It's obvious that there is a loss of benefits given to low-skill non-immigrant households, but with my simple calculations based off Mr. Rector's data we come to the conclusion that is constantly brought up, that immigrants are in fact paying more money into the system than are those who are non-immigrants in the same economic bracket.

Here's another study that assesses the difference between immigrant and non-immigrant contributions and benefits received: http://media.miamiherald.com/smedia/2007/05/21/21....

"IMMIGRANTS IN FLORIDA: CHARACTERISTICS AND CONTRIBUTIONS": Eisenhauer, Zhang, Hernandez, & Angee; 2007

In the study some points are brought up:

"...we find that both immigrants and non-immigrants contribute more per capita than they receive, but that the net gain from immigrants is greater.Immigrants contribute nearly $1,500 per year more than they
receive, while non-immigrants contribute about $1,390 more than they receive." (pg. 35)

"We hope that this portrait of immigrants in the state of Florida is useful to those concerned with the state’s policies and its relations with its immigrant population. It provides a wealth of data concerning this population. The statistical evidence we have been able to uncover indicates that these newer residents and neighbors contribute more than they take from the state of Florida, although our evidence is unlikely to be the last word for those with a political or ideological disposition against immigrants." (pg. 36)

"The role of immigrants in our society is a highly contentious issue. Strongly ideological and “political” positions have been put forward in debates over public policy on this issue. This report hopes to inform that public debate, but it has not entered into highly ideological questions. Instead it adheres closely to questions that can be answered on a factual basis without relying heavily on ideology." (Pg. 36)

The last excerpt is really golden when applied to this discussion. I admire your attempt to provide evidence from a "reputable source" (here The Heritage Foundation), but looking at the goals of that foundation, I'm seeing how politically charged and biased their "scholarly reseach" is. Looking at the similarities between the two articles by Mr. Rector reveals a lot about what the Heritage Foundation is truly advocating for. His study "The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Households" seems to give the impression that the solution to the deficit problems is to in fact remove the low-skill household bracket from the economy by addressing issues of Medicare and Social Security. His one caveat is that the biggest changes would come from immigration reform and that a sudden increase in immigrant workers would cause the deficit to skyrocket, when in fact they would still be paying more than non-immigrant households do in taxes. I think it's funny that someone would use a source to try to support their claims when in fact their source puts all poor people at the butt end of the stick. The Heritage Foundation is an elitist conservative think tank that serves the upper class poorly disguised as a legitimate research organization. I encourage everyone to look for legitimate unbiased information when addressing this issue, unless he or she wants to have some frantic ideological orgy.

PhredE,
We were discussing immigration on another article's comment section and I was hoping to hear your rebuttal for my comment. Luckily you brought up immigration here so it's not entirely off topic.

First off, there's an important semantics issue that's brought up in Mr. Rector's article: the use of immigrant rather than illegal immigrant. The point he is bringing up in his study is that low-skill immigrants are a drain on the US economy. But I'll entertain the idea that this is applicable and useful infomation for the issue at hand. In another article he brings up essentially the same thing about the entire low-skill demographic."The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Households", Robert Rector: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/04/....

And here are some interesting excerpts from it:

Aggregate Net Fiscal Costs

In 2004, there were 17.7 million low-skill households. As shown in Chart 5, the average net fiscal deficit per household was $22,449. This means that the total annual fiscal deficit (total ben­efits received minus total taxes paid) for all 17.7 million low-skill households together equaled $397 billion (the deficit of $22,449 per household times 17.7 million households). This sum includes direct and means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services.

If the low-skill households' share of interest and other financial obligations for past activities is added, the total annual fiscal deficit of these households rose to $483 billion. Over the next ten years, the constant dollar net cost of low-skill households (immediate benefits received minus taxes paid) is likely to be at least $3.9 trillion. Policy changes that would expand entitlement programs such as Medicaid will increase these costs at the margin. On the other hand, changes in immigration law that would significantly increase the inflow of low-skill workers and families will increase future government spending dramatically.

Now let's compare it to the statistics he listed in his "The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Immigrants to State and Local Taxpayers":

"In 2004, there were 4.54 million low-skill immigrant households. The average net fiscal deficit per household for federal, state and local spending combined was $19,588. This means that the total annual fiscal deficit (total benefits received minus total taxes paid) for all 4.54 million low-skill immigrant households together equaled $89.1 billion.

Over half of this fiscal deficit occurs at the state and local level. The annual fiscal deficit for all low skill immigrant households at the state and local level in 2004 was $49.1 billion. Over the next ten years the state and local fiscal deficit will approach a half trillion dollars."

Now using simple arithmetic I will calculate how much
(17.7 million total low-skill households) - (4.54 million total low-skill immigrant households) =
13.16 million total low-skill non-immigrant households

($483 billion total fiscal deficit for low-skill households) - ($89.1 billion total fiscal deficit for low-skill immigrant households) =
393.9 billion total fiscal deficit for low-skill non-immigrant households

The $89.1 billion accounts for roughly 19% of the $483 total fiscal deficit.

($393.9 billion total fiscal deficit for low-skill non-immigrant households) / (13.16 million total low-skill non-immigrant households) = $29931.61 total fiscal deficit per low-skill non-immigrant household

The $393.9 billion accounts for roughly 81% of $483 billion total fiscal deficit.

So that makes it a difference of $10343.61 between the annual deficit incurred by immigrant and non-immigrant households.

Low-skill immigrant households also pay more per household in taxes than their non-immigrant counterparts.
$127.5 bil taxes paid (72% of taxes paid) for 13.16 mil households (75% of low-skill population)

$47.9 bil taxes paid (28% taxes paid) for 4.54 mil households (25% of low-skill population)

It's obvious that there is a loss of benefits given to low-skill non-immigrant households, but with my simple calculations based off Mr. Rector's data we come to the conclusion that is constantly brought up, that immigrants are in fact paying more money into the system than are those who are non-immigrants in the same economic bracket.

Here's another study that assesses the difference between immigrant and non-immigrant contributions and benefits received: http://media.miamiherald.com/smedia/2007/05/21/21...

"IMMIGRANTS IN FLORIDA: CHARACTERISTICS AND CONTRIBUTIONS": Eisenhauer, Zhang, Hernandez, & Angee; 2007

In the study some points are brought up:

"...we find that both immigrants and non-immigrants contribute more per capita than they receive, but that the net gain from immigrants is greater.Immigrants contribute nearly $1,500 per year more than they
receive, while non-immigrants contribute about $1,390 more than they receive." (pg. 35)

"We hope that this portrait of immigrants in the state of Florida is useful to those concerned with the state’s policies and its relations with its immigrant population. It provides a wealth of data concerning this population. The statistical evidence we have been able to uncover indicates that these newer residents and neighbors contribute more than they take from the state of Florida, although our evidence is unlikely to be the last word for those with a political or ideological disposition against immigrants." (pg. 36)

"The role of immigrants in our society is a highly contentious issue. Strongly ideological and “political” positions have been put forward in debates over public policy on this issue. This report hopes to inform that public debate, but it has not entered into highly ideological questions. Instead it adheres closely to questions that can be answered on a factual basis without relying heavily on ideology." (Pg. 36)

The last excerpt is really golden when applied to this discussion. I admire your attempt to provide evidence from a "reputable source" (here The Heritage Foundation), but looking at the goals of that foundation, I'm seeing how politically charged and biased their "scholarly reseach" is. Looking at the similarities between the two articles by Mr. Rector reveals a lot about what the Heritage Foundation is truly advocating for. His study "The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Households" seems to give the impression that the solution to the deficit problems is to in fact remove the low-skill household bracket from the economy by addressing issues of Medicare and Social Security. His one caveat is that the biggest changes would come from immigration reform and that a sudden increase in immigrant workers would cause the deficit to skyrocket, when in fact they would still be paying more than non-immigrant households do in taxes. I think it's funny that someone would use a source to try to support their claims when in fact their source puts all poor people at the butt end of the stick. The Heritage Foundation is an elitist conservative think tank that serves the upper class poorly disguised as a legitimate research organization. I encourage everyone to look for legitimate unbiased information when addressing this issue, unless he or she wants to have some frantic ideological orgy.

First off, there's an important semantics issue that's brought up in Mr. Rector's article: the use of immigrant rather than illegal immigrant. The point he is bringing up in his study is that low-skill immigrants are a drain on the US economy. But I'll entertain the idea that this is applicable and useful infomation for the issue at hand. In another article he brings up essentially the same thing about the entire low-skill demographic."The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Households", Robert Rector: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/04/...

And here are some interesting excerpts from it:

Aggregate Net Fiscal Costs

In 2004, there were 17.7 million low-skill households. As shown in Chart 5, the average net fiscal deficit per household was $22,449. This means that the total annual fiscal deficit (total ben­efits received minus total taxes paid) for all 17.7 million low-skill households together equaled $397 billion (the deficit of $22,449 per household times 17.7 million households). This sum includes direct and means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services.

If the low-skill households' share of interest and other financial obligations for past activities is added, the total annual fiscal deficit of these households rose to $483 billion. Over the next ten years, the constant dollar net cost of low-skill households (immediate benefits received minus taxes paid) is likely to be at least $3.9 trillion. Policy changes that would expand entitlement programs such as Medicaid will increase these costs at the margin. On the other hand, changes in immigration law that would significantly increase the inflow of low-skill workers and families will increase future government spending dramatically.

Now let's compare it to the statistics he listed in his "The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Immigrants to State and Local Taxpayers":

"In 2004, there were 4.54 million low-skill immigrant households. The average net fiscal deficit per household for federal, state and local spending combined was $19,588. This means that the total annual fiscal deficit (total benefits received minus total taxes paid) for all 4.54 million low-skill immigrant households together equaled $89.1 billion.

Over half of this fiscal deficit occurs at the state and local level. The annual fiscal deficit for all low skill immigrant households at the state and local level in 2004 was $49.1 billion. Over the next ten years the state and local fiscal deficit will approach a half trillion dollars."

Now using simple arithmetic I will calculate how much
(17.7 million total low-skill households) - (4.54 million total low-skill immigrant households) =
13.16 million total low-skill non-immigrant households

($483 billion total fiscal deficit for low-skill households) - ($89.1 billion total fiscal deficit for low-skill immigrant households) =
393.9 billion total fiscal deficit for low-skill non-immigrant households

The $89.1 billion accounts for roughly 19% of the $483 total fiscal deficit.

($393.9 billion total fiscal deficit for low-skill non-immigrant households) / (13.16 million total low-skill non-immigrant households) = $29931.61 total fiscal deficit per low-skill non-immigrant household

The $393.9 billion accounts for roughly 81% of $483 billion total fiscal deficit.

So that makes it a difference of $10343.61 between the annual deficit incurred by immigrant and non-immigrant households.

Low-skill immigrant households also pay more per household in taxes than their non-immigrant counterparts.
$127.5 bil taxes paid (72% of taxes paid) for 13.16 mil households (75% of low-skill population)

$47.9 bil taxes paid (28% taxes paid) for 4.54 mil households (25% of low-skill population)

I'd watch out when citing the Center for Immigration Studies. After all look at the last paragraph of their purpose statement: The data collected by the Center during the past quarter-century has led many of our researchers to conclude that current, high levels of immigration are making it harder to achieve such important national objectives as better public schools, a cleaner environment, homeland security, and a living wage for every native-born and immigrant worker. These data may support criticism of US immigration policies, but they do not justify ill feelings toward our immigrant community. In fact, many of us at the Center are animated by a "low-immigration, pro-immigrant" vision of an America that admits fewer immigrants but affords a warmer welcome for those who are admitted.
That seems a little too lenient for you to be citing. And definitely lacking in racist connotations.

Wasn't it you who used my "points" as some sort of evidence to back your point? That's the poorest excuse of arguing I've ever seen. Learn to find references and cite them. Then I'll feel obliged to do the same for you.

I can't account for what someone told you but according to the HUD guidelines "WHO IS ELIGIBLE?
Public housing is limited to low-income families and individuals. An HA determines your eligibility based on: 1) annual gross income; 2) whether you qualify as elderly, a person with a disability, or as a family; and 3) U.S. citizenship or eligible immigration status..."
My only concern is that people are treated in the most beneficial way possible to them. Of course nothing will be perfect but at least it is a goal that is working toward fair and equal treatment of everyone despite what their legal status is. To me treating humans as humans surpasses the technicality of law.

It's sad to think that anyone who fancies himself as educated would leave his self-professed intellectual supremacy to a point counter.
No, I take it back: it isn't sad but absolutely laughable.

Looks like you've learned how to be racist in sociology class. Your broad swaths of perspective would make any educated person sick. You make unjust claims that are downright derogatory. Apparently you've been brainwashed like so many on this comments page into thinking that illegal immigrants receive welfare, social security, health benefits, etc. when you're wrong. The are ineligible except in the case of emergency situations in which case they are temporarily assisted.

I see a trend: the progressive incoherence of your sentences and conjectures inside them. Someone who's educated usually takes care of the most pertinent part of their argument first: the evidence. You fail to provide direct evidence in any of your claims.