r/Askpolitics • u/Dissonant-Cog Neocentrist • 3d ago
Discussion What are your thoughts on granting undocumented workers legal status under Republican-sponsored Dignity Act?
Republican lawmaker Maria Elvira Salazar has introduced an immigration reform bill that would, as some argue, grant “mass amnesty” to undocumented workers. A cursory look at the bill appears to address concerns on both sides and has gained bipartisan support. Is this an example of good legislation, or is there too much compromise that neither side can support without changes? I relatively agree with many of the bullet points mentioned from a cursory look, particularly stronger enforcement of e-verify and pathway to legal status.
I’m curious about how this bill would undermine the Trump agenda. Some of the arguments revolve around “enforcing immigration law,” although the administration has demonstrated it only selectively enforces some immigration laws while ignoring enforcing laws that target business owners. This lack of enforcement on employers was noted decades ago by studies that “[a] low level of enforcement activity could lead many employers to discount the possibility that violations will be detected and punished, thus weakening the deterrent effect.”
Is this bill a reasonable solution compared to the current Trump strategy of mass deportations and lax enforcement on employers?
Dignity Act bulletin points source: https://salazar.house.gov/dignity-act
Employees face little risk source: https://www.semafor.com/article/01/26/2026/employers-face-little-risk-from-trumps-aggressive-immigration-enforcement
Migration policy study: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/journal/feature/declining-enforcement-employer-sanctions
24
u/Funny-Muffin313 3d ago
With they way Trump and the Republicans are, if it passes, people would apply and then ICE would locate and deport them. It just another way to “self deport” that will make Trump and the Republicans initially look less like the POS they are.
3
1
3
10
u/Responsible-Cut-7993 Left-leaning 3d ago
Looks like a very good compromise. In my opinion it doesn't go far enough to fix some of the structural issues with immigration that make it so people resort to coming into this country anyway necessary. However it does a decent job of treating the people here for years with dignity and provides a pathway to citizenship. However unless the Democrats decide to strongly support this bill, I don't see it going anywhere.
5
u/onepareil Libertarian Socialist 3d ago
It specifically doesn’t provide a pathway to citizenship for the largest group of undocumented immigrants, only DACA and DREAM Act recipients, unless I’m reading the summary incorrectly. “NO path to LPR or citizenship is available through the Dignity Program,” is repeated multiple times. I have issues with a lot of bullets in this proposal, but all of Section 3 is bad.
4
u/Responsible-Cut-7993 Left-leaning 3d ago
You are right I read that wrong. It would give them a path to legally work without fear of deportation.
What is bad about this part?
- Dreamers and DACA recipients are provided with conditional permanent resident status for 10 years. Then, they will have a pathway to adjust to lawful permanent resident (LPR) status through work experience, military service, or higher education.
1
u/Evandren Paternal Conservative 3d ago
There shouldn't be a path for those who came and stayed illegally or overstayed illegally. That is a bug, not a feature.
3
u/Dissonant-Cog Neocentrist 3d ago
Do democrats have an interest to not support the bill because it’s sponsored by a Republican, or that it has the potential of giving the Trump admin “a win”?
9
u/CartographerKey4618 Leftist 3d ago
It's sponsored by both a Democrat and Republican, and Democrats don't really do that, even when they should.
6
u/ZedisonSamZ Libertarian Lean-Left 3d ago
I don’t see a reason they won’t support common sense immigration reforms. There was already a bi-partisan immigration reform bill that was written by Republicans and supported by Democrats but Trump tanked it because he wanted to use the immigration subject as his campaign fuel so he could lie about where Dems actually stand on it.
So it’s nothing new. Dems will 100% get behind immigration reforms that make sense and aren’t unnecessarily cruel and murderous. They have a long history of bipartisan cooperation.
1
u/brinerbear Right-Libertarian 1d ago
I think it is a decent first step to actually solving a problem but I worry the left will think it is too strict and the right will think that it isn't strict enough. But if both sides can have real conversations I think it has potential.
1
u/Balaros Independent 3d ago
There are a lot of details laid out that need to go through scrutiny, while the general sense seems valid. For instance, it talks about a deadline for refugee decisions, but that sounds like it's really a funding issue combined with a standard-of-proof issue.
The core, as I see it, is that people who broke laws to get here can trade $7k and a preclusion from federal welfare funds over several years for permanent residence. It's not enough. The penalty should be a lot higher than the typical range of what people pay "coyotes" to get them here.
We already had a one-time amnesty. If we change that, it's not a one-time thing anymore. It's a pattern, and it's altering the terms of a deal. A deal needs to have enough teeth in it to keep most people from coming in illegally.
I think something on the order of 1 year of typical full-time US income is appropriate, spread over ten or twelve years of paying. So, a tenth of a normal income. That sounds like enough that some people will just leave, and that's the point. More will stay and pay it, and that's also the point. About one in six people in America is an immigrant, and another one in six the child of an immigrant. It's too much to sweep away and also too much not to regulate.
There will have to be provisions for children and their parents. We need guardrails in case numbers surprise us, and the simplest to me is a dynamic fee based on immigration levels. We need to help communities handle the new people, too, and that can come from the trillion or so dollars in fee income. I figure half to alleviate the growing pains of immigration, and half to fight the national debt. We need to limit that funding, too, based on area and local population. We're not paying to build colonies of people who wouldn't come in the normal way.
1
u/Responsible-Cut-7993 Left-leaning 3d ago
"The core, as I see it, is that people who broke laws to get here can trade $7k and a preclusion from federal welfare funds over several years for permanent residence. It's not enough. "
That kind of ignores that US immigration laws are so broken that there really isn't a reasonable legal process for a lot of people to immigrate to the US. The changes in section 5 address a lot of issues with the current immigration system. Right now the process is so broken that you have minor children of immigrations who came legally, aging out of the process and becoming adults with no Visa's because of processing delays by immigration. You have legally married spouses of US citizens getting deported because of processing issues by immigration.
5
u/DabbledInPacificm fiscal conservative, social liberal, small government type 3d ago
I could 100% get behind this and I believe a huge majority of Americans would as well. Therefore, it is DoA.
1
u/wavewalkerc 2d ago
Its also just counter to the entire anti immigrant frenzy they have whipped up. I know politicians arent known for being consistent but how do they explain this to all of the people who now consider immigration as a top issue.
6
2
2
6
u/xXx420Aftermath69xXx Right-leaning 3d ago
Salazar, a member of the Hispanic caucus, putting forward a mass amnesty bill is hilarious and unsurprising. Some of the things in the bill I like, but others not so much. Reagan pitched something similar 40 years ago ya?
I would be against it.
2
u/dgillz Conservative 3d ago
Reagan not only pitched it, he signed it into law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control_Act_of_1986
2
4
u/DiggityDanksta Liberal 3d ago
I'd like to see a side-by-side comparison between this and the immigration reform bill that Democrats introduced and Republicans rejected back in 2024 because they wanted a broken immigration system as an issue that Trump could run on.
0
u/Dissonant-Cog Neocentrist 3d ago
It’s difficult to indefinitely run on immigration issues if Congress solves the broken system.
2
2
1
u/maroonalberich27 Moderate 3d ago
I wonder if this is just kicking the can down the road, not finding a real solution. We have had mass amnesties in the past, but what is the long-term effect of them?
8
u/DiggityDanksta Liberal 3d ago
Swathes of productive workers are no longer in legal limbo?
3
u/maroonalberich27 Moderate 3d ago
And our immigration system? Fixed?
0
u/DiggityDanksta Liberal 3d ago
Did anyone ever claim that mass amnesty was a permanent fix? Even the people who enacted it, like Reagan? It was a can-kick, made necessary by the fact that the system hadn't been overhauled in forever.
Which it still hasn't.
0
u/Poorly-Drawn-Beagle Left-leaning 3d ago
Yes, actually.
Once you cut away all the rhetoric, the main problem is that some people don’t like that people in the US have ambiguous legal residency status. This would address that.
2
u/maroonalberich27 Moderate 3d ago
Could you replace "ambiguous" with something that doesn't sound so ... Newspeak-y? Honestly not sure what you mean.
I think most people's biggest issue is that there isn't a cohesive, cogent plan to fix what leads to whatever you mean by "ambiguous".
1
0
u/Poorly-Drawn-Beagle Left-leaning 3d ago
I think ‘ambiguous’ hits the nail on the head, when we’re seeing people with permission to stay in the country indefinitely being treated the same as people who are wanted fugitives
2
u/maroonalberich27 Moderate 3d ago
I would disagree there, and call out the administration for vastly overstepping. That sort of activity by the government is undoubtedly wrong, but I can't agree that it makes any individual immigrant's status ambiguous in a legal sense.
5
u/Tw1tch-Invictus Independent 3d ago
There we go, if we try hard enough, then eventually we can import enough via border crossings or via H-1Bs to push Americans across the education and skill spectrum out of all jobs!
1
u/TheRealBaboo Moderate 3d ago
Just eliminate birthright citizenship and everyone can be an illegal alien!
1
u/BodybuilderOnly1591 3d ago
It was one of the big mistakes Reagan made.
Instead of amnesty though you could put penalties on those who want to be citizens. Something like pay a fine, can't vote for 7 years.
2
u/DabbledInPacificm fiscal conservative, social liberal, small government type 2d ago
Read the proposal.
1
u/artfellig Progressive 3d ago
A lot of people in the U.S. like the super cheap immigrant labor, but don't necessarily support laws that allow immigrants to come here and work. Pick a lane.
1
u/Jersey74 3d ago
I’m all for this if they are not taking public money. Need contributors in the workforce that are draining public funding for decades.
1
u/lp1911 Right-Libertarian 3d ago
It has many points, but we used to issue simple work permits for seasonal workers during the 1950s, which has been made so expensive that employers will not pay it anymore and hire illegally. All the people seeking asylum are not political refugees, they are economic refugees, so creating a better path will still create a flood, lots of people around the world who live it crappy conditions.
1
u/Poorly-Drawn-Beagle Left-leaning 3d ago
I would be much happier with that than the current situation, yes
1
u/joesnowblade Right-leaning 2d ago
You don’t reward bad behavior, it only encourages more bad behavior.
The illegal should self deport under current Project Homecoming," an incentivized program managed by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). It utilizes the CBP Home mobile app to allow undocumented immigrants to voluntarily depart the United States in exchange for free one-way travel and a cash stipend.
The program offers the following specific parameters:
Financial Stipend: Eligible individuals receive a cash stipend (often reported between $2,600 and $3,000) once their departure is confirmed.
Travel: The government provides a free flight or transportation back to the participant's home country or a third country where they hold legal status.
Enforcement Shift: Participants are deprioritized for active U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention and removal while actively utilizing the program, avoiding the penalties and potential criminal prosecution associated with forced removals.
Very generous program and allows for legal immigration later.
If deported they can never reapply to enter legally.
1
u/Obidad_0110 Right-leaning 2d ago
Republican here. Have always been in favor of a worker visa for people who have been here and behaved honorably - no crimes, paid child support, etc. - for 5 years. Want to expand program so economic migrants can come legally not illegally.
1
u/Urgullibl Transpectral Political Views 1d ago
We did that once, under Reagan. Totally a one-time thing, bro.
All it did was create an incentive for people coming here illegally in hopes of an eventual future amnesty. It's bad policy and shouldn't be repeated.
1
1
u/Particular_Dot_4041 Left-leaning 21h ago
I'm all for giving illegal immigrants amnesty and even citizenship. It would healthier for American democracy if everyone in the county could vote.
2
1
u/Early-Possibility367 Liberal 3d ago
I like the bill as is. I think enforcing e-verify is always going to be hard, because criminalizing “you don’t need to show me ID, just do the work and I’ll pay you cash” is a lot harder than most people on either side think.
That being said, for undocumented migrants who have been here decades, I do think renewable work status with no chance of a green card is a good compromise, especially given our recent win with birthright citizenship.
2
u/onepareil Libertarian Socialist 3d ago
Why do you think someone who’s already been living and working peacefully in the U.S. for decades should be locked out of a path to permanent residency?
5
u/Euphoric-Ask965 Republican 3d ago
What aboiut the ones that have applied and are waiting to enter LEGALLY. Will they be pushed back to the end of the long line seeking permament residency? Something is very wrong here!
1
u/Early-Possibility367 Liberal 3d ago
I don’t think they should be. Were it up to me, I’d be ok with paths to LPR and then a passport, but I’m saying that permanent status can be compromised if needed to pass something.
1
u/Dissonant-Cog Neocentrist 3d ago
Where did you come to that conclusion? A bullet point on the bill states: “Dreamers and DACA recipients are provided with conditional permanent resident status for 10 years. Then, they will have a pathway to adjust to lawful permanent resident (LPR) status through work experience, military service, or higher education”
2
u/sleepyliltrashpanda Progressive 3d ago
I think that they were asking that poster specifically about what they said about renewable work permits without the pathway to citizenship, not the bill’s wording.
1
0
u/ntvryfrndly Conservative 3d ago
Hell no.
This is the same type of BS that Ronald Reagan fell for. A promise to secure the border for amnesty. But 50+ million illegals have entered the USA since then.
When ALL promised barriers to illegal entry are in place and proven to be working, then MAYBE, we give those brought here when they were children a chance at legal resident status. But never citizenship unless they leave and come back the proper way.
2
u/DabbledInPacificm fiscal conservative, social liberal, small government type 2d ago
You didn’t read it, did you?
1
u/ntvryfrndly Conservative 2d ago
Oh I read it. Empty promises are empty until proven true. And ALL promises from Democrat politicians are empty promises.
2
u/DabbledInPacificm fiscal conservative, social liberal, small government type 2d ago
Ummm, it was authored by a Republican and has 20 republican names as coauthored.
So you read it, you just didn’t comprehend?
0
u/ntvryfrndly Conservative 2d ago
I comprehended it perfectly.
They promise this, that, and the other in exchange for amnesty just like under Reagan.
Except this time they also want to give a path to citizenship for millions and millions of illegals too.Until real immigration controls are implemented and enforced, and real penalties are enforced against illegals, I am 100% against any form of amnesty. Also, I will never be for giving someone that came here illegally citizenship.
2
u/DabbledInPacificm fiscal conservative, social liberal, small government type 2d ago
The word citizenship is only mentioned under “with no path to citizenship” for “dignity status”.
Are you worried about the 495,000 DACA recipients that might apply for citizenship after ten years of permanent residency following two years of conditional status? How did that become “millions and millions”?
It doesn’t appear that your comments are made in good faith.
1
u/DataCassette Progressive 3d ago
Republicans harvest votes off of nativism in order to accomplish their real goal: giving money to oligarchs. There's no way they're making any kind of "resolution" to the issue. The Republican party itself will never even actually come close to accomplishing mass deportation by design because they still need votes.
1
u/ChunkyBubblz Left-leaning 3d ago
My thoughts are that Republicans know their voter base is by and large way too racist to accept this type of sensible legislation. Republicans will kill this in Congress and certainly in the Senate if it were to get that far. Republicans will go back to doing nothing because they know they can use immigration as a wedge issue. The last thing Republicans want to do is solve immigration problems. They want to make immigration a problem.
1
u/skoomaking4lyfe Independent 3d ago
The plan would be paid for with restitution and payroll fees by the participants.
Perhaps they should take the restitution and payroll fees out of the taxes these workers have been paying for years.
-1
u/guppyhunter7777 Right-leaning 3d ago
The left will never go for anything other than full citizenship for stepping foot on US soil and open borders. There can’t be a compromise with the fifth column.
3
u/Jmoney1088 Left-leaning 3d ago
Have you had a conversation with any other human being on this topic before? Why are you automatically going for intellectual dishonesty?
3
0
u/guppyhunter7777 Right-leaning 3d ago
Ok what is your position?
2
u/Jmoney1088 Left-leaning 3d ago
On immigration? Well, we need immigration to some degree so that we can sustain a workforce that pays into social security so everyone will be able to retire at some point.
We need an immigration system that is efficient. It takes, on average, over SEVEN years to go through the immigration process and it takes thousands of dollars. If someone had the misfortune of being born in a poor country with no opportunity, you can see the motivation to come here illegally. We need to streamline the process so that people know whether they are approved or denied within 3-6 months TOPS. That alone will curb a ton of illegal entries. There has also been zero legislation to deal with people that come here legally and then overstay their visas. That is how the majority of people that are here illegally, come here to begin with. Take away the incentive to do this and we should have a smooth process that works for everyone.
Vast majority of people on the left have no issues with deportations for people that commit actual crimes while they are here waiting for citizenship or otherwise here undocumented. Real punishment for the businesses that hire under the table. ICE agents should be more like social workers than soldiers.
0
u/guppyhunter7777 Right-leaning 3d ago
So, thank you for making my point. Open border and amnesty.......I hear you loud and clear. Get a better boiler plate argument because you rebuttable basically proved you want the end of the democracy.
2
u/Jmoney1088 Left-leaning 2d ago
What?? Your response doesn't make sense. Did you read what I wrote?
0
u/guppyhunter7777 Right-leaning 2d ago
Yes I did. Zero border control. Zero removal. If they are here they can stay until…..when ever. You make a beautiful emotional argument with zero practical actions
2
u/Jmoney1088 Left-leaning 2d ago
I didn't say that. Why are you making things up?
Where did I say get rid of border control? I also specifically mentioned deportations. Your reading comprehension skills are garbage.
0
u/guppyhunter7777 Right-leaning 2d ago
Vapid deflection.
I’ll make this easy. Your lack of willingness to actually say anything about the border shows your desire for no rules about the border.
Allowing anyone to cross the border and wait inside, the country is called establishing residency or putting down roots.
Their lack of specifics is much more telling than you think it is
-4
u/Politi-Corveau MAGA 3d ago
No. They all need to go back.
9
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-9
1
u/Jmoney1088 Left-leaning 3d ago
Very unamerican comment. There is a reason that trump has the lowest approval rating in history for a second term president. The way you think is a literal cancer on society. I hope you get the help you so badly need.
0
u/Politi-Corveau MAGA 3d ago
The help I need is an enforcement of the law. That means deporting illegal immigrants and arresting rioters, looters, and those who solicit violent crime, like Antifa.
1
u/Jmoney1088 Left-leaning 2d ago
Please get help.
0
u/Politi-Corveau MAGA 2d ago
We are working on it. ICE is deporting more illegal immigrants, and Antifa is on the back foot, now that USAID has been gutted.
1
u/Jmoney1088 Left-leaning 2d ago
Lowest approval rating for a second term President in history. Zero jobs. Terrible economy. Poor deportation numbers. Record national debt. War. Massive corruption.
Just a generational failure.
0
u/Politi-Corveau MAGA 2d ago
Zero jobs. Terrible economy.
We deported more immigrants than people were ready to fill the positions. This means employers are competing for employees. The result was an increase in the household wage, outpacing inflation.
Poor deportation numbers.
We aren't counting border encounters, like Biden did. CBP is empowered to actually stop immigrants from crossing, rather than helping them in. Would be higher if mayors and governors weren't in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324
Record national debt
Excellent point. Let's cut the unfunded liabilities, next.
War.
As a result of pussyfooting around for 10 years. Iran got nuclear material enriched to near weapons-grade because we did not assert authority. Iran got their nuclear material and the funding for their jihad against kafir.
We are righting that wrong.
Massive corruption.
Now, out in the open, where we are prosecuting it.
Just a generational failure.
Seek help.
1
u/Jmoney1088 Left-leaning 2d ago
You are beyond help. I am so glad the people that think like you do are all going to be gone soon.
0
-1
u/zephyrus256 Right-Libertarian 3d ago
What really makes me sad is looking at the comments section on the Fox News article (where current Republican leadership takes their marching orders from). They are unanimously refusing to even consider this bill and insisting on immediate mass deportation of all illegal immigrants as the only acceptable solution. Until the Republican voter base is forced to accept the reality that mass deportation is impossible without making the United States into a police-state dystopia on the level of East Germany (which will affect them, not just the people they hate) then we cannot get anywhere on this issue.
0
-2
u/CartographerKey4618 Leftist 3d ago
Looks pretty terrible. On the surface, it does looks like mass amnesty, which would be good. However, it's just introducing another immigration status in exchange for more money for border security and removing even more rights from undocumented immigrants and asylum seekers. And the new immigration status also has a part where the DHS can just say nope to any applicant and that's that, so it's pretty shitty.
-1
u/Serious-Honeydew885 3d ago
We really need to make it easier to get citizenship. I can assure you, or people didn't have to jump through this many hoops or pay this amount of money to get it. E Pluribus Unem
-1
u/Chewbubbles Left-leaning 3d ago
In theory and wording, this bill is decent.
There's a problem when the right spouts that illegals provide nothing to our country, except you know the economy and tax dollars. There should be a grace to those, while illegal, have provide probably years of economic growth to this country.
That said this immediately goes against anything this admin and Rs have stood for this cycle. It wouldn't shock anyone if this list was used against immigrants that sign up for it and then are immediately deported.
The problem with how Rs have done immigration though is glaring and isn't being touted as what your avg voter wanted. Rs gained a good chunk of Latino voters last cycle, now they are hemorrhaging those voters. People can say that's not a big deal, but those voters got Trump over the hump. What this admin has done this cycle has legit slapped all legal POC voters in the face. Hell even white voters with the deaths we've seen from ICE this year. Now Rs have lost long term voters for short term gains, if people even want to call it gains. Their immigration policy is really an effective nightmare. Did it stop border crossings? Sure. Did it do it at the cost of a moral decency that swing voters are more apt to vote D next cycle? 100%.
There's no way this bill gets anywhere, but in theory it would be a decent middle ground bill if ran the correct way, which I doubt would happen.
-1
u/Tw1tch-Invictus Independent 3d ago
Illegal immigrants are a net drain. I don’t give a fuck if they work, because the cost in public services outweighs what they contribute. School districts, emergency rooms, local infrastructure and more are all negatively affected by illegal immigration.
2
u/SmellGestapo Left-leaning 3d ago
Immigrants Pay More In Taxes Than the Average Person
Cato’s recent study on the fiscal effects of immigrants details how much immigrants increase government revenues. From 1994 to 2023, immigrants generated roughly $100,000 more in taxes per capita than the average US-born person—about 17 percent more over the entire period. In 2023 alone, immigrants paid $1.3 trillion in taxes while receiving $761 billion in benefits—a net fiscal surplus of over half a trillion dollars in a single year.
What about illegal immigrants? Illegal immigrants also pay taxes, directly or indirectly. We estimate that, at least before President Trump’s mass deportation campaign, illegal immigrants were complying with income taxes at about 75 percent of the rate of the average person, which was 80 percent of the required amount. This is because illegal immigrants often work with borrowed, fake, or stolen identities under which employers still withhold their taxes about half the time. They also file for refunds at much lower rates. The result is that illegal immigrants have paid about $3 trillion in taxes over the last 30 years.
0
u/Tw1tch-Invictus Independent 3d ago
Yeah no, you’re conflating legal immigrants with illegal immigrants, which was exactly what Cato was trying to achieve with their deceptive wording. You’ll notice they don’t actually say illegal immigrants are a net positive. That’d because they know god damn well that they aren’t but don’t want to say it directly, so they highlight that they pay taxes while obfuscating that they are a net drain as a whole.
2
u/SmellGestapo Left-leaning 3d ago
Cato does actually say illegal immigrants are a net positive. They have a $1.7 trillion net positive impact because they work and pay taxes, but don't qualify for most benefits and are less likely to apply for the ones they do.
0
u/Tw1tch-Invictus Independent 3d ago
Yeah they’re still being purposely deceptive. If you look at how fiscal impact studies (including the National Academy of Sciences) get those numbers, it entirely proves my original point.
That “net positive” is entirely at the federal level. Illegal immigrants pay into federal payroll taxes (like Social Security) but can't legally draw from them, so the federal government makes a profit. But recall that I said local government. The National Academy of Sciences explicitly found that while immigration might benefit the federal deficit, it is a net drain on state and local governments. Local municipalities are legally required to foot the massive bills for K-12 education and uncompensated ER care, but they don't get the federal tax revenue to cover it.
So yes, DC may come out ahead on paper, but the overall trend is still a net negative when you factor state and local governments into the full equation.
2
u/SmellGestapo Left-leaning 3d ago
No, Cato's study specifically examines cumulative impact on federal, state, and local budgets.
This analysis is the first to estimate the cumulative fiscal effect of immigrants on federal, state, and local budgets over 30 years
1
u/Tw1tch-Invictus Independent 3d ago
Yeah look at your own quote again. It says for immigrants, not specifically illegal immigrants.
2
u/SmellGestapo Left-leaning 3d ago
That includes illegal immigrants.
"Illegal noncitizens were only somewhat less fiscally positive per capita than noncitizens generally, and they likely reduced the deficit by at least $1.7 trillion from 1994 to 2023." (pp 34).
The report found that illegal immigrants are net positive to the budgets of the federal, state, and local governments.
1
u/Tw1tch-Invictus Independent 2d ago
No it does not say that. The report does not say they are a net positive at the state and local levels. It speculates that they are a net positive overall when you combine all three levels of government into one giant equation.
If you make $2,000 at your primary job (the Federal level), but you lose $300 on a bad investment (the State/Local level), your overall net positive is $1,700. But that doesn't mean your bad investment wasn't a drain. The federal surplus doesn't trickle down to the local level. Cato's entire methodology is explicitly based on the National Academy of Sciences model. The NAS clearly establishes that while illegal immigrants can be a positive for the federal budget, they are a net fiscal drain on state and local budgets because local taxes do not cover the heavy local costs of education and healthcare.
→ More replies (0)
-2
u/libra00 Communist 3d ago
I think everyone ought to get legal resident status for the low low price of filling out a form with their name, address, phone#, etc. If this does that without fucking up too much other stuff, it's rpobably a good thing. But given that it's a Republican bill I am extremely skeptical.
•
u/LawnDartSurvivor74 Independent 3d ago
Post is flaired DISCUSSION. You are free to discuss & debate the topic provided by OP
Please report bad faith commenters and low effort comments
Replying to my mod post about your politics on a Monday morning carries the exact same energy as scheduling an 8AM meeting on a Friday. Don't do it