Alan & Orepoulos, Philip, "The Fiscal Effects of US Immigration: A Generational Accounting Perspective, in James Poterba, ed., Tax Policy and the Economy, Volume 14, Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 2000, pp 23-56 (In a nutshell, immigrants aren't cheap, they require public goods and services, and they are eligible for transfer payments. While most immigrants pay taxes, these taxes barely cover costs they engender. Notice the date -- well before this brouhaha)
[link to www.nga.org] A Report of the National Governers Association
The Houston Chronical archives (reg reqd) for "County's Costs for Illegal Immigrants Soars" 6/17/05: Harris County spent $100 million in 2005 for healthcare for illegal immigrants, up 70+% in just two years. This excludes costs incurred in emergency room settings. If you care to search the El Paso paper archives you'll find similar articles. Also check for Arizona and California newspaper articles describing the closing of hospitals due to lack of reimbursement.
And an interesting article I stumbled across today [link to www.cis.org]
And this one too, published this month in the Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis Review, via the link under the "Federal Reserve Researcher says U.S. Going Bankrupt" at www.polipundit.com. Yes, I know, but the link is worthwhile.
And if you track down the recent reports on the state of Emergency Room care in the US, you'll find more stats.
It's so easy to paint this as a racist thing. Keeps one from having to think, I suppose.
Fire away.
I'll read them when I have a bit more time.
There is also a UC Berkeley study that says reducing immigration (even undocumented immigrants) to zero would have no real affect on US economy, neither would doubling immigration. The educational level of immigrants brought in does have an effect on the economy though: [link to 66.102.7.104] Also, supposedly, more immigrants makes it difficult to fund huge wars, which is why Bush/Coulter/Republican Propaganda Noise Machine (RPNM) want us focused on immigration so much - they're making a bundle of cash in Iraq and don't want it to ever end. But many of the Republican base are also making a bundle off of underpaying immigrants and shoving their real costs onto the government, ergo this issue is nothing but a ruse/smokescreen designed to unfocus our attention from a costly, failed, pointless Iraqi War which bankrupted the country, a RepublicanParty and President who ran amok with tax cuts only for the Super Rich and illegal activities on a scale not seen since Stalinist Russia and consequently a country whose middle class is in sharp decline due to unchecked, unfettered Executive greed and power and constant erosion of civil rights, and ever greedier healthcare companies.
Republicans and Neocons have screwed this country time and time again. And America, you let them get away with it - Just Vote Democrat next time and we'll call it even.
and putting some of my money and time where my mouth is. but don't try to just pin the immigration issue on the republicans. the democrats are just as guilty for other reasons. both parties love to vote for more border guards and then not provide the funding. and we went through this same debate in the 80's. groups like la raza promised it would be a one time amnesty and they would support employer sanctions. they lied.
you are thinking about Bush's empty promises about increased border patrol funding: [link to www.sfgate.com]
Or the fact that Bush and Republicans scaled back (between 1999 and 2003) work-site enforcement operations were by 95 percent by the Immigration and Naturalization Service: Between 1999 and 2003, work-site enforcement operations were scaled back 95 percent by the Immigration and Naturalization Service
I have NO doubt that Democrats can handle it Waaaaay better than Republicans can.
See, Republicans have only exacerbated the immigration issue and given in to all sorts of rascist lunacy and bigotry fanning. And Conservatives only now push these crazy pieces of BS legislation (eg making undocumented immigration a felony) not necessarily because it's prudent, but because they're running scared about people thinking too much about their ineptitude in Iraq and Katrina, their bankrupting of the US economy and their total absence of morality. And that is why what you have said is totally wrong and without merit.
[link to www.washingtonpost.com]
your wapo link says "the [1998] georgia raids netted 4,034 illegal imigrants....'farmers started screaming to their local representatives'....the raids stopped." i said both parties. 1998 would be clinton.
bush did not provide funding. i clearly said both parties. "president clinton, for example, asked for no additional border patrol agents in his budget request last year, but the republican led congress approved 1,000 anyway." dallas morning news, "clinton cuts request for new border patrol agents", feb. 8 2000. again, both parties play the game.
this is from e. j. dionne's column, so it's not a right wing source. "a national acadamy of sciences study found that the average immigrant puts a net lifetime fiscal cost on state and local governments of $25,000."
academy
what do they contribute to the economy?
offer some figures.
How many of those immigrants would be GAY??
Let's say 3%, maybe. That would mean 3 million gays would come here! I can't believe we haven't already heard some Republican say "The Democrats want to bring 3 million homosexuals into the US!"
Here's another factoid from this morning:
"2006 General Accountability Office study reports that the Social Security Administration maintains a database called the Earnings Suspense File (ESF) to track fraudulent use of Social Security numbers. When an employer files payroll taxes for an employee, and the employee's name and Social Security number do not match or the number does not exist in Social Security's records, the unmatched or fraudulent number is recorded in the ESF. Though estimates of illegal aliens present in the U.S. range from twelve to twenty million, as of November 2004 the ESF contained over 246 million records.
The GAO also reports that forty-three percent of employers that file payroll taxes on stolen or fraudulent Social Security numbers represent just five industries. Further, 8,900 employers, .2 percent of all employers with reports in the ESF database, have submitted over thirty percent of the ESF's total records. "
So there are 246 million instances of mismatching SSNs as of 2004; sure sounds like a whole lot of identity theft going on. But the author is not clear in his definitions so one cannot really determine the number of bad SSNs versus the number of individual reporting records assigned to those SSNs, nor can one assume that one SSN mismatch equals one illegal immigrant as there are known rackets operating where one SSN is passed among many illegal immigrants. He didn't provide a link to the actual report.