Did it ever occur to you that the feds/economists have an established method of calculating the impact of immigration, including illegal? You know, like in costs and benefits, like in a cost-benefit ratio.
I won't bother to go into all the details, the most important aspect of calculating is that it is done over time, long periods of time. Your method is erroneous because it is a moment in time, the snapshot method.
"Your long list of 17 is mostly redundent."
Just other considerations in the cost-benefit analysis.
How are they redundant?
I'm sure that the folks in Washington have done a cost-benefit analysis from their perspective. I'm just doing mine from my perspective.
I've already conceded that a mass-deportation would be reactionary, and does not conform to conservative ideals.
I can see no defensible position for continuing the current open-borders/illegal immigration trend. It doesn't square with rule-of-law, cultural conservatism, or national sovereignty.
I'm still skeptical as to the supposed long-term benefits of continuing to import huge numbers of immigrants (legal or otherwise). What's the long-term goal?
"I won't bother to go into all the details, the most important aspect of calculating is that it is done over time, long periods of time. Your method is erroneous because it is a moment in time, the snapshot method."
How is it erroneous? Can you give me a few details, or direct me where to look for more information?
I'm not an economist. I'm just running on horse-sense, and trying to better understand what's going on.