When merely being a person gives you rights to government-issued finite resources, it has to be a utilitarian argument.

You need to be a lawful permanent resident to qualify for any federal public benefits.

Tell that to the emergency care centers that aren't allowed to turn away anyone or else they will not receive medicare reimbursements.

That is literally the least we can do. Or would you rather we deny emergency medical treatment and let people just die? They do pay sales taxes, rent payments (they have to live somewhere) that go towards property taxes and the majority also pay into social security which they will never qualify for.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/business/illegal-immigrant...

And by the way, many have kids that are Americans by birthright. So, I'm not sure what the benefit is to scapegoating the undocumented immigrant labor class. Maybe you can answer that.

I'm just offering you counter arguments to the idea that the government doesn't give out resources to people. I'm sorry you can't handle one refutation without turning to emotional arguments.

Another is Fannie Mae subsidizing housing. Another is public school. Another is protection under the law. Another is all public road/land use.

The fact of the matter is that we have finite resources. And simply being a person inside the US's borders give you rights to these resources, and if we do not make sure that the return we get from the presence of the people we're letting in at least makes up the cost of bringing them in, then we are doomed.

Speaking of emotional arguments, we're not all doomed.

Again, a lot of those public services are paid for through taxes immigrants do pay into, like property taxes, sales taxes, gas taxes, registration fees, and even income taxes. And again, their children are Americans by birthright so public education is an investment in Americans.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/oct/02/...

http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2013/pdf/sr133.pdf

We can argue resource allocation, entitlement programs but considering China has 1 billion more people with a land mass not much larger than ours, we're certainly not running out of space.

And if you gave them a pathway to amnesty it would be much easier to allocate entitlement programs and have common sense taxation.

I don't know what to say other than chill out. You have completely hijacked the original thread with your ill-argued cliche talking points.

The original statement was "I'm appalled by the need for statistics showing how "useful" immigrants are." Mine response is that it's a necessary framework. I in no way gave any conclusions about what I believe is the result of thinking in that framework, but you seem to harbor some sort of prejudice that makes it so you've assumed what I think.

You seem upset. You argued that "it's a necessary framework" and I provided sourced arguments that even under a utilitarian framework immigrants are useful.

Yet you describe my arguments as "ill-argued cliche talking points" and go on to state that I "harbor some sort of prejudice"

Perhaps a little introspection is in order on your part.

Got it. You're a troll whose only response is "umadbro."

It's very obvious you're upset since you're resorting to name calling.

No trolling required to upset you. It seems just facts and reality will do it.

>That is literally the least we can do. Or would you rather we deny emergency medical treatment and let people just die?

You implied that illegal immigrants consume no government resources / cannot be a utilitarian concern.

Lawful permanent residency is generally the ultimate goal of legal immigration. So if you let a million people in - tourists and (genuinely) temporary workers aside - you have to assume that you'll be dealing with a million permanent residents, and, eventually, citizens, somewhere down the line.

In fact, if that were not the case, it would make things even worse. Imagine if you take a million people, and after a few years, kick most of them out, and only a few get permanent residency. Who would want to build their life around that?

I am equally disappointed when people use moral arguments. The problem is: your morals != my morals. Utilitarianism gives you much more of an objective measure of something, which everyone can discuss on the same premises. This (hopefully) removes the need to resort to the pissing contest that is emotional appeals.

Utilitarianism doesn't actually give you an objective measure. It just shifts the subjectivity towards the definition of terms such as "harm" and "benefit". In case of immigration, this is very prominent: e.g. is cultural diversity beneficial or harmful?

That's all well and good. But do you think that telling people who are apprehensive about immigration (for any reason) that they are wrong/dumb/stupid is likely to change their opinion?

Or do you think that having a stranger tell them that they are a wrong/dumb/stupid person for feeling a way will further alienate them and reinforce their current opinion?

Is honey better than vinegar?

"Combating xenophobia should be a moral issue, not a utilitarian one."

Equating 'pro immigration' with 'morality' is the rather problematic basis of your statement.

Many countries (most, in fact) do just fine without large scale immigration policies.

Many nations with immigration are struggling to cope.

Moreover, there are serious flaws with US immigration policy such that one could be opposed to it on that basis.

Very, very few people 'hate immigrants'. But significant numbers of people think it's inappropriate to have people sneaking across the border, without documentation or status, and others just don't support large scale immigration, or perhaps have other criteria.