S.F. Chronical: CBO should be honest about benefits of a massive amnesty

Posted Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 10:57 am
I have words of advice for the San Francisco Chronical: be careful what you wish for:
Last week, the allegedly "nonpartisan" Congressional Budget Office declared that the cost of implementing the immigration-reform plan approved by the U.S. Senate would be a staggering $126 billion over 10 years...

...But the report leaves out the economic contributions immigrants will make to the economy that might far outweigh any benefits they might receive. It also doesn't take into account the Social Security taxes newly legalized immigrants will pay at precisely the time that the Baby Boom generation begins retiring.

Those who want to play the immigration "cost" card should be willing to be honest not only about the costs, but also the benefits of legalizing immigrants to the U.S. economy.
Some of those costs are listed in "CBO Estimate of Senate Amnesty Grossly Understated, Asserts FAIR" (excerpt here). I look forward to the Chron discussing those costs in a future editorial, as well as the impact any amnesty will have on increased illegal immigration and other non-financial costs.

Comments

Fred Dawes (not verified)

Thu, 08/31/2006 - 13:29

D Flinchum is right on the money! but understand "we have no laws".

and George we have no real Federal code of ethics! or any kind of idea what duty is to the people or to the ideals of right against wrong it all comes down to money and vote and power over others. our so called government is not about national security its about the promotion of others who want us dead,dead,dead.

George (not verified)

Wed, 08/30/2006 - 08:00

The following is an exchange between myself and the Office of Government Ethics, an agency of the Exective Branch of our government. The subject is illegal immigration and the negligence willful of our government to enforce the law. I've deleted my e-mail address.

From : ContactOGE ContactOGE
Sent : Wednesday, August 30, 2006 2:34 PM
To : "George Williams"

Subject : Re: Ethics and Enforcing Federal Law

| | | Inbox

Mr. Williams,

I believe the most appropriate person to contact is the Inspector General's Office of the Department of Justice. Their website contains provides information on how to report claims of waste, fraud and abuse. A link to their website is provided below:

http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/

I hope this helps.

Nicole

>>> "George Williams" 08/29/2006 9:51 PM >>>

Nicole,

The persons I was referring to were the President of the United States and his Attorney General. To whom do I refer them to for their willful negligence in enforcing the immigration laws of this country?

George Williams

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "ContactOGE ContactOGE"
To: "George Williams"
Subject: Re: Ethics and Enforcing Federal Law
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 09:47:18 -0400

Dear Mr. Williams,
?lt;/div>
I am writing in response to your email sent August 25, 2006 to the U.S. Office of Government Ethics.?Subpart A of 5 C.F.R. 2635 (Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch) outlines the basic obligations of public service.?One of the General Principles states, "Employees shall disclose waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption to appropriate authorities" (2635.101 (b)(11)).?lt;/div>
?lt;/div>
It is the agency's responsibility to determine if the individual is in violation of the regulation falls to the agency to make a determination (2635.106(b)).?
?lt;/div>
I trust this helps.
?lt;/div>
Sincerely,
Nicole Stein
U.S. Office of Government Ethics

>>> "George Williams" 08/27/2006 8:50 PM >>>

Dear Sirs,

I have a question concerning the Executive Branch and the enforcement of the Code of Federal Regulations.?If an appointee in the Justice Department responsable for enforcing the laws of the land is aware of violations of the law but fails to take action to do so, is he in violation of the Federal code of ethics?

George Williams

D Flinchum (not verified)

Mon, 08/28/2006 - 16:58

Those costs reflect only federal costs and not state and local. Needless to say a big cost - K-12 education for the children - is mainly state and local as are a lot of Medicaid, housing, etc.

An army of unskilled and low-paid labor will not bail out the social security system when the boomers retire unless these workers paid into the system at the maximum rate and then never collected benefits themselves. They will in no way make the salary needed for the maximum payment (somewhere in the area of 90K a year right now). And not only will they collect, as they would be entitled to by law; but also they will get a better deal as to paid into/received out of than most of the retiring boomers. SS is geared to supplement lower paid workers at the expense of higher-paid workers.

And this leaves us with the question: Who will pay for THEIR SS benefits?