Here is a different slant on immigration based on the basic objective of the USA of increasing "median family income"'
The idea is to compare both Mexico and the United States on the same basis which is how both are doing on "median family income". You know from prior blogs that I feel that we need a common objective if we are going to judge or compare different aspects of immigration. It is not easy to find data on the internet that is perfectly comparable. They can vary by date or exactly how the data was developed. I think that you will find that the differences are great enough that the slight differences in how the data was developed has zero impact on my conclusions. Here are some of the facts:
Median family income;
* Mexico----------------$14,502
* USA------------------- 45,509
Median family income of recent immigrants to the USA:
* Mexico--------------- $31,300
* Asia------------------- 46,000
* Europe---------------- 66,600
* Africa----------------- 34,800
Review the data above. I think that we can all agree that the people who are immigrating from Mexico illegally are well below the Mexico median family income. That means that they earn much less than the $14,502. I think that you understand math well enough to see that the affect of the illegal immigration into the USA "raises" the median family income of Mexico. Are you clear on that? Given that Mexico's basic objective is the same as ours, when their poor citizens immigrate into the USA, it helps Mexico.
Now look at what happens when they immigrate here. Again, it is clear that the majority of illegal immigrants from Mexico earn much less than USA citizens. When the number of families below the current median family income increases, the affect is to lower the median family income. Remembering our basic objective, this means that the USA is the loser.
If we want to improve the quality of life in the USA, it means that we need to raise the median family income, not lower it. To raise the median family income, we need immigrants who earn "more" than the current median family income, Look at my list above and you will see that we could accept more immigrants from Asia and Europe rather than from Mexico and Africa. Could it be any clearer?
Think about how it would help raise the quality of life here if we could send many of our poor citizens who are on welfare or unemployed to Mexico. It would also lower the crime rate too. It may sound like a broken record, but we need to agree on our basic objective and then be honest when we compare actions and decisions to that basic objective to determine if they are good for the USA or not. If you feel that we also need additional objectives, you have to be prepared to do "trade offs" between the objectives.
If you have a soft heart and want to help poor people around the world, realize that you have to consider how that objective affects the median family income objective. When you allow in immigrants who are below the median you have to think about how it lowers the median family income here along with our quality of life. The bottom line is that there is "no free lunch". When Mexico wins, the United States loses!
PS---Anther point is that many of the immigrants, whether legal or not, send remittances back home. For countries like Mexico and India they rely heavily on these remittances to supplement their economies.This is another way that both India and Mexico "win" and the United States "loses"! Any data used to evaluate our objective needs to take into account the impact of these remittances.
PS---Here is another adjustment that should be applied to immigration data and that is the number of children they have. The averaged number of children that a mother from Niger has is 7.2. I am not sure what it is for people from Mexico, but it is clearly more than than the 1.5 average for the USA. Let's say that the average for Mexico is 4. If we subtract the 1.5 average for the USA, we get an additional 2.5 children. If it averages $14,000 per year for school per child, we need to require that immigrants from Mexico earn $35,000 "more" than than our median. Using the data above, they need to earn $45,509 plus $35,000 or $80,509 for immigrants from Mexico. Europe is about the same as the USA, so they would require "no" adjustment. Starting to get a clearer picture? Note that Somalia averages about 6 children per mother and most Muslims are also much higher than the USA too. When will we wake up!!
The idea is to compare both Mexico and the United States on the same basis which is how both are doing on "median family income". You know from prior blogs that I feel that we need a common objective if we are going to judge or compare different aspects of immigration. It is not easy to find data on the internet that is perfectly comparable. They can vary by date or exactly how the data was developed. I think that you will find that the differences are great enough that the slight differences in how the data was developed has zero impact on my conclusions. Here are some of the facts:
Median family income;
* Mexico----------------$14,502
* USA------------------- 45,509
Median family income of recent immigrants to the USA:
* Mexico--------------- $31,300
* Asia------------------- 46,000
* Europe---------------- 66,600
* Africa----------------- 34,800
Review the data above. I think that we can all agree that the people who are immigrating from Mexico illegally are well below the Mexico median family income. That means that they earn much less than the $14,502. I think that you understand math well enough to see that the affect of the illegal immigration into the USA "raises" the median family income of Mexico. Are you clear on that? Given that Mexico's basic objective is the same as ours, when their poor citizens immigrate into the USA, it helps Mexico.
Now look at what happens when they immigrate here. Again, it is clear that the majority of illegal immigrants from Mexico earn much less than USA citizens. When the number of families below the current median family income increases, the affect is to lower the median family income. Remembering our basic objective, this means that the USA is the loser.
If we want to improve the quality of life in the USA, it means that we need to raise the median family income, not lower it. To raise the median family income, we need immigrants who earn "more" than the current median family income, Look at my list above and you will see that we could accept more immigrants from Asia and Europe rather than from Mexico and Africa. Could it be any clearer?
Think about how it would help raise the quality of life here if we could send many of our poor citizens who are on welfare or unemployed to Mexico. It would also lower the crime rate too. It may sound like a broken record, but we need to agree on our basic objective and then be honest when we compare actions and decisions to that basic objective to determine if they are good for the USA or not. If you feel that we also need additional objectives, you have to be prepared to do "trade offs" between the objectives.
If you have a soft heart and want to help poor people around the world, realize that you have to consider how that objective affects the median family income objective. When you allow in immigrants who are below the median you have to think about how it lowers the median family income here along with our quality of life. The bottom line is that there is "no free lunch". When Mexico wins, the United States loses!
PS---Anther point is that many of the immigrants, whether legal or not, send remittances back home. For countries like Mexico and India they rely heavily on these remittances to supplement their economies.This is another way that both India and Mexico "win" and the United States "loses"! Any data used to evaluate our objective needs to take into account the impact of these remittances.
PS---Here is another adjustment that should be applied to immigration data and that is the number of children they have. The averaged number of children that a mother from Niger has is 7.2. I am not sure what it is for people from Mexico, but it is clearly more than than the 1.5 average for the USA. Let's say that the average for Mexico is 4. If we subtract the 1.5 average for the USA, we get an additional 2.5 children. If it averages $14,000 per year for school per child, we need to require that immigrants from Mexico earn $35,000 "more" than than our median. Using the data above, they need to earn $45,509 plus $35,000 or $80,509 for immigrants from Mexico. Europe is about the same as the USA, so they would require "no" adjustment. Starting to get a clearer picture? Note that Somalia averages about 6 children per mother and most Muslims are also much higher than the USA too. When will we wake up!!
