[carolina_33]

Better and faster? Maybe. Cheaper? Definitely.

Approximately $20k per low-skilled immigrant household per year in taxpayer funded benefits. 57% of immigrant households (legal and illegal) use welfare. And 25% of our federal prison population are in the country illegally.

So the real price of strawberries would likely go down, considering the high cost the nation bares for the immediate gratification of cheap fruit.

[moosey]

> 57% of immigrant households (legal and illegal) use welfare.

Fact: 57% of _homes with children_ where the head of household is an immigrant use welfare, where these are the welfare programs in consideration: "The welfare programs examined in this report are SSI (Supplemental Security Income for low income elderly and disabled), TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families), WIC (Women, Infants, and Children food program), free/reduced school lunch, food stamps, Medicaid (health insurance for those with low incomes), public housing, and rent subsidies."

It could be millions of children, many US citizens, receiving reduced lunches. I didn't read much further because I didn't need to in order to be totally fine with feeding children, many of whom are US citizens. (Edit: to be clear, I'm ecstatic to be taxed to feed non-US citizen children as well).

About the prison situation:

> A 2005 report estimated that 27% of federal prison inmates are noncitizens, convicted of crimes while in the country legally or illegally.[34] However, federal prison inmates account for six percent of the total incarcerated population; noncitizen populations in state and local prisons are more difficult to establish.

It is 'technically true' that 27% of everyone in federal prison, or about 1.5% of the total prison population in the United States, was an immigrant in the country legally or illegally. The statistic doesn't go into more detail where I read.

Regarding the first entry, "$20k in costs per immigrant household per year", is complicated, and any person interested might want to spend time reading the wikipedia entry on the economic effects on immigrants [3].

[1] - https://www.disabled-world.com/news/america/immigrants.php [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_St... [3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_illegal_imm...

[escape_goat]

Well, obviously it would not happen unless there was a strong financial incentive. It would be a pretty big capital investment.

That aside, there are a few caveats that need to go with your citations.

Firstly, farm labour is simply not a "low-skilled" profession. You cannot up yourself from your chair, go to pick fruit, and expect to be anywhere near as productive as your "low-skilled" immigrant co-workers. Not until you have several years of experience. If you have any doubt, definitive proof of this can be found in the relative pricing of slaves (prior to emancipation) based on their years of field experience.

Secondly, although 57% of immigrant households do receive social benefits, in most cases it is an American citizen who is the person in the household eligible to receive the benefits.

Thirdly, illegal immigrants are disproportionately represented in federal prison populations because (i) illegal immigration is a federal crime, and (ii) international drug trafficking is a federal crime. Illegal immigrants are disproportionately likely to be in prison for one of those offences. However, there is no statistical correlation between immigrant populations (legal or otherwise) and higher crime rates.

[joshe]

This is a myth. Just as a starter, most low income people pay most of their taxes through sales, payroll and property tax (through rents and car registration). They pay a full share of both sales and property taxes and most of payroll taxes. Not only that, but about half of illegal immigrants pay income taxes [1].

One side is a bit worse, but the immigration policy debate is full of myths and wrong assumptions about basic facts.

Here's decent coverage of the more complex bits: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-10-30/immigr...

another:

https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/how-do-undocumented-immigr...

[1] https://www.vox.com/2018/4/13/17229018/undocumented-immigran...

[Pharmakon]

Can you cite those numbers? I checked one and even being generous you inflated it by quite a bit.

https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_citiz...

Thst indicates that if every single non U.S. citizen in federal custody were there illegally (unlikely) they’d represent 20% and not 25%. Further clarification from the Cato Institute: https://www.cato.org/blog/another-confusing-federal-report-i...

The evidence that legal and illegal immigrants are less likely to be incarcerated, convicted, or even arrested for crimes is so overwhelming that even immigration restrictionists like Mark Krikorian at the Center for Immigration Studies admit that, “A lot of data does suggest immigrants are less likely to be involved in crime.”

The Cato Institute being famously not left wing I’d add, founded by the Koch’s.

[escape_goat]

He is probably using reports from the Centre For Immigration Studies. I believe they can be trusted to use real data, but can't really be trusted to represent it in proper context. I'm not sure if they cherry-pick cynically or just out of confirmation bias.

1. 26% of Federal Prisoners are Aliens [https://cis.org/Huennekens/DOJ-26-Federal-Prisoners-Are-Alie...]

2. Welfare Use by Immigrant and Native Households [https://cis.org/Report/Cost-Welfare-Use-Immigrant-and-Native...]

[dfilppi]

Confirmation bias works both ways.

[escape_goat]

Shrugging and saying "confirmation bias works both ways" is neither factual nor a valid rebuttal. Confirmation bias is a value-neutral phenomenon. It is neither innate, unavoidable, nor inherent to sociopolitical analysis. It does not "work both ways." It works only one way.

There are numerous sources of policy opinion all across the political spectrum that exhibit confirmation bias. There are also those who attempt to limit their own bias and do scholarly policy work in good faith.

When a person or publishing entity exhibits a tendency to systematical devalue evidence that contradicts their assumptions, that is confirmation bias.