Before we get started here, let me note that Marco Rubio should have recognizing how he was being played by the establishment Republicans, who cynically used his popularity with many conservatives to give cover to an awful piece of legislation, while simultaneously knee-capping the Florida Senator’s future political ambitions in the eyes of many in the GOP base.  Having said that — and Rubio is culpable, though naivete can be corrected with time (I truly believe he hoped to affect positive change at the outset of this process, and merely overestimated his own influence), whereas the political maneuvering McCain, Schumer, Graham, Durbin, and (in the shadows, like a puppeteer) McConnell orchestrated here, in which all effective portions of the “comprehensive immigration reform” legislation were “compromised away,” leaving Rubio looking like the face of amnesty and entitlements for illegals, is the product of years and years of manipulating the system, of working the political angles, of across-the-aisle relationships that work to the favor of senior establishment Senators and against the favor of the American people — the real victims of this legislation is the American people, who once again gain no greater security and yet will be asked to foot the enormous bill for subsidizing Democrat voters and the welfare state apparatus that will immediately attach to so many of them.

From Heritage, “The Fiscal Cost of Unlawful Immigrants and Amnesty to the U.S. Taxpayer,” Executive Summary (you can read the entire study at the link), Robert Rector and Jason Richwine, Ph.D:

Unlawful immigration and amnesty for current unlawful immigrants can pose large fiscal costs for U.S. taxpayers. Government provides four types of benefits and services that are relevant to this issue:

• Direct benefits. These include Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, and workers’ compensation.
• Means-tested welfare benefits. There are over 80 of these programs which, at a cost of nearly $900 billion per year, provide cash, food, housing, medical, and other services to roughly 100 million low-income Americans. Major programs include Medicaid, food stamps, the refundable Earned Income Tax Credit, public housing, Supplemental Security Income, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.
• Public education. At a cost of $12,300 per pupil per year, these services are largely free or heavily subsidized for low-income parents.
• Population-based services. Police, fire, highways, parks, and similar services, as the National Academy of Sciences determined in its study of the fiscal costs of immigration, generally have to expand as new immigrants enter a community; someone has to bear the cost of that expansion.

The cost of these governmental services is far larger than many people imagine. For example, in 2010, the average U.S. household received $31,584 in government benefits and services in these four categories.

The governmental system is highly redistributive. Well-educated households tend to be net tax contributors: The taxes they pay exceed the direct and means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services they receive. For example, in 2010, in the whole U.S. population, households with college-educated heads, on average, received $24,839 in government benefits while paying $54,089 in taxes. The average college-educated household thus generated a fiscal surplus of $29,250 that government used to finance benefits for other households.

Other households are net tax consumers: The benefits they receive exceed the taxes they pay. These households generate a “fiscal deficit” that must be financed by taxes from other households or by government borrowing. For example, in 2010, in the U.S. population as a whole, households headed by persons without a high school degree, on average, received $46,582 in government benefits while paying only $11,469 in taxes. This generated an average fiscal deficit (benefits received minus taxes paid) of $35,113.

The high deficits of poorly educated households are important in the amnesty debate because the typical unlawful immigrant has only a 10th-grade education. Half of unlawful immigrant households are headed by an individual with less than a high school degree, and another 25 percent of household heads have only a high school degree.

Some argue that the deficit figures for poorly educated households in the general population are not relevant for immigrants. Many believe, for example, that lawful immigrants use little welfare. In reality, lawful immigrant households receive significantly more welfare, on average, than U.S.-born households. Overall, the fiscal deficits or surpluses for lawful immigrant households are the same as or higher than those for U.S.-born households with the same education level. Poorly educated households, whether immigrant or U.S.-born, receive far more in government benefits than they pay in taxes.

In contrast to lawful immigrants, unlawful immigrants at present do not have access to means-tested welfare, Social Security, or Medicare. This does not mean, however, that they do not receive government benefits and services. Children in unlawful immigrant households receive heavily subsidized public education. Many unlawful immigrants have U.S.-born children; these children are currently eligible for the full range of government welfare and medical benefits. And, of course, when unlawful immigrants live in a community, they use roads, parks, sewers, police, and fire protection; these services must expand to cover the added population or there will be “congestion” effects that lead to a decline in service quality.

In 2010, the average unlawful immigrant household received around $24,721 in government benefits and services while paying some $10,334 in taxes. This generated an average annual fiscal deficit (benefits received minus taxes paid) of around $14,387 per household. This cost had to be borne by U.S. taxpayers. Amnesty would provide unlawful households with access to over 80 means-tested welfare programs, Obamacare, Social Security, and Medicare. The fiscal deficit for each household would soar.

If enacted, amnesty would be implemented in phases. During the first or interim phase (which is likely to last 13 years), unlawful immigrants would be given lawful status but would be denied access to means-tested welfare and Obamacare. Most analysts assume that roughly half of unlawful immigrants work “off the books” and therefore do not pay income or FICA taxes. During the interim phase, these “off the books” workers would have a strong incentive to move to “on the books” employment. In addition, their wages would likely go up as they sought jobs in a more open environment. As a result, during the interim period, tax payments would rise and the average fiscal deficit among former unlawful immigrant households would fall.

After 13 years, unlawful immigrants would become eligible for means-tested welfare and Obamacare. At that point or shortly thereafter, former unlawful immigrant households would likely begin to receive government benefits at the same rate as lawful immigrant households of the same education level. As a result, government spending and fiscal deficits would increase dramatically.

The final phase of amnesty is retirement. Unlawful immigrants are not currently eligible for Social Security and Medicare, but under amnesty they would become so. The cost of this change would be very large indeed.

• As noted, at the current time (before amnesty), the average unlawful immigrant household has a net deficit (benefits received minus taxes paid) of $14,387 per household.
• During the interim phase immediately after amnesty, tax payments would increase more than government benefits, and the average fiscal deficit for former unlawful immigrant households would fall to $11,455.
• At the end of the interim period, unlawful immigrants would become eligible for means-tested welfare and medical subsidies under Obamacare. Average benefits would rise to $43,900 per household; tax payments would remain around $16,000; the average fiscal deficit (benefits minus taxes) would be about $28,000 per household.
• Amnesty would also raise retirement costs by making unlawful immigrants eligible for Social Security and Medicare, resulting in a net fiscal deficit of around $22,700 per retired amnesty recipient per year.

In terms of public policy and government deficits, an important figure is the aggregate annual deficit for all unlawful immigrant households. This equals the total benefits and services received by all unlawful immigrant households minus the total taxes paid by those households.

• Under current law, all unlawful immigrant households together have an aggregate annual deficit of around $54.5 billion.
• In the interim phase (roughly the first 13 years after amnesty), the aggregate annual deficit would fall to $43.4 billion.
• At the end of the interim phase, former unlawful immigrant households would become fully eligible for means-tested welfare and health care benefits under the Affordable Care Act. The aggregate annual deficit would soar to around $106 billion.
• In the retirement phase, the annual aggregate deficit would be around $160 billion. It would slowly decline as former unlawful immigrants gradually expire.

These costs would have to be borne by already overburdened U.S. taxpayers. (All figures are in 2010 dollars.)

The typical unlawful immigrant is 34 years old. After amnesty, this individual will receive government benefits, on average, for 50 years. Restricting access to benefits for the first 13 years after amnesty therefore has only a marginal impact on long-term costs.

If amnesty is enacted, the average adult unlawful immigrant would receive $592,000 more in government benefits over the course of his remaining lifetime than he would pay in taxes.

Over a lifetime, the former unlawful immigrants together would receive $9.4 trillion in government benefits and services and pay $3.1 trillion in taxes. They would generate a lifetime fiscal deficit (total benefits minus total taxes) of $6.3 trillion. (All figures are in constant 2010 dollars.) This should be considered a minimum estimate. It probably understates real future costs because it undercounts the number of unlawful immigrants and dependents who will actually receive amnesty and underestimates significantly the future growth in welfare and medical benefits.

The debate about the fiscal consequences of unlawful and low-skill immigration is hampered by a number of misconceptions. Few lawmakers really understand the current size of government and the scope of redistribution. The fact that the average household gets $31,600 in government benefits each year is a shock. The fact that a household headed by an individual with less than a high school degree gets $46,600 is a bigger one.

Many conservatives believe that if an individual has a job and works hard, he will inevitably be a net tax contributor (paying more in taxes than he takes in benefits). In our society, this has not been true for a very long time. Similarly, many believe that unlawful immigrants work more than other groups. This is also not true. The employment rate for non-elderly adult unlawful immigrants is about the same as it is for the general population.

Many policymakers also believe that because unlawful immigrants are comparatively young, they will help relieve the fiscal strains of an aging society. Regrettably, this is not true. At every stage of the life cycle, unlawful immigrants, on average, generate fiscal deficits (benefits exceed taxes). Unlawful immigrants, on average, are always tax consumers; they never once generate a “fiscal surplus” that can be used to pay for government benefits elsewhere in society. This situation obviously will get much worse after amnesty.

Many policymakers believe that after amnesty, unlawful immigrants will help make Social Security solvent. It is true that unlawful immigrants currently pay FICA taxes and would pay more after amnesty, but with average earnings of $24,800 per year, the typical unlawful immigrant will pay only about $3,700 per year in FICA taxes. After retirement, that individual is likely to draw more than $3.00 in Social Security and Medicare (adjusted for inflation) for every dollar in FICA taxes he has paid.

Moreover, taxes and benefits must be viewed holistically. It is a mistake to look at the Social Security trust fund in isolation. If an individual pays $3,700 per year into the Social Security trust fund but simultaneously draws a net $25,000 per year (benefits minus taxes) out of general government revenue, the solvency of government has not improved.

Following amnesty, the fiscal costs of former unlawful immigrant households will be roughly the same as those of lawful immigrant and non-immigrant households with the same level of education. Because U.S. government policy is highly redistributive, those costs are very large. Those who claim that amnesty will not create a large fiscal burden are simply in a state of denial concerning the underlying redistributional nature of government policy in the 21st century.

Finally, some argue that it does not matter whether unlawful immigrants create a fiscal deficit of $6.3 trillion because their children will make up for these costs. This is not true. Even if all the children of unlawful immigrants graduated from college, they would be hard-pressed to pay back $6.3 trillion in costs over their lifetimes.

Of course, not all the children of unlawful immigrants will graduate from college. Data on intergenerational social mobility show that, although the children of unlawful immigrants will have substantially better educational outcomes than their parents, these achievements will have limits. Only 13 percent are likely to graduate from college, for example. Because of this, the children, on average, are not likely to become net tax contributors. The children of unlawful immigrants are likely to remain a net fiscal burden on U.S. taxpayers, although a far smaller burden than their parents.

A final problem is that unlawful immigration appears to depress the wages of low-skill U.S.-born and lawful immigrant workers by 10 percent, or $2,300, per year. Unlawful immigration also probably drives many of our most vulnerable U.S.-born workers out of the labor force entirely. Unlawful immigration thus makes it harder for the least advantaged U.S. citizens to share in the American dream. This is wrong; public policy should support the interests of those who have a right to be here, not those who have broken our laws.

Beyond the economic-impact numbers, which are dire (a price tag of $6.3 TRILLION on the low end) — especially in a country where jobs are lacking and spending / debt is reaching critical mass before something must finally give — what we need to remember here is that there is no public hew and cry for a “path to citizenship” for those who came here unlawfully; moreover, there’s no reason we need to grant citizenship to anyone, no matter how long they’ve lived here — though considerations should be made for those children who were brought here and who have lived here for a number of years.

My position is this:  until the borders are secured — which critics on the right, most of whom are either idealistic libertarians or else corporatists looking for cheap labor, like to term “militarizing,” borrowing from the left these tactics of painting opponents as belligerent, xenophobic nativists who hate them the noble brown man and begrudge him his love of the fish taco — no other discussion about immigration “reform” is even necessary.

That is, until we can stop people from getting in illegally (and I’m all for importing high-skill labor from all over the world as part of a national immigration strategy, be it through guest worker programs or through legal paths to citizenship), there’s really no discussion to be had.

Will “undocumented workers” be forced to continue “living in the shadows”?  Yes.  And they should, because they are here illegally as lawbreakers.  If several “destination” states wish to cater to these people and grant them in-state tuition and state-funded welfare, that’s their choice.  But the rest of us shouldn’t have to pay for attempts by Democrat states to secure a permanent voting bloc — and Republicans who believe they can make headway with Hispanics by pandering are every bit as despicable as the Democrats who revel in such political cynicism.

Instead, what the GOP should be doing is talking up the importance of protecting the franchise; of discouraging illegals from entering the country to take advantage of taxpayer-funded welfare programs that our federal government is actively advertising for in Mexico; of securing the border and fixing our broken tracking system as a first-condition for any talk of immigration reform — especially in light of the Boston bombings, the mention of which is not out of bounds or politically expedient but rather a useful example of the failure of our immigration system coupled to our security concerns.

They should be preaching liberty and freedom — all of which is possible only in a system with a stable rule of law; rewarding law breakers with other people’s money isn’t compassionate:  it’s asinine and self-destructive, and it is, above all else, easy, particularly for politicians.

This is why it remains important that we eschew “pragmatism” for political candidates who understand classically liberal / legal conservative / constitutionalist principles and aren’t afraid not only act on them, but to openly and proudly and with passion promote them.

Liberty doesn’t see color; but it does recognize as its opponent the siren call of the welfare state, which promises one permanent security in exchange for votes and fidelity to big government. Right up until that point when the whole faulty and unsustainable system collapses, much as it has in many countries in Europe.

Promoting liberty is promoting the American Dream, and promoting the American Dream is pro-immigrant.  It’s just pro-legal immigrant.

And rather than dismiss as racists those in their base that recognize all this, the contemporary GOP should latch on to that message and distinguish themselves from opportunistic Democrats, not seek to join them.

Sadly, that requires a belief in our system, and today’s mainstream national politicians — including most Republicans — are more about big government and voter triangulation than they are about founding principles.  And they are enabled by many opinion leaders who care only about political expediency and label as True Believers or Purists or Extremists those who stupidly counsel a concentration on promoting principle.

For more on the particulars of the Heritage study, see here.

(h/t JHo)