Wait, so legal immigrants only get a third of that?

How much of the federal and other benefits are getting paid to legal immigrants?

Slightly less than a quarter I mean, even less than a third.

Never fear guy from Queens, the GOP of today has no intention of offering an even remotely electable candidate. You may relax and enjoy your status quo.

How much of the federal and other benefits are getting paid to legal immigrants? ~ NicoleK at April 9, 2021 4:07 AM

I think the "logic" behind this is that legal immigrants are eligible for unemployment while illegal immigrants are not. Therefore, the government must pay the illegal immigrants a stipend during their enforced idleness to make things even..

As long as the $ is deducted to reduce the $ from any federal funds provided to these places. If local areas are going to give away money to illegals, it should come completely out of local pockets.

If local areas are going to give away money to illegals, it should come completely out of local pockets. ~ ruralcounsel at April 9, 2021 6:43 AM

Even if it does, that doesn't matter. Money is fungible.

It might be a good investment. From Wiki:

"Undocumented workers can be found working in almost every industry in New York City performing a wide variety of tasks. More than half of all dishwashers in the city are undocumented workers, as are a third of all sewing machine operators, painters, cooks, construction laborers, and food preparation workers."

Figure 135,000 out of work (out of a population of 375,000) who would normally make $30,000/year; they're worth about $4 billion a year plus multipliers to NYC. A one-time $2 billion payment to keep them around isn't so much.
Compare that to the $1 billion, $80,000/each/year that Seattle and King County spend to keep the homeless around.

https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2017/11/16/price-of-homelessness-seattle-king-county-costs.html

Reasoning Deficit Disorder: "There is a trespasser in my yard. I owe him money."

It doesn't work that way Spiderfall. Your logic is similar to the broken window fallacy.

"Your logic is similar to the broken window fallacy."

I don't follow your idea, Ben. I thought it's like keeping the machine greased during a shut down. It would be nice if the employers could come up with the money, but they're hurting too.

Spiderfall,

I think Ben is not objecting to the idea of these people hanging around and being ready to work. I think his concern is that he, presumably a fully legal taxpayer, is being asked to carry the financial weight of random strangers, in case they might be useful someday.

Speaking for myself, these people are not my family, not my neighbors, not fellow parishioners, not even Americans. Why then should I give money to random foreigners? If I somehow owe them money should they have to come here to collect it, or can I just wire money to every person in Guatemala and be done with it?

Compassion is great, but it needs law abiding, responsible citizens to balance it out.

Ken,
Oh, yes. I'm for stronger borders. I spent years in the construction industry in SoCal. I've even had illegals tell me there are too many Mexicans here.
My comment was exploring by what logic New York could justify this move. We know it's not compassion. We know the state leans left. Economics and cheap labor seem like good guesses.

> I've even had illegals tell me
> there are too many Mexicans here.

♥

I've even had illegals tell me there are too many Mexicans here. ~ Spiderfall at April 9, 2021 3:23 PM

I used to work next to two women who were legal immigrants, one Japanese and the other Danish. They would have back and forth discussions during work hours, which I would listen to, and sometimes contribute to.

One day, the discussion was on illegal immigrants and the proposed amnesty program. Both were vehemently opposed to it. They had immigrated legally and felt that rewarding illegal immigration cheapened their immigration experience.

Well, heck, let's just send them money while they're at home and save them the trip, shall we?

NY Post, April 9:

"The Biden administration is considering sending cash payments to Central Americans in a bid to prevent them from making the trek north as the US grapples with the worst immigration crisis seen in 20 years, Reuters reported Friday.

The potential cash transfer program would be targeted at residents of Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, which account for the overwhelming majority of migrants illegally crossing the border, Roberta Jacobson, the White House’s southern border coordinator, told the outlet."

More of that:

Biden signs memorandum reversing Trump abortion access restrictions

By Caroline Kelly and Nicole Gaouette, CNN
Updated 2:56 PM ET, Thu January 28, 2021

(CNN) - President Joe Biden signed a presidential memorandum on Thursday to reverse restrictions on abortion access domestically and abroad imposed and expanded by the Trump administration.

The memorandum will "reverse my predecessor's attack on women's health access," Biden told reporters during a signing ceremony in the Oval Office.

Even moar:

While some states, including California, choose to fund abortion in their Medicaid programs using state money, 33 states and the District of Columbia do not, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights.

The impact is vast. More than 7 million girls and women ages 15 to 44 are enrolled in Medicaid in those states where abortion coverage is not available, according to Guttmacher. It disproportionately affects Black women, about 31% of whom are enrolled in Medicaid, and Latino women, about 27% of whom are in the program. Comparatively, 16% of white women are enrolled.

And if the kids aren't white, well....

Spiderfall,

Your first mistake is "A one-time $2 billion payment ...". History has shown the likelihood of this actually being a one time payment is probably under 10%.

You next mistake is that the same people would be around after this payment. The economic benefit New York City gets from these workers is heavily based on them being undocumented and thus not taking government services. The proposal you presented would need to partially document these people just to hand out the benefits. So the beneficiary is presented with a choice. Do I get partially documented and significantly increase my risk of deportation or do I avoid the government benefits?

Essentially you can't get the money to the people you want. Will the money get spent? Definitely. But it won't have the intended consequence.

I have a friend who actually swam the Rio Grande when he was 16 to break into the US. A true wetback. He then got citizenship under the Reagan amnesty. His attitude on illegal immigration has always been 'I marched through deserts and swam across rivers to get away from those fuckers. Build a wall and shut that shit down NOW!'

Ah, Ben. Yes, thank you. Your two points sort of argue with each other. On the one hand, this will be a continuing windfall. On the other hand you suggest they will take the money and run.
I'm not sure what the odds are on this being just a one-time payment. According to some of the New Yorkers who are furious about it, odds are higher than 10%; especially after they throw the bums who voted for this out of office.
To your second point, why would they leave after they get the money? They've got the cash. The jobs are coming back. Many of them have lived in the community for more than a decade. And New York has non-cooperation policies in place to shield them from ICE.

Cribbed from a New York Times article ("$2.1 Billion for Undocumented Workers Signals New York’s Progressive Shift," April 8, 2021):

"Undocumented workers could receive the money if they can verify that they were state residents, ineligible for federal unemployment benefits and lost income as a result of the pandemic.
Others who can prove at least their residency and identity, and provide some work documentation, could be eligible for a lower sum up to $3,200."

So you see, "undocumented" is a bit of a misnomer. The language of the bill, again from the NYT, "includes several forms of documentation to be eligible for benefits:
"The budget language lists the wide array of documents that workers can use to prove eligibility. Those include driver’s licenses and state-issued identification cards; birth certificates and school transcripts; utility bills and bank statements; a letter from an employer; pay stubs, wage statements or wage notices; and a previous W-2 or 1099 tax form."

"Your two points sort of argue with each other."

You have completely misunderstood what I wrote, Spiderfall. And I do mean completely.

I argued there was a 90% chance this will be a continuing payment and not just a one time thing.

I agree with the Times the people you quote are the ones who will get the money. But they are not the people generating that blatantly inaccurate $4B in tax gains for NYC. The people you quote getting the money are a tax drain for the city. They already get a variety of benefits. I understand that the government of NYC doesn't want them to leave. But that is not a profit/loss issue. That is a prestige/ego issue. The city's balance sheet would actually improve if they left.

There were many truly undocumented workers in NYC that have generated a positive tax flow for the city. They will not take the risk of signing up for this. It isn't worth it.

Next question, how long do you think most people (not just undocumented workers) can go without a paycheck? The answer is 1-3 months. How long has NYC been closed? How many of those financially desirable workers are still in the city? The answer is this is far too little far far too late.

"On the one hand, this will be a continuing windfall. On the other hand you suggest they will take the money and run."
1. No they won't take the money.
2. They already had to run.

Now, the nice thing is such migrants are economic migrants. They are there to do a job and get paid, and they tend to be highly mobile. That is why they cleared out of NYC months ago. That is also why they may come back when jobs come back.

Do I think the government of NYC is really this incompetent? Actually yes but not on this issue. They are lying about who the program is really aimed at. As the NYT makes clear it is aimed at the partially documented. These people use a variety of city services and are a net tax drain. So the financial argument you made doesn't work. Instead this program will help to keep the servant class around, thus enriching the lives of the wealthiest in the city.

To circle back to the first comment I made on this, do Republican politicians in NYC object to this? Absolutely not! They may complain a little bit for the cameras but they will do nothing to stop any of this. If they miraculously got a majority they would have to bite the bullet and pass this themselves. After all can't have the help running away. Guy from Queens is SOL.

Ben, I believe you are the one completely misunderstanding.

Ben: "History has shown the likelihood of this actually being a one time payment is probably under 10%."

Spiderfall: "I'm not sure what the odds are on this being just a one-time payment. According to some of the New Yorkers who are furious about it, odds are higher than 10%;"

We disagree about the odds, but I'm sure I understood.
And, here's where you read me wrong:

Spiderfall: "Figure 135,000 out of work (out of a population of 375,000) who would normally make $30,000/year; they're worth about $4 billion a year plus multipliers to NYC."

Ben: ". . . that blatantly inaccurate $4B in tax gains for NYC."

The $4 billion is a rough guess at what they are worth to the economy: quantity x price = value. It's not tax revenue.

It turns out I did underestimate the number of eligible undocumented workers. 374,000 out of 535,000 statewide undocumented workers work in New York City. From the article Amy links to above, New York expects to disburse these benefits to as many as 290,000 recipients.

Contrast that with your claims that:
1) "They will not take the risk of signing up for this. It isn't worth it."
2) "No they won't take the money.
They already had to run."

And here's a part we agree on:

Spiderfall: "It might be a good investment."

Ben: " Instead this program will help to keep the servant class around, thus enriching the lives of the wealthiest in the city."

I read you correctly on the $4B, Spiderfall. Yes that is an estimate. But it is also an advertising number. Tastes great, less filling, $4 billion. The real number is likely around $1B or less. But that is the problem when you don't have the paperwork. You don't have hard numbers. And yes the math you presented works out. But all the numbers that went into that equation are estimated guesswork mostly put together by politically motivated activists. Garbage in, garbage out.

None of what you responded with rebuts what I wrote. The people who bring actual tax gains to the city of New York are not the people getting paid by this. They are two different groups of people. The over 290k this program intends to pay to stay in the city are net tax drains. So no we don't agree "It might be a good investment." I think this is just politically connected New Yorkers trying to fob off paying what they consider low class workers on NYC tax payers.

👍

"Even if it does, that doesn't matter. Money is fungible."

You apparently don't understand the federal system and how federal assistance is distributed, or how federal funds spent have to be accounted for by the distributing agencies. States or cities aren't going to be able to get more federal funds to make up the difference just because they spend their local ones on stupid things.

Money is fungible, in some low level sense of the word, but it matters very much whose pocket it comes out of. Federal pockets are not the same as state or local pockets. And federal funds don't automatically flow into state pockets just because they are empty.

...it's basically a sales campaign to people outside our borders to come here and ignore the laws of legal immigration.

At the same time the Democrats in Congress are pushing a bill - H.B.1, the For the People Act - which would forbid asking anyone to provide ID or other evidence that they are citizens and eligible to vote before allowing them to vote.