V: Jobs for Youth

-The Corker-Hoeven amendment to S. 744 added Title V, which establishes a Youth Jobs Fund that will be dedicated to creating employment opportunities for low-income youth.

-The bill would establish a fund that will provide summer and year-round employment opportunities for low-income youths ages 15-25. It will provide grants to states with approved employment plans that comply with labor laws.

-The bill allocates $1.5 billion for the fund in 2014. This funding will be recouped via a $10 surcharge on employment-based immigrant and nonimmigrant visas.

This is section five of five. Why did it die in the House?

Cost-benefit Analysis of S. 744

According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), the fiscal and economic effects of the Senate immigration reform bill (S. 744) would be overwhelmingly positive. If enacted, the bill would help reduce the federal budget deficit by approximately $1 trillion over 20 years, would boost the U.S. economy as whole without negatively affecting U.S. workers, and would greatly reduce future undocumented immigration. These are the conclusions laid out in three reports released in June and July 2013. On June 18, the CBO issued two reports on the version of S. 744 that was reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 28. The first one analyzes (or “scores”) the fiscal impact of the bill over the next 20 years and the second one focuses on the impact that some aspects of the bill would have on the U.S. economy. On July 3, the CBO issued a revised score on the version of the bill that passed the Senate on June 27. This version includes the Corker-Hoeven “border surge” amendment, which calls for a significant increase in border-enforcement spending.

What is a CBO score and what are its main implications?

Nearly every bill that is approved by a full committee of either house of Congress is subject to a formal cost estimate by the CBO. The report produced as a result of this analysis is known as the CBO “score.” The purpose of this analysis is to aid in economic and budgetary decisions on a wide assortment of programs covered by the federal budget. In general, the CBO estimates what the net fiscal impact of a bill would be, considering both the costs and the benefits associated with its implementation.

The CBO analysis of S. 744: What is at stake?

S. 744 would enable millions of undocumented immigrants to earn legal status and would revamp the legal immigration system. It also proposes new border and interior enforcement measures. All these components would have an effect on government finances and are therefore analyzed separately by the CBO. The bill would result in additional government revenue and new public expenses. At the same time, the different components of the bill would clearly have an impact on the economy. The CBO score may affect the type of amendments offered to the bill, any increase or decrease of programs offered, and the rhetorical arguments used to support or oppose the bill.

How would S. 744 affect the federal budget in the first 10 years after enactment?

According to the CBO’s revised score, enacting S. 744 would lead to a net savings of about $135 billion over the 2014-2023 period. This figure results from subtracting the costs of implementing the legislation ($23 billion) from the expected reduction in the federal budget deficit ($158 billion).

How would S. 744 affect the federal budget in the second 10 years after enactment?

S.744 would produce net savings of at least $905 billion over the 2024-2033 period. This figure results from:

Subtracting the costs of implementing the legislation (between $75 billion and $80 billion) from the expected reduction in the federal budget deficit ($685 billion), which yields net savings in the range of $605 billion to $610 billion. These figures are contained in the CBO’s revised score of the bill.
Adding an additional $300 billion in deficit reduction stemming from broader effects of the bill on the U.S. economy that are not considered in the CBO’s cost estimate. This figure is contained in the CBO’s economic impact analysis of the bill that was reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. According to the revised cost estimate, the economic effects of the bill passed by the Senate would differ only slightly from those estimated for the earlier version of the bill.
What explains the overall fiscal gains that would result from S. 744?

The net fiscal gains ($1 trillion over the 20-year period analyzed) would result from the fact that federal revenues would exceed spending. The boost in revenues is mostly attributable to the expansion of the size of the labor force and secondarily to the legalization of current undocumented workers. These changes would lead to additional collection of income and payroll taxes.

How would S. 744 affect the U.S. economy?

S. 744 would boost the output of the U.S. economy. According to CBO estimates, the bill would increase the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by 3.3 percent ($700 billion) in 2023 and 5.4 percent ($1.4 trillion) in 2033.

How would S. 744 affect wages?

S. 744 would produce an increase in average wages by 2025. The CBO anticipates “that average wages for the entire labor force would be 0.1 percent lower in 2023 and 0.5 percent higher in 2033 under the legislation.” The initial miniscule drop in average wages would be fueled largely by the presence in the labor force of new immigrants who make less than the average wage. According to the CBO, “the estimated reductions in average wages…do not necessarily imply that current U.S. residents would be worse off, on average, under the legislation than they would be under current law.”

How would S. 744 affect unemployment?

The CBO predicts that S. 744 “would raise the unemployment rate over the next five years by up to roughly 0.1 percentage point,” but would “have no effect on the unemployment rate after 2020.” The initial marginal increase in the unemployment rate would occur as “the economy adjusted to the increased inflow of immigrants.”

To what extent would S. 744 deter illegal immigration?

According to the CBO’s revised score, under S. 744 the net annual inflow of unauthorized residents would decrease “by between one-third and one-half compared with the projected net inflow under current law.” However, the methodology behind the CBO’s estimate is unknown. It appears that the CBO underestimates the impact of S. 744 in reducing illegal immigration because it looks only at measures in the bill designed to deter illegal border crossings and employment in the United States. It fails to account for the incentives built into future-flow programs to encourage people to migrate legally and to depart on time. Taking these incentives into account, illegal immigration should decline significantly as new worker programs become fully implemented.

How does the CBO estimate the size of future unauthorized flows?

The anticipated one-third to one-half reduction in the net annual flow of unauthorized residents is based on two main assumptions: (a) that enforcement would make it more difficult for unauthorized immigrants to immigrate; and (b) that employment-verification requirements would make it difficult for unauthorized residents to find employment while unauthorized. However, the CBO does not present its methodology in detail.

What does the CBO fail to include when estimating the magnitude of future unauthorized flows?

The CBO does not account for the fact that the bill provides a structure of positive incentives for people to come to (or stay in) the country legally:

a) Through the new W visa, the bill creates stronger channels for lower-skilled workers when the economy is growing. This is crucial because past trends show that illegal immigration increases when the economy is expanding.

b) Workers on nonimmigrant visas would have the opportunity to apply for a green card through the point system (tier 2). This would lessen the likelihood of temporary workers staying in the country illegally after their nonimmigrant visas expire.

c) The tier 2 track of the new point system would make available between 60,000 and 125,000 visas each fiscal year for immigrants in high-demand less-skilled occupations.

d) The cap for employment-based immigrant visas allocated to “other workers” (less-skilled workers) would be raised significantly.

e) Under the Senate bill, spouses and minor children of Legal Permanent Residents (LPRs) would have an expedited process for immigrating to the United States. This would serve as an additional incentive to avoid illegal immigration related to family separation.

Based on these mechanisms, we can anticipate that these measures would reduce the number of unauthorized immigrants at a much higher rate than the CBO estimate.

All of this info came from here: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/special-reports/guide-s744-understanding-2013-senate-immigration-bill

Comprehensive bi-partisan immigration reform was passed by the United States Senate over a year ago.

Why did it die in the House?

Probably had to do with some of the language pertaining to the so-called "path to citizenship"

Just a guess.

Probably had to do with some of the language pertaining to the so-called "path to citizenship"

Just a guess.

I don't think that is a very good guess considering that is has never been brought to a vote.

And it sets a terrible precedent. It doesn't matter WHAT the substance of the thing he is doing is. What if the president decides not to collect income tax against anyone with income belwo $100,000? What if the president decides not to enforce any drug laws, in effect legalizing drug use despite statutes that say otherwise? Where does it end? You are basically supporting dictatorship.

LOL!!!! You are too much. WHERE DOES IT END!!!! Are you and Boehner related? It must suck to live a life of fear and paranoia.

I GUARANTEE that when the next Republican president decides not to enforce regulatory statutes or decides not to collect the corporate income tax you and the left will be howling BLOODY MURDER. As will I. But I am doing it now as well.

[He simply cannot. He is calling it prosecutorial discretion because even he knows he cannot but everyone here supporting him is basically being honest and saying the truth which is that enacting his own legislation is EXACTLY what he is doing and it is totally unconstitutional. And it sets a terrible precedent. It doesn't matter WHAT the substance of the thing he is doing is. You are basically supporting dictatorship.

Wasn't the precedent already set when Reagan did the same exact thing? Was it unconstitutional and a dictatorship when both Reagan and Bush #1 did the exact same thing? Or is it only unconstitutional because it's Obama doing the same thing? I just love when the right comes out with all the massive outrage calling things unconstitutional when their own heros did the exact same thing. Hypocrisy at its finest! If Obama is a dictator and a criminal for doing this, does that make Reagan and Bush #1 dictators and criminals too?

They didn't do the exact same thing. That is simply a bald faced lie.

[He simply cannot. He is calling it prosecutorial discretion because even he knows he cannot but everyone here supporting him is basically being honest and saying the truth which is that enacting his own legislation is EXACTLY what he is doing and it is totally unconstitutional. And it sets a terrible precedent. It doesn't matter WHAT the substance of the thing he is doing is. You are basically supporting dictatorship.

Wasn't the precedent already set when Reagan did the same exact thing? Was it unconstitutional and a dictatorship when both Reagan and Bush #1 did the exact same thing? Or is it only unconstitutional because it's Obama doing the same thing? I just love when the right comes out with all the massive outrage calling things unconstitutional when their own heros did the exact same thing. Hypocrisy at its finest! If Obama is a dictator and a criminal for doing this, does that make Reagan and Bush #1 dictators and criminals too?

They didn't do the exact same thing. That is simply a bald faced lie.

Didn't both Reagan and elder Bush sign immigration legislation that had passed through Congress?

I would support tax breaks for corporations and the top 1% if we could somehow ensure the money saved would be used to grow business/create jobs, or in any way to help the economy. But to blindly give them the breaks, and have no idea where the money is going, is very foolish IMO.

Skipped right over that one...

And it sets a terrible precedent. It doesn't matter WHAT the substance of the thing he is doing is. What if the president decides not to collect income tax against anyone with income belwo $100,000? What if the president decides not to enforce any drug laws, in effect legalizing drug use despite statutes that say otherwise? Where does it end? You are basically supporting dictatorship.

LOL!!!! You are too much. WHERE DOES IT END!!!! Are you and Boehner related? It must suck to live a life of fear and paranoia.

I GUARANTEE that when the next Republican president decides not to enforce regulatory statutes or decides not to collect the corporate income tax you and the left will be howling BLOODY MURDER. As will I. But I am doing it now as well.

Listen to you howl about things that haven't even happened. In the meantime, what Obama is doing with immigration, from the legal authority standpoint, is exactly the same as previous presidents have done but he is being singled out as acting like an emperor. Political shenanigans that do nothing but take the focus off the fact that congress is failing miserably.

I seem to remember that the last president went even further than the current one in declaring that he had the right to circumvent certain laws and even doing it on more than one occasion and people like you were defending him...

Far more than any predecessor, Bush has been aggressive about declaring his right to ignore vast swaths of laws -- many of which he says infringe on power he believes the Constitution assigns to him alone as the head of the executive branch or the commander in chief of the military.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/30/world/americas/30iht-web.0430bush.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[Edited on 11/24/2014 by gondicar]

Shouldn't we learn from mistakes rather than repeat them?

Not Emperor Obama.

Didn't both Reagan and elder Bush sign immigration legislation that had passed through Congress?

Reagan yes. Bush elder, no. Both signed executive orders that expanded the amnesty (yes, AMNESTY) that was provided by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. Reagan used an executive order to expand the amnesty rules to include minor children that were not covered under the act, and then Bush 41 in early 1990 used an executive order to extend it to cover children and spouses, including authorization to work. Congress didn't pass any immigration reform during the Bush 41 term, as far as I know.

[Edited on 11/24/2014 by gondicar]

Shouldn't we learn from mistakes rather than repeat them?

Wouldn't that be nice? Someone should tell the speaker of the house.

Didn't both Reagan and elder Bush sign immigration legislation that had passed through Congress?

Reagan yes. Bush elder, no.

But wasn't what Bush 41 did merely filling in some gaps to the original Reagan legislation?

Shouldn't we learn from mistakes rather than repeat them?

Wouldn't that be nice? Someone should tell the speaker of the house.

Retirement is a good option.

Didn't both Reagan and elder Bush sign immigration legislation that had passed through Congress?

Reagan yes. Bush elder, no.

But wasn't what Bush 41 did merely filling in some gaps to the original Reagan legislation?

What Bush 41 signed was not immigration legislation that had passed through Congress. He signed an executive order, same as Obama. Reagan did sign immigration legislation that had passed through congress, but AFTER that he expanded upon it by signing an executive order that granted amnesty beyond the scope of what congress had authorized. So, the answer to "Didn't both Reagan and elder Bush sign immigration legislation that had passed through Congress?", is no.

Now if you want to make a case that Bush 41 (or Reagan for that matter) "merely" expanded the '86 immigration law by "filling some gaps," that might actually hold up...but then by the same token someone could take that same argument and apply it to what Obama is doing, i.e. he is "merely filling in some gaps" in existing law to cover family members who are related to people who are already U.S. citizens.

One thing I can't seem to find is any record of congress ever threatening to file a lawsuit against Reagan or Bush 41, much less actually filing one, over their use of the roughly 545 executive orders that they signed between them. Hmmmm.

[Edited on 11/24/2014 by gondicar]

Shouldn't we learn from mistakes rather than repeat them?

Not Emperor Obama.

So, using your sense of reasoning, then what your beloved GOP presidents did is wrong? Expanding upon this, we should then assign the label of "emperor" to them also. Makes perfectly good sense. You can't have it both ways.

If the party you claim to support was running things, the fence would be down and everyone would be welcome.

BTW, do you know how the place where you live became part of the US? We stole it in a war that was declared just so we could acquire that part of the country. There is a reason why just about every town down there has a Spanish name. Doesn't Mexico have a claim to this land?

If the party you claim to support was running things, the fence would be down and everyone would be welcome.

BTW, do you know how the place where you live became part of the US? We stole it in a war that was declared just so we could acquire that part of the country. There is a reason why just about every town down there has a Spanish name. Doesn't Mexico have a claim to this land?

Did Mexico "steal" it from the indigenous people, the American Indian?

Shouldn't we learn from mistakes rather than repeat them?

Not Emperor Obama.

So, using your sense of reasoning, then what your beloved GOP presidents did is wrong? Expanding upon this, we should then assign the label of "emperor" to them also. Makes perfectly good sense. You can't have it both ways.

Republicans can make the same mistake over and over again. Democrats must learn from Republican mistakes. Gridlock is good. Tax break money trickles down. Iraq has WMD's. Cheney didn't know the shotgun was loaded. All life lessons courtesy of our incompetent GOP> 😛

That cartoon is beyond close-minded. A little bit of analysis will reveal that it could greatly help our problem. The ones who come forward will be identified, tracked, and pay taxes for 3 years or else face deportation. And what do we tell those who are in line legally? "Congrats. You don't face the same risk of deportation like these illegals. Your legal behavior will reward you down the road."

That cartoon is beyond close-minded. A little bit of analysis will reveal that it could greatly help our problem. The ones who come forward will be identified, tracked, and pay taxes for 3 years or else face deportation. And what do we tell those who are in line legally? "Congrats. You don't face the same risk of deportation like these illegals. Your legal behavior will reward you down the road."

So, If you "Come forward"..you won't be deported?...So why should anyone wait in line to enter legally then?

Please.

That cartoon is beyond close-minded. A little bit of analysis will reveal that it could greatly help our problem. The ones who come forward will be identified, tracked, and pay taxes for 3 years or else face deportation. And what do we tell those who are in line legally? "Congrats. You don't face the same risk of deportation like these illegals. Your legal behavior will reward you down the road."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, If you "Come forward"..you won't be deported?...So why should anyone wait in line to enter legally then?

Please.

Nobody said that. Obama's policy clearly states that your case will be reviewed after a 3-year period, and if you meet a certain criteria, you stay. If you don't, you are deported. If you wait in line to enter legally, you don't face that same risk.

Shouldn't we learn from mistakes rather than repeat them?

Not Emperor Obama.

So, using your sense of reasoning, then what your beloved GOP presidents did is wrong? Expanding upon this, we should then assign the label of "emperor" to them also. Makes perfectly good sense. You can't have it both ways.

I don't. I put the idea of how the the government is set up to operate above
my "beloved" GOP. And how you get that idea is beyond me. The GOP I have
in my mind is far different than the one we have.

Didn't both Reagan and elder Bush sign immigration legislation that had passed through Congress?

Reagan yes. Bush elder, no.

But wasn't what Bush 41 did merely filling in some gaps to the original Reagan legislation?

Now if you want to make a case that Bush 41 (or Reagan for that matter) "merely" expanded the '86 immigration law by "filling some gaps," that might actually hold up...but then by the same token someone could take that same argument and apply it to what Obama is doing, i.e. he is "merely filling in some gaps" in existing law to cover family members who are related to people who are already U.S. citizens.

Do you think Obama waited long enough? Six years? Most of that time spent telling anyone that would listen
that he can't do what he just did.

What was wrong with doing this when the Democrats controlled the whole government?

Republicans can make the same mistake over and over again. Democrats must learn from Republican mistakes. Gridlock is good. Tax break money trickles down. Iraq has WMD's. Cheney didn't know the shotgun was loaded. All life lessons courtesy of our incompetent GOP> 😛

Cheney was firing at a quail in flight. He knew the shotgun was loaded.

Shouldn't we learn from mistakes rather than repeat them?

Not Emperor Obama.

So, using your sense of reasoning, then what your beloved GOP presidents did is wrong? Expanding upon this, we should then assign the label of "emperor" to them also. Makes perfectly good sense. You can't have it both ways.

I don't. I put the idea of how the the government is set up to operate above
my "beloved" GOP. And how you get that idea is beyond me. The GOP I have
in my mind is far different than the one we have.

That is a copout. The one we have is the one you support completely. Based on what you say they can do no wrong.

Republicans can make the same mistake over and over again. Democrats must learn from Republican mistakes. Gridlock is good. Tax break money trickles down. Iraq has WMD's. Cheney didn't know the shotgun was loaded. All life lessons courtesy of our incompetent GOP> 😛

Cheney was firing at a quail in flight. He knew the shotgun was loaded.

He mistook a human for a quail? Common mistake.