This is an issue that people seem to either care about A LOT or else feel entirely passive towards.
Let me start out by introducing myself. Graduated MHS in 2000, 4th generation jackrabbit:Go, Fight, Win, yaddayadda... I have both republicans and democrats as well as independents in my family so I get to hear a lot from both sides of the fence. And listen I do often. Speak I do rarely. So we'll see what happens on here. Personally, I think that if you get too extreme on either side of the fence it simply isn't good. Extremism isn't helpful to the majority.
Ok, immigration: some of my favorite neighbors in the world are illegal. How do I know this? Because they can't go home to visit their grandparents in Mexico because they won't be allowed back across. Also, they came pregnant for the purpose of having their children in America. Also, they have a fake social. Also, they don't pay taxes. Also, they....
So not to point fingers, but illegal immigration has caused a lot of problems. We know this. We see it everywhere. There are too many schoolchildren and not enough parents paying taxes into the school system so its off balance. Too many people need healthcare or take advantage of the government programs without paying taxes which pay for these programs. The programs to help people, beit Welfare or Medicare or No Child Left Behind...are paid for with tax money. Which is our money. And if there are more people benefiting than supporting financially these programs, well, the result is more debt, not enough money to pay teachers, not enough resources to....you name it.
However, I don't like the idea of telling people they can't scrimp and save to pay for their way to America. I believe that this country is a type of Promised Land in many ways. Who am I to deny the blessings that come from living in this country to those in countries that can't offer so many unique experiences and opportunities?
What I do have a problem with is people who scrimp and save to come and then get denied because there are too many illegal immigrants screwing up the system. Correct me if I'm wrong, but our country has been designed to let people in through a certain process, and if you skip the system you are really hurting everyone here. Not just financially.
My sister-in-law is an immigrant. She came here legally, stayed after her visa had expired, married my brother-in-law, is now legal. I love her. She's awesome. But I don't think what she did was technically legal, or technically honest. However, I'm so glad she's here and so happy to have her as a sister. I love her. Can you see the moral dilemma I'm facing? Trying to reconcile both sides of my conscience like this?
The reason I share the personal aspect is because I believe a lot of people, maybe even the other people who check this site, have personal experiences with this dilemma. Is there really a way to take care of those who have lived in this country undetected for years while providing a way to ensure future immigrants come through the lawful legal process we have set up?
On the side, I don't believe you can have adequate border control without secure borders. Good for Pres Clinton for starting the wall, but hello. 300 feet isn't much of a dent in the insecurity.
Immigration and the problem of Legality
Posted by Amy on 1/22/2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
40 comments:
Amy, I must admit, that I am in the latter catagory - - it's something that I haven't really gotten that "into." I did see Fastfood Nation, and it made me cry. But other than that, I haven't developed an opinion. I'm looking forward to discussion on this subject - also, I'll do research to come up with some of MY feelings on it - peace
Immmmmmmigration! I feel for you, Amy, and not just because I also went to high school with many illegals.
Your point about the fiscal burden of taking on illegal immigrants is well taken. We have money problems enough taking care of our own people apart from having to carry them as well. More on this below. Having said that, I wish to express my belief that many Americans are missing the big, historical picture of immigration. I'm talking about an America that is almost entirely of immigrant descent. I'm talking about the British Empire that incorporated so much of humanity into its sphere; Indians and Egyptians and Russians who made homes in London and contributed to commerce and society. I'm talking about Alexander the Great, a Macedonian who studied in Greece and conquested the Hellenic way of life to the ends of the world. I'm talking about the cosmopolitan dynasties of the Middle Kingdom--a place where all who became Chinese were part of China. Immigration is so fundamental a part of great civilizations that we must expect and even count on the things immigrants bring. I love immigrants.
The question of legality, now that is really the kicker here. I'm an economist by training, so I'll lay out my Friedman logic on this. There's no such thing as free entry into the United States. For a Mexican family who wants to move here--to provide a good life for their children, to get better work and support their parents, or for whatever reason--they must choose between coming by the law and coming extralegally. I don't think I can blame the family who chooses to emigrate at the least possible cost to them, and it just so happens that this is the not-so-popular-with-conservatives extralegal option. (Of all the people in the world to understand the simple economics of this situation, I should think the educated, upper middle class white conservatives would be all over it!)
What then to be done? I see two ways. First, you could increase the cost of illegal immigration: build a fence (SEAL THE BORDERS!), crack down on known illegal populations already here, demonize illegals, etc. Not a bad idea, except we've seen that such an approach is not politically viable and is quite costly to us as well, not to mention engenders quite a bit of animosity toward our country by just about every person in Latin America and all their friends here. In addition, I don't even believe that building a fence would work. People will come through if there is incentive to do so. Why not take the money we were going to spend on this and apply it to the alternative, which is to make legal immigration less expensive? 'A novel idea,' you say, 'and preposterous at that!' But really, what about it? Put money into programs that help people already in the United States to naturalize. Put some serious money behind the Naturalization Services and help them process more people more quickly; these would be taxpaying, enthusiastic and enterprising citizens. Change the law, if necessary, to increase the quota allowed to enter the country. I mean, come on, y'all, immigration quotas are so 120 years ago. The true conservative will consider shifting supply as well as demand, and we never even talk about how feasible it might be.
This comment is far too long already, so I can't get going on the national security implications of open borders and a couple other related topics. I will close with a plea that we as Americans consider what a great boon immigrants have always been and will always be to our way of life. Support positive solutions to the immigration situation, and, by taking the people that other countries cannot make prosperous, we will make prosperous ourselves as well as immigrants of whatever legal status. Emma Lazarus' immortal words, inscribed on the Statue of Liberty, say it best:
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.
its one thing to lift your lamp to have people come in, its another to lift your lamp and have people sneek in the back door where there is no light. The US invites more people to come than any other country. Other countries have more strict rules and don't invite people to come.
Yes, migration is a part of history. However, the cost is becoming more than people can bear.
Look at France that used to invite people to come in and now have changed their rules because of the large illegal migration from Africa. And they pay the french women to have babies because the original french population is dwindling beyond comeback.
I do prefer our controlled legal immigration plan and a part of me wants everyone to stand in line to come in together.
Other countries don't, you're right. and other countries are not called 'the land of the free' either! I am glad we welcome so many more than others, but I don't think it's useful to compare ourselves to anyone else.
Also, I got confused about your France comment above. At first you seem to agree with France's decision to close to immigrants, but then you cite evidence suggesting the importance of immigrants to the economy... Which is a good point, thank you for bringing it up! One of the reasons America can continue to grow and is not facing a demographic crisis even in the face of declining birth rates is that immigrants are picking up the slack. France is probably wishing it had more Africans whose children could contribute to the economy.
One last thing. Are you for the status quo "controlled immigration plan" already in place, or is that something else? And how controlled is it, exactly?
Thats the thing KWS!! I have very strong very mixed feelings. I can see it from both sides, and so as a result I'm developing a mutiple personality disorder. AGH!!
The france comment was statement of fact, not intended to sway one way or the other. It shows how illegal immigration caused enough problems for them to try to close their borders, figuratively, even though they are having problems with population numbers.
I am not for the current program of migration to the US. It isn't working. Period. Therefore something needs to change.
The only thing I am 100% sure of is that I think building a wall with security cameras is a good way to "secure" the border. Before a physical obstacle like that exists around our perimeter the politicians can talk the talk but talking is all it will be.
ps I should mention that I am one of the other "conservative" bloggers on this dealy-o, so we are kind of partners. Just maybe not on immigration. For now.
A Great Wall of Texi-Cali...hmmm I don't know, Amy - And security cams? Do you know that any given Super Wallmart has upwards of 200 Security Cameras, and they still loose 100s of thousands of dollars in merchendise per year? Security cameras are not a real fix - they're for people to look at and say, "ooh, there are security cameras - now everything is secure." I definately don't think that is a viable answer. Kevin, by the way, nice to see you, My wife says "hey" and....I am agreeing with your train of thought.
I'm supposed to be working right now, but I don't feel like it.
This is a tough, tough issue. Here are some things that I tentatively believe:
-I'm tentatively with KWS re: quotas and inexpensive, legal immigration.
-I tentatively like the Obama idea to "remove incentives to enter the country illegally by cracking down on employers who hire undocumented immigrants."
-Along with that, I tentatively like the Romney idea to "issue a biometrically-enabled and tamperproof card to non-citizens and create a national database for non-citizens so employers can easily verify their legal status in this country."
I feel confident that illegal immigration is a contributing factor to high health care costs. I feel confident that this is America, and people should be able to come here to pursue a better life.
I dunno. It's a bummer.
Well, it's nice to hear everyone else vascillating back and forth on this! I vascillate back and forth on most things, and eventually manage to settle on a hard-fought position if I'm lucky on maybe 50% of the subjects I consider. Sigh.
It really makes a difference in your viewpoint, I think, when you live in (or have lived in) a state where this is *such* an omnipresent issue. Everything, literally everything that happens here in AZ is affected by this. Our schools, our healthcare, our economy is intrinsically linked to our immigrant population.
I think immigration is an amazing thing, and different cultures all bringing something to the table, people finding a better life for their families - that is what this country is all about. But you can't blame us for feeling defensive and sort of wounded over the fact that our resources are tapped and our tax dollars are stretched to provide care for these people who are here under the table. And those people, in turn, must have a poor quality of life - can you imagine always living in fear of being deported, separated from your family, sent back to a place where you have no future?
I just can't believe that a fence would help. maybe I'm wrong, but it seems so silly, like trying to put a band aid on a broken dam. A fnce can't keep a rabbit out of a garden, how's it going to keep out people who are incredibly motivated to get over/under/around it?
ok, the reason why I think the fence is a good idea is because (drumroll) I don't believe any program developed will stop illegal immigration.
Maybe I'm a bit cynical?
They can do whatever benefit program, amnesty, you name it to crop the numbers, but it won't stop it.
And hey, building a wall creates jobs.
different train of thought: if USA could somehow help Mexico build its economy perhaps there would be a decrease in illegal immigration? And would a stronger mexico help buoy a stronger USA economy?
Hi Mike,
I just want to clarify something about your comment above...
"-I tentatively like the Obama idea to "remove incentives to enter the country illegally by cracking down on employers who hire undocumented immigrants."
-Along with that, I tentatively like the Romney idea to "issue a biometrically-enabled and tamperproof card to non-citizens and create a national database for non-citizens so employers can easily verify their legal status in this country."
Regarding "Obama's idea for going after the employers" this isn't Obama's idea, this is the law as it currently stands. 10 years ago the republicans passed this into law and all employers are required to only hire legal immigrants. Employers are breaking the law if they hire undocumented employees.
Romney also supports enforcing the current law. In fact he lead the way by acting on his ideas and allowed his MA National Guard the green light to enforce the law in MA.
However, Kudos for recognizing Romney's good idea of requiring a bio metric system for all documented workers. As with his other policy ideas Romney understands the problem (the current laws can't be enforced because the illegal immigrants easily provide fake soc sec numbers) and he offers a practical/pragmatic solution.
I am constantly impressed by Romney's creative plans for solving the challenges that face our country. We need him to lead our country.
Obama looks pretty and talks pretty, but his talk is all fluff and his ideas have no depth or merit. His "good idea" for immigration is 10 years old and was implemented by the republicans.
Obama should step back and let the republicans lead.
(To clarify: I am tired of Democrats using Republican conservatism slogans to attract voters; however, I am also tired of Republicans acting like fiscal idiots and spending us into oblivion. I vote for the man not for the party. I vote for Mitt.)
One thing that Kevin mentioned above is to lower the cost of legal immigration - so that people could weight he pros and cons of immigrating legally vs. illegally. If the cost of legal immigration is lower, then they won't want to enter illegally - does anyone know what the cost of legal immigration currently is (besides paying taxes - which, if your income is low enough is not too costly.) what is the current cost?
- - A tamperproof card? Impossible. There has not been an ID created that can't be duplicated/forged. Unless we want to do some Mission Impossible thing for all non-citizens with voice recognition, fingerprint analysis...I'd imagine the costs of that would be pretty heafty. AND...I'd want one. they get a cool spy ID and I get a bent up 26 year old social securty card that I can't keep track of to save my life. not fair...:) The point of this complaint is that creativity isn't hard - but implimentation is. I'd rather hear a bunch of ideas that are good sound and tried ideas that are realistic than a bunch of ideas that sound creative and inventive, but,without trillions of dollars are an impossibility.
Jonathan - if the law the Republican congress passed 10 years ago is so infallible, why is everyone suddenly freaking out about the new Arizona employer sanctions law that went into effect on January 1st?
Obama is spot on here - removing the incentives for workers to immigrate illegally is the logical next step. If the cost of *legal* immigration goes down (via a guest worker program, etc.), each prospective illegal immigrant's rational self-interest will force him/her to evaluate the legal vs. illegal routes differently. Also, if the cost of illegal immigration goes up (via an employer sanctions law, etc.), there should be a similar effect.
I just heard on NPR last night that the Governor of Sonora, Mexico (which shares a border with Arizona) is upset with the new AZ employer sanctions law because it is causing a flood of illegal Mexican workers in the US to voluntarily return home, and Sonora's housing and basic services are now overburdened. Sounds like it's working to me.
Of course, I don't love the effect this has on small business owners. I know a man who has employed one specific illegal worker for 15+ years, and he recently had to let him go because of the new law. Trouble is, this worker was his most skilled and experienced, and his business will suffer as a result.
You're in denial if you think that the economy won't be affected drastically by reducing the supply of illegal workers. The demand for labor will still be there, but wages will have to increase to pay legal workers (because legal immigration is so relatively expensive), and prices of goods and services will increase as a result. So to satisfy that demand, you lower the cost of legal immigration, and a good balance should be able to be struck.
what's the current cost?
The cost isn't so much monetary, but rather a somewhat lengthy time period to be waited and bureaucracy that has to be navigated. Also, employment immigrants have to have a sponsoring employer. And most unskilled laborers aren't even eligible unless they qualify under the "family reunification" rules. Check out this site for details.
Okay, big issue for me... and my "conservative" friend KWS didn't help much. Sorry, but not very conservative on this issue.
For starters anyone who is not willing to do things legally we don't want here anyhow. So to start by breaking our laws and having no respect for them isn't very smart. Hence the huge issues of crime here in Az, including cops getting killed and they just caught a serial rapist who had been deported a number of times. Yet many local authorities cry racism and refuse to change their positions to one more constructive. Like the Phoenix police chief, and Mayor, men of no little power. So that has always been in my mind.
Secondly the current system, and what has made immigration so important to our growth in a positive way, is designed to turn immigrants into AMERICAN CITIZENS, they must learn the pledge and other patriotic things, then are encouraged to integrate so that the heritage that was left to us by our immigrant fathers will be preserved and we'll all be united. When illegals march down our streets waving mexican flags, chanting Si Se Puedo, I don't get the impression that they want to be Americans, but that they want to be Mexicans in America, and they don't integrate as was intended. That being said, I am all for immigration reform, but first we must secure the border, and that reform must not reward illegals with amnesty. When amnesty was granted the first time during Reagan, which Reagan signed on to only on the condition of securing the borders which never happened, (tricky dems probably never intended to,) people were astonished at the flood of illegal immigration that happened after that, 3 million, 5 million, 8 million, 12 millino, and now we are well over 20 million, (I think, maybe more.) The point being that amnesty will only encourage more immigration. Besides the issue of not rewarding illegal attitudes.
Now I could address the monetary and social issues (such as taxes, healthcare, prison costs, crime, drop in wage standards, schools, depreciating home values, drugs,) but they have already been touched on and moreover I don't think they are as important. The point being that we need to create citizens from immigration, not criminals or burdens.
I hope no one feels that I am callous to their travails and hardships, as I want others to have the opportunities that we have, but we need to bring them up to our level, help them integrate and reach their potential, without dragging us under the current they are treading, which the mexican government is responsible for, an issue I don't hear anyone talking about. Sure things are terrible down there, but why? There are some Mexican families in power who are choaking thier citizens to death and growing filthy rich. Issue for later I suppose.
My last paragraph I promise :) is the securing the border part of it. For many reasons this should be our first action. You can't clean the wound if you don't stop the bleeding, or you can't clean up the mess if you don't stop the leak. We have addressed removing incentives, (one of which should deny citizenship to children born here illegaly,) and Dave has talked about how that has worked here a little, (notice the Mexican government didn't like it.) I didn't know Barrack was proposing the same thing, I hadn't heard that from him, (I like him, by the way, he does have character, obviously I don't agree with most of his ideas, but I am particularly outraged that "the First Black President," as he calls himself, and his wife, who both protect the black man from the evil racist republicans, are trying to "keep the black man down," as they say, where if they actually practiced what they preached they would step aside and let the black man reach newer heights.) Sorry, didn't lose my thread, different blog, different time. In addition to removing incentives, I feel it is important to build the wall. It has worked and will reduce probably 90% of the illegal immigration, (I can't back that up yet, I have yet to investigate.) My thought though is that the majority of border runners won't be carrying a shovel or ladder, plus I understand it will be really high and really deep, (sidenote: as far as funding goes, the money was already alloted, but has disappeared.) In addition the "cameras" mentioned before are way more than that, they have been coined the virtual fence, which, in preliminary tests, has proved VERY effective. Part of it has been in use for a while. Once it is built it will be extremely more effective for the border patrol to manage and regulate, instead of wide open expanses.
Sorry for being long-winded hope it didn't piss anyone off. Basically; Secure the Border, Remove Incentives, No Amnesty, Get the Mexican Gov't "motivated," (they have been very discourteous this far,) Reform immigration, (last, but not to be underestimated.)
I didn't even talk about national security involved or how to deal with those here, but I will curtail myself.
I think that workers from other countries, ok, illegal immigrants (not the ones here on legal work visas) have a good work ethic and do a lot of good. Therefore, give them a reason or incentive and they should be willing to work just as hard back home to build up their native country. That stupid mayor in Mexico that was upset for the reverse drifting obviously isn't a very creative problem solver.
Seriously, without a secure border what good is even talking about curtailing the illegal immigration? There isn't a controlling factor to use for the legality issue's benefit. And only after the border is secure can the nation (or states since the states will be doing this within their own boundaries) begin to route out illegals and force them to start paying for the benefits they enjoy through citizenship and taxes or else force them to leave.
It just isn't fair to anyone, you, me, the kids, the teachers, to let all the thousands of migrants who are here illegally just pass through and ignore them.
Our EQ's wife (from Canada) was deported last year because of a filing mistake in a govt office. They got it resolved after 3 months and she is back living in their home again. Obviously someone is paying some sort of attention to who is supposed to be here and who isn't. Its the ones who don't leave a paper trail who have tipped the balance in the system.
Jon, I think Dave answered you significantly better than I ever could have, since I'm not really "up" on the immigration issue, nor am I quite as familiar with Obama's positions as he is.
I will say that, IMHO, Romney was the clear winner in last night's debate, including overcoming some TERRIBLE, biased questions from the moderators. And I stand by my assertion that he will win Arizona, at the risk of looking like a total fool. :) I think we're all tired of "Republicans... spending us into oblivion." If this ends up being the biggest issue with Republicans, Romney will win the nomination; if it's the war, it'll be McCain.
It just cracks me up to see some the same Republicans who just RAILED against Kerry for his alleged flip-floppery fawning all over Romney, who was pro-choice at least through 2002, and has moved similarly to the right on taxes, gays, and guns!
Can we all just take a moment and be grateful that all the contenders can string together a coherent sentence?
personally I think Romney has answered questions better about flipflopping than Kerry ever did. Kerry ho-hummed through a lot of questions whereas Romney looks his questioner straight in the eye and doesn't mince his words. Who wouldn't feel more secure about that?
Wow, I'm impressed, Jaron, about how much you have put into that - - I disagree on just about every point, but I don't want to go point by point and explain why I disagree. My feelings, after giving it a few days to mull around and having come up with some sort of feeling in my mind - and, having sorted it out. First, no candidate has the right answer - because they are all words, we have to remember that - just because a candidate says one thing, doesn't mean he's going to be able, or even have the desire to accomplish it - so, for me it's not a candidate issue. Second, we need to understand that this issue is not one with an easy answer - there will be no stopping someone who wants to get across - and how "friendly and open" dies it seem to build a big ol' wall? With sentries posted, etc. If we were fighting a war, or if there were hostilities, that would be one thing - it's beyond me that south korea hasn't built a wall anond their border with North Korea. But, Mexico is our friends, our neighbors, and they are unfortunate. They've had a rough go - let's not close them off with hostility. Cause it's a big ol' symbol, something that will cost bajillions of dollars, and won't really work. Third, We can't fix Mexico - we tried to fix Iraq, we all see how well that worked. We tried to fix Afganistan, North Korea and Vientam too. We can't fix problems - we can give humanitarian aid, we can try to offer our professionals hands to help their governments and professionals make a difference, but we can't fix their problems for them. So lets not try - lets help - If more Americans were willing to use their talents and skills to help those countries fix themsleves (and i'm not talking aobut Military Skills) then We'd have a very different world image, and we'd make an impact. Fourth, lets let them in if they want to - - many immigrants want to come to learn and grow so they can return to their countries and help. Even if they don't want to do that, we can make the "cost" of Immigration (as Dave said) lower - less time, less stipulations - less money even. How can people help themselves when they are impoverished? They can't. Okay, that's my feelings on the matter - Peace - Rick
Mike- I wasn't able to watch the debate so I hope I am not commenting out of line or out of context, but... "Republicans... spending us into oblivion," has me completely confused. Again if there is something I am missing then disregard the following, or if your talking about "replublicans" who have strayed from conservative values like McCain or Huckabee (in regards to spending,) then also disregard. However, Conservative values dictate lower taxes, cutting spending in excess programs that try to run peoples lives, and minimizing gov't power and jurisidiction to a absolute minimum, which would lessen spending as there would be less to afford. On the other hand has anyone considered the cost of socialized healthcare, medicine and education? Who is gonna pay for that? We are. Think that is gonna help the deficit? The whole socialistic idea is based on taking from those who have and giving to those need, and when the power mongers are in power there will be few who fall into the "need" catagory. In addition which party is in favor of tax increases to pay for all the government programs that will have to be instituted. Or tax increases to pay for the problems in the programs we have now. In addition to that when people have to pay more in taxes, and Americans have less money in their pockets what do you think is gonna happen to the economy? Notice that when the Bush tax cuts were introduced and implemented the IRS reported record collections. The government actually got MORE money. Anyhow, at the risk of being long winded to something that I may be misunderstanding, please clarify or rebut.
Rick- I would not mind hearing your arguments furthur beyond what you already have, going point by point I mean, I wouldn't mind, it might enlighten me. I agree that candidates MOSTLY are words... and that they are limited when it comes to implementation (filibustering judges ring any bells?) However if a canditate is one that you judge to be truthful in relaying his core values and beliefs, and those beliefs are in line with your values and ideology, then when presented with a veto or signature they can influence for good or bad. (to the country that is.)
On the wall and illegal immigration or immigration period, I can say that to some degree I thought you might be finitely liberal on this issue. You said that there is no stopping someone who wants to get across, and I couldn't disagree more. If only employer sanctions caused a flood of illegal immigrants back to Mexico, then a massive wall 2 feet thick and 20 feet high will make someone who may be trying to decide between legal or illegal immigration choose the former. If you mean people who are DETERMINED to come here Illegaly, then they can try and will likely be caught, however I don't think that is your core argument. Next you said it doesn't seem friendly and open, well we have been friendly and open for a very long time and it has been abused. Abused by those who SHOULD be our friends, whom we have tried to be patient with, til our education has suffered detriment, our police officers have suffered murder, and our women and children have suffered rape and murder (proper immigration would keep most of those out,) and our healthcare has also suffered. This is a war, with hostilities except we are the ones not fighting back, taking hit after hit after hit. We have a right to have borders, and it is important. If it necessitates a wall because our "friends" have no respect for borders then that is what we need. We have asked Mexico to respect our borders but diplomacy didn't work, instead the Mexican government distributes pamphlets on how to cross without getting caught and how to stay under the radar once they are here. Logically the next step past diplomacy is force (and a wall though unfriendly is hardly any force to cry brutality over.)
You said bajillions of dollars to build a wall, I kinda addressed that in the first. I will look up exactly how much though... $2.2 billion. "This totals over $1 billion per year in funds wasted on illegal aliens instead of American citizens and legal residents in the county."
http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/002500.html Notice the last word is county, so multiply that by the other counties in CA that have suffered and the counties here that are comparable, and we may break even in one year, except the report doesn't cover education expenses so...
We can't fix Mexico...or we won't help Mexican citizens who obvioulsy want what we have? If you are refering to a war or force, then I think Iraq is a poor argument. There is a reason it hasn't been in the news, even just before elections started, and the reason candidates havn't brought it up as ammo is because we are winning. Iraqi deaths in Nov. 06: 3450, in Nov. 07: 650. Troop deaths in Nov. 06: 69, in Nov. 07: 40. Iraqi security forces in Nov. 06: 323,000, in Nov. 07: 430,000. Daily attack by terrorists: 180/80.
oil production (in millions of barrels/day): 2.1/2.4. Prewar was 2.5. Iraqis are glad we are there, they can vote, women have equal rights. Our fathers fought for our rights and now we are fighting for theirs. Diplomacy and aid won't work with heretic leaders. They'll make empty promises and suck up what they can of any aid, or deny you access at all. As for Mexico, our tourism down there is the only thing keeping the Mexican citizens from a civil war, without us already giving so much, they would crumble. But where is my heart? These are real people with real problems. Of course we should give all we have to show how much we love our fellow man. We should open our borders and open our arms and hold out our wallets and car keys that we sweat for, and hand them over. In fact maybe we could go further, let's just talk to President Felipe de Jesus CALDERON Hinojosa, and promise him his cut of Mexican citizen wages in exchange for handing over the country, so we can all be one. We could change our name to United Central America, cause we really don't need state borders either. Then we can all be impoverished together, problem solved. Well almost. Once the world signs on maybe then all the problems will be solved. Then we won't have to work. Cause those evil big businesses will pay for everything. We won't have to pay for education, or healthcare, or housing, the gov't will make sure we're taken care of. Cause they care about the little guy, they said so.
The great part is. Someday this will be the case. When the world is perfect. When utopian ideals will be accepted by all cause everyone WILL care. When socialism can be implemented perfectly and won't be abused. But without the perfect attitudes of perfect citizens, socialism is a dangerous affront to freedom and properity. Politicians make laws that effect each of our lives, like banning the incandescent light bulb in 2010, or California utilty companies trying to legislate control of thermostats, these are small glimpses of what attacks on freedom come from letting the government take control. I agree if each American gave more of himself we could sooth others suffering, but we won't be able to do anything to help if we don't assure our internal stability.
Jaron, I was quoting an earlier comment by Jon, who said he was tired of the Republicans spending us into oblivion - a sentiment that many conservatives have echoed. Regardless of where you stand on tax cuts, I don't think ANYONE thinks they work without cutting spending, as well, and this administration has expanded spending like crazy, including this needless, disastrous war, justified to the American people by outright lies and fear-mongering. I'm not personally sure whether the "surge" is "working" - I hope to heaven that it is. But that doesn't change the facts. There was a trader at a French bank who was in the news the other day for covering up 7 billion in losses. Do you think all would have been well if he managed to keep further losses from happening? That they would have given him another shot? No. He's fired, and probably prosecuted. Whether or not the Bush administration manages to point the war in the right direction - and I've already said, I neither admit or deny this - this gigantic blunder has cost us tremendously in lives, treasure, and international reputation. And, as Joel's pointed out, every single Republican candidate said last night that going to war was a good idea. What catastrophic fools we would be as a nation to elect one of these people.
This is the biggest reason that, in the absence of a Russ Feingold campaign - Russ was the only senator to vote against the PATRIOT Act in 2001 - I am voting for Barack Obama. I've been criticized and told that I'm not voting for a candidate, I'm voting "against Bush". You'd better believe that's true. Why not a Democrat? Things were certainly better under Bill Clinton, whether you like the guy or not. Couple a Democratic president with a Senate or House majority and you've got potential for real change. Clinton is divisive; Obama is liked across the board. It's time for Democrats, folks, because the Republicans blew it big time. It's also time for dinner.
Jaron, Republicans have been spending us into the ground lately. Our deficit is incredible, and there's been a Republican president and a Republican Congress. No, spending like you've got 2 weeks to live is not a traditional Conservative value. Obviously you know this, but I still feel compelled to point out that 1) not all Republicans or Democrats embody every quality traditionally associated with their party or ideology, and 2) not every human being takes "their" Party's bait hook, line, and sinker. (Observe KWS's stance on immigration - yes, he's allowed to stray from the Party line! I don't want to live in a country where no one does!)
Anyway, that's been bugging me for a couple of days. :) If you don't like contradiction then you're not going to like my posts! I'm fiscally quite conservative and socially very liberal. Yeehaw! Some of us just have to pick a party so we are "allowed" to vote.
Hello Avid LDS Political Junkies,
This is an interesting discussion; however, I would like to focus back on immigration. I would like to reference my source of infinite wisdom on this topic ;-) and refer you to another politically minded LDS loudmouth.
Please note that I stand corrected, it was 22 years ago (not 10) when a Republican president named RONALD REAGAN passed the law which was lenient on illegal immigrants and focused on penalizing the corporations who are hiring them. This supports my claim that Obama is rehashing old news as his own "change". We need someone who respects and remembers the past and learns from it. We need Mitt Romney to carry on the good things that Reagan left off.
Please follow this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=aAaBgMmSrJo
P.S. The cost of illegal immigration is effecting our schools, our healthcare, our police and our safety. The opportunity cost of implementing pragmatic controls to fix the problem is well worth it. Not doing anything for another 10 years is the costly choice.
P.S.S. I speak spanish and love Latin culture. I am from San Diego and love Mexico. I strongly support legal immigration and look forward to a day when illegal immigrants don't screw up the program for the legal constituents.
In regards to the issue of the Republicans spending us to death - according to the Republican National Debate (see Joel's blog) in 2001, the national debt was in the neighbor hood of 5 trillion, and now it's in the neigborhood of 9 trillion. So, 200+ years of US history = 5 trillion national debt. 8 years of US history=4 additional trillion. hmmmm...sounds like at least THAT republican was spending us to death.
Jaron, I got to say, I'm a bit surprised at you, so I have a lot to say. First, we've never lived in Mexico. In fact, we've never lived anywhere or in any position in which we've really had to struggle. So, we have to picture it. Picture life being so bad that we leave our homes and positions (and in many cases our families) and trek across the desert both on foot, or in the trunk of a beat up old car, we cross into a country where we have no legal identity, we have no name, frankly, we aren't real people, all to take on the lowest possible paying job, menial labor, and live in impoverished circumstances whee we make sub minimum wage. What must these peole ahve been coming FROM in order for this to seem like a GOOD option.
Also, whose Jobs are you worried about them taking? Not mine. Not anyone I'm close to. They are meat packers, janitors, ditch diggers and maybe fastfood employees (if they're lucky). Much of the western US has been built on the back of immigrants both legal and illegal.
I've been teaching at this English school here in Provo, and though it is expensive, there are many illegals from Mexico going to the school, to try to learn English. I've been talking to them about Immigration - even about their immigration stories.
Most immigrants are Christian and alot are LDS (surprise - go to a Spanish Branch sometime and find out how many are legal). These faithful people pray to God as they are jumping borders or swimming rivers that they can make it safely so that they can save their families.(that was recently relayed to me by an immigrant friend.) You know, I find it interesting that we had a loooong discussion on Marriage Legislation, and our conservative friends went off about saving the family, and strenghtening the family. But here, we'd send these people back to Mexico when all they are trying to do is save their families. I guess our families are more important. What are these people trying to do but save and strengthen their families. It's ironic that we live in a society where we feel that homosexual civil unions would be detrimental to "the family," while not batting an eye at these families that are being torn apart by poverty.
Also, many if not most of these immigrants (this is coming from talking to them) don't want to stay here - they want to earn some money, pick up professional skills, and get the means necessary to go back and strenghten their families and communites.
Lets remember too that Not all Mexicans are impoverished - Many many mexicans are very well off - it's mostly the Northern Mexicans - the citizens of a few mexican states, that are living in squallor.
Earlier, you pretty much laid blame of police death, rape, murder and economic problems on the sholders of Illegal Immigrants. That is totally unfair and uncalled for. THat is a local thing - In Philidelphia, most of those problems are caused from African Americans, but it would be ludicrous to blame all African Americans for certian problems caused by some young punk upstarts. In the same way that it is rediculous to associate the religion of Islam with terrorism. Immigrants live in squalor, they are trying to be good people, but some turn to drugs and alcohol to kill the pain. To blame US crime on them is a gross exageration. There will always be poor, and the poor will sometimes turn to criminality. Whether they are legal or illegal isn't the point. if the illegals weren't here, someone else would turn to crime, and it would likely be legal citizens who are forced to take the crappy jobs that immigrants would have done.
I understand your frusteration. I grew up across the street from you - I lived in the same circumstances as you, but you have to understand that we are talking about living, breathing, loving people. Your last post was quite sarcastic and kind of offended me for my friends. Don't make light of others travails.
I state my solution again. Let us welcome them - when they have provided us with information to do a background check, let us bring them in. Lets lower the "costs" of coming here, so that they WANT to do it legally - because no one wants to live a lie. Let us give them a legal immigrant status, or a timed work visa. Lets even help them get minimum wage jobs - lets make sure that there is options that are affordable to the immigrants and the poor class of America. Lets do what America did for most of its life and welcome the poor and hungry. Things like that aren't beyond possibility. Then there wouldn't need to be a giant, forboding wall to keep everyone but us special people out. That's not what the USA is about. If it is, then count me out of it.
So we can preach with bleeding hearts, for those in other nations who are less fortunate, while not batting an eye at the loss of an officer during a routine stop who was taken from his family, a young mother with two kids? An American. "They are not all like that so it is okay that this guy gets shot in the face." We can't take care of our own before turning to those who don't seem to appreciate what we already are doing for them? If I am making light of their travails, then you are making light of the burden they have caused, and the deaths. Did you know that illegal aliens murder 12 Americans daily? That is more than our troops deaths in Iraq. Where is your bleeding heart for them. What is this notion by most liberals that this people of this nation are undeserving of those things we work so hard for? Maybe 9/11 was our fault after all.
I didn't say all illegals are criminals, nor did I say that all crime is committed by them. What I am saying is that of those who cross illegaly, lds or non believer, there is a higher concentration of criminals than is currently in our society. And I don't understand how lds members can cross and still uphold the laws of the land. We don't break the law so we can practice polygamy. I am glad God is the judge in this one cause I don't know what to think about that, honestly, and this is not, by far, the first time I have had this question.
I guess I just don't get where you all are coming from. Where do you get your diluted misinformation on all these issues (I am sure the same applies to me from your perspective.) That should be our real debate. How is it that I can have a clear opinion that I feel is completely backed by truth unadultered, and you have the complete opposite opinion and feel the same way about it. We are gonna be passionate about these issues and feel offended and stressed and attacked, but lets all remember that ideas produce results, and not give up. I don't want to offend someone into not talking about it anymore. So don't give up on me. Lets work through this. Remember it is politics.
Ok now Rick, I don't understand why you assume that I don't think we are talking about living breathing real people. I do, I do, I do. I tried to iterate that before. I understand that they are seeking a better life, that they want what we have. Is it solely based on my solutions or complaints? Do you feel that Americans don't have the right to sustain this way of life just as Mexicans as human beings deserve to have this lifestyle or freedoms? So I guess the next question is do you feel that the impact illegal immigration is having, and will have, is truthful or is even a threat to what we have? Maybe that should be our discussion. I promise you that I understand they are impoverished, and that they are mostly good people, I also get to work with them everyday. Maybe not as prolonged as you cause I chat for a few minutes here or there when they come in to have work done on their tractors or trailers, or I get to talk to the drivers of some of the equipment I fix. I have been able to learn a little spanish from it. They are good people.
So my next question, is how bad is life down there that makes them leave and trek across the desert? I honestly don't know, maybe that is where I can improve on this issue. I always hear it is bad, but what's the unemployment? What's the cost of living? The mean salary? Homeless rate? Cause to be honest when people lead humanitarian efforts I usually hear it being to south america, maybe I am out of the loop on that one. How does their poverty compare to south america and africas? How much aid does the church send to Mexico as opposed to south america, africa and india? I am not trying to make a point I honestly would like to know.
I actually do associate the religion of Islam with terrorism. OOps. I understood it is preached by them, death to any one who won't eventually become Islamic. Religion of Peace...with conditions (fine print.)
Bhuddism is probably the most peaceful, I have never heard anyone yelling "Bhudda!!" before they explode. I am admitting this as a fault on my part, no sarcasm.
On National debt, who sets spending? I understood the house and senate pass laws governing those things, and typically a president hardly ever has a majority of his party to work with, in addition that, when he does have his party, like Bush did, democrats were getting completely bent out of shape, and crying minority rights (in a majority rules systme,) and filibustering judicial nominees, and employing all sorts of unheardof tactics to hinder any kind of progress. Then you have to take into acount the war, which is a necessary evil, and natural disasters like hurricanes that contribute to the debt. After all things considered if Republicans are overspending then I have been decieved by my party and they're implementation of our ideals (this may likely be the case, republicans have been pretty spineless lately.) And Clinton may have lowered the debt, but that is because he didn't do anything while in office, obviously, cause he had plenty of time to screw around...;o he he.
Lastly, it was said that I don't want to be contradicted, and contradiction is what I am getting riled up about. Not so, please don't misunderstand me, we all are passionate as I afore stated, please stay the course. I was riled up just from realizing the solidity of your positions, but no, I welcome contradiction. It makes me re-evaluate, I have no problem admitting my misconceptions when I understand situations clearer, and I have, and I will. Contradictions make me question, "am I saying that right? am I seeing this wrong? have I been decieved?" and I hope you will do the same. We are all passionate seekers of truth, all suseptible to deceit, and all humans prone to pride, indignity, and ignorance, and I will try to remember that always and question everything. Sorry if I offended by my intensity, I promise I will watch that and try to be more sensitive. (I also find that my intensity comes out 50 millions times more stronger when writing than when speaking in person, in words I typically can't make 2 ideas conjoin in any regularity. Plus I haven't as yet had an outlet for these ideas and views, thanks for that opportunity Mike.) Love you all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uwOL4rB-go
Have you guys seen this? It is hilarious, I was crying-laughing.
(P.S. I don't know how to make links, sorry. If copy/paste doesn't work, search youtube for achmed the dead terrorist.)
Rick, your statements echo the idea of what my original post was saying I believe. Basically, if you look at the individuals (ie. the people you were teaching, my sister-in-law) they believe they were led here by the Lord. However, you can't run a country with millions of people and run government sponsored programs like medicare and welfare, etc that give out thousands of dollars when only hundreds of dollars are coming in. (I'm speaking hypothetically for the situation, we all know there are thousands of thousands moving around in these programs). The people you are teaching english to who want to go home to their families should have gotten legal working visas before coming. They may be good people but they are subverting the system and breaking the law.
If you are happy paying for other people's medical bills then I have a $3000 medical bill that I need to pay. I will accept check or money order, and I will be very thankful. I am a good person too, don't I deserve your handouts? (You already paid the medical bills of my sister in law. Was that the best use of your $10,000?)
Jaron, Jeff Dunham is HILARIOUS! Walter is my favorite by FAR. Or, perhaps most appropriate for this comment thread, Jose Jalapeño!
Goodness, I need to check back more regularly!
On the wall: The cost of a wall is not concerning to me if it would work, at least according to the statistics cited above. If our 2 feet thick mighty wall stopped even 80% of illegal border-crossing, we would clearly make a return on that investment in healthcare and education savings. I think, though, that few people consider the nature of illegal crossing. We characterize it as people trekking across the desert, and it is that. This is the most innocuous brand of border crossing, in my opinion. But there are also organizations out there who, for a fee, get people into America. You may have noticed that I just described a business model. While this particular market (the one for passage to the US) is one diversification of their portfolios, these businesses are on the whole also engaged in many other illicit activities. It makes sense, after all, as long as you're breaking the law, to exploit your own preexisting subterranean infrastructure to also move people across the border. There is a profit motive in the immigrant traffic business, and that will continue to exist even with a wall in place. The price will go up with a wall, and I've never said we shouldn't try to increase the cost of illegal immigration. But it is unrealistic to think that criminal organizations that transport large quantities of illicit cargoes (and people on the side) and making lots of money doing it are going to lie down when confronted with two feet of concrete. Cargoes and people are still going to cross the border! What you will succeed in doing is pushing the business deeper underground, putting it into the hands of ever more dangerous people. The people who come through will have closer ties to the criminals who brought them in and may prove more problematic than harmless desert-trekkers. Again, I concede that building a wall increases costs. Breaching a wall physically by tunneling, or paying more in bribes to border patrols, or infiltrating their own agents into the U.S. border patrol cadre, etc. are all going to raise the costs of doing this. So a wall might be a good idea; but it might not because if enough people are still getting through, then you've just spent $2 billion on something that works only half the time and incurring ongoing burdens inside the counties of California. (I assume for convenience that the $2 billion figure is accurate, although I doubt it allows for continued physical maintenance like concrete repair, camera replacement, electricity usage of patrol stations and camera systems, salaries of border patrol [be careful to make this high enough that they aren't susceptible to bribes], living quarters for border patrol for posts too far from civilization to commute, and on and on; this total by year is non-negligible.)
I just can't get on board with the wall idea because of its hostile nature and therefore negative impact on foreign policy. All I can think of when people talk about big ol' wall stuff is Berlin during the Cold War and the barrier put around Palestine by Israel and, more recently enforced, by Egypt.
Once again I would ask readers to at least consider that there are other ways to influence immigration from Mexico, including putting funds toward simplifying and streamlining the legal process. (Hint: We could actually do this and a wall at the same time!)
On illegal immigrants and violent crime: With 12 million (est.) illegals in this country, it is no surprise that some of them are involved in crime. I would be interested to see a breakdown of those engaged in violent crime by demographic to see if Jaronius' assertion in regard to a higher criminal proportion among this population is true. Either way, I stick to my point above about the dangers of pushing illegal immigration further underground. In the mean time, let me say that the United States has definite problems with violence, and that is a fact.
I also want to comment on Islam and terrorism, but I think we should start a new post and comment string for that entirely separate topic.
PS - jonathan, are you being paid by the Romney campaign, or are you a volunteer? I think the American thing to do would be to demand compensation for your services! Mitt would certainly appreciate your kindred entrepreneurial spirit.
KWS, I think you would enjoy this. In fact, I think everyone who has posted comments about illegal immigration would.
Click here
I put this link on earlier, but I don't believe anyone actually watched/listened to it.
True, I didn't watch it before. The hyperlink really is an amazing thing to save lazy-face me from having to cut and paste. Funny stuff. I like Glenn Beck most of the time. Sometimes I wonder if Romney is paying him as well... a question I asked of you that was deftly deflected by a funny YouTube link!
Well, that video does kind of sum it up pretty well! Plus la change, right? (Not sure how to do that little French "c" squiggly thing...)
And I certainly agree that candidates should be giving credit to their predecessors for good ideas that they are wanting to continue...but I have this really sneaky feeling (cue sarcasm) that those who do so are doing it maybe 30% to give credit where credit is due, and 70% to invoke the name of whoever their Party's most recent Golden Boy was (Reagan, Clinton, waaaaay back to JFK anyone? The good ol' days!)
And Jaron, I think there are parts of the world that have it much, much worse than Mexico (at least Mexico has had of late a relatively stable government, if not one that seems to be interested in helping the Mexican people in any very meaningful way). It's just that in those other countries, there isn't always such an obvious emigration choice as the US. You're in Africa? Good luck finding a nearby country that isn't also in the midst of raging civil war, or just come through one, or about to start one. And good luck getting to it without being blown to pieces. If you're destitute in Mexico, the way things stand now it's kind of a no-brainer to come here. And I can't say that if it was me and my family in that position, I wouldn't do the same thing.
I'm not saying it's A-OK and it's not causing any problems (quite the opposite!) but I am saying, honestly, that I understand where they're coming from.
That was good video -about right. On a side note, I know Glen Beck - he was in one of my wards on the mission - and, he's a pompous windbag, personally - I dont' much care for his politics either. I think the correct answer is, "we aren't going to stop it - so what is the arguement about?"
Jaron, Crime sucks - if we really want to do something about crime, we can start a new thread about that. There's lots to be done that isn't - - It happens by EVERY demographic. Here is an excellent article I found - http://americas.irc-online.org/am/4903
If you are too lazy to cut and paste, then just take my word for it - it states that " A 2007 study by Immigration Policy Center (IPC) found that immigrants, whether legal or illegal, are substantially less likely to commit crimes or to be incarcerated than U.S. Citizens." THe reason? They don't WANT to get deported. Simple enough - violent crimes leads to arrest, arrest leads to deportation. Why has this been ignored? Cause we hear what the media wants us to hear - and sometimes we see what we want to see and hear what we want to hear.
And in answer to your other question, no, I don't think they are screwing the economy up. I don't think it's a problem. We should talk more about healthcare, Jonathan, because if Healthcare went the way I wanted it to, then the rediculous question of the immigrants jacking up the prices of healthcare wouldn't even be an issue. Some of us here have already duked that one out (via email and my personal blog) and youc an read all about it there - basically, though, I feel that socialized medicine is the ONLY answer for this country's heath care woes -and until that is achieved, healthcare ISN'T getting better. No, I can't pay for your "$3000" medical bill, because I can't even pay for insurance for my wife because the premiums are too high. Not the fault of immigrants - lets lay fault where it is due - on HMOs and on a system that is intrensically flawed, because it puts healtchare in the hands of capitolist business men. But that's a different issue, isn't it.
Jaron, make sure you study religions before you let them become demonified in your mind. I will assert that there isn't a religion out there that is worthy of our disdain. And no large group should be classified because of a few insane members of that group. Islam doesn't preach terrorism. "Jihad" is a big idea in the religion, but it does not consist of terrorism. Jihad means "struggle" And that means, and historically always has meant, Struggle with imperfection, struggle with the human condition, sturggle to overcome temptation, struggle to achieve a form of godliness. Struggle to preach the word of God - NOT struggle to kill everyone that doesn't believe the same way as we do. In very fact, Christianity, Judaism and Mandaeism all found a safe haven in the Islamic Empires of the Middle ages and Renissance, because of their amnisty towards other religions that professed a belief in the 1 true god - that is the God of Abraham. Not only that, but Islam saved the knowledge of the ancient world through their libraries and universities, and the influx of that knowledge into medieval Europe after having lost it for 1000 years is what spurred the Renissance. Islam is historically a good thing. If you think they were the villians in the Crusades, think again. We are looking at a hard time for islam (especially with american Upstarts like Malcom X and the new American Black Islamic movement causing worlds of trouble) but the religion is good and inspired - so PLEASE don't relate a religion to terrorism. Sorry, but that really struck a chord. Anyways, I'm tired - talk to you later - Rick
Rick,
I'm surprised that you don't want to pay for another person's healthcare on an individual basis but don't mind paying for thousands of procedures and health exams for hundreds of thousands of illegals. Yes, I said illegals. Because of shoddy politicians Medicare exists and it is doing more damage than good for our country. You are paying for illegals' healthcare because they qualify for health coverage by Medicare. Who pays for Medicare? We do. The American People. Notice I don't say "people who happen to live in the US of America." And you're paying for people's health care who "can't afford an HMO" but still qualify for Medicare. If you can't even afford BYU's dirt cheap student insurance you should be a LITTLE more outraged that so many of your tax dollars are going towards payment on people's medical bills thru Medicare, when that money could be going towards, say, the salary of teachers. Afterall, your profile does say that teaching is your profession. If you were paid more by the government as a teacher you could afford health coverage for your wife. Perhaps if Medicare didn't exist then there would be more $ to pay other government paid employees. Whether you are being paid or are volunteering, you have to realize that a government health program, such as Medicare, only sucks money from other programs such as education.
And being in the health industry myself I am not an idle observer. Socialized health care is the WORST thing that could happen to this nation. People think it would be great because then they wouldn't have to pay for health insurance. Uh, wrong! Your money [much more than now] will simply disappear in the form of higher taxes, which are used for: surprise! To pay for socialized government programs like Medicare. You're still paying for health insurance, only instead of being able to shop around for the best deal the government will take a huge chunk of money from you and you'll still get crappy service and the bare minimum covered. You'll still have to pay for private health coverage to pay for things like epidurals because technically a person CAN have a baby without anesthesia. We lived in London briefly in 2005, with plenty of opportunity to talk to other British citizens about their country's programs and ways of running things. And guess what? European countries are moving towards having less and less socialized health coverage because the people are sick and tired of paying for crap and having to pay for private health coverage anyway, despite what the government has to offer in their oh-so-great healthcare programs.
Programs like Medicare cost way more than they benefit us. Have you heard of the Mediare Funding Warning?? Right now this program is paying out WAY MORE in services and salaries, etc than it is receiving in taxes. Oh, where do taxes come from? American working citizens. Why is this a problem? Because illegals come here, work, take their money home or send it home, and keep it. ALL OF IT. In other words, I don't get to keep all my money I earn because taxes get taken out of it but these illegals keep their money and don't pay for the benefits they receive while they are here, primarily free health coverage and education for their children.
The more we talk about this topic the more I feel I was way too nice and undecided when I wrote the original post. Its a no-brainer that illegals have broken the law, take our money, YES TAKE OUR JOBS, and soak up the benefits of being an American without honestly earning it by becoming a citizen.
Okey dokey, well, I apologize,... particularly to Rick, we have been heated and I contributed with fuel to the fire, sorry. I am much calmer now and am ready to communicate in a less abrasive way,... hopefully. Just remember that I am as passionate about my position as you are yours, and we are trying to work toward progress here. Also in my apology is the insinuation of Islam as terrorism, it was unintentional and my error was in my insensitivity I believe. Before my comment on terrorism I had come to a beration of myself on my unproductivism, and had changed moods, but failed to adaquately translate that in my script. My comment came at a light hearted moment for me as I was re-reading your comments and had the thought about the relationship between Muslims and terrorism. Without challenging your expertice on the subject I was admitting my fault at actually and usually having a prejudice toward Muslims, however flawed, and was admitting to my fault and not making some cynical point. It was a poor choice of words to portray my thoughts. Then I thought it was really funny to think about a Buhddist doing something similar. Long story short, sorry.
Next, thank you Wizzle, for your comments, I agree, and I honestly was trying to consider the situation in Mexico when I made the comment, the sincerity and lack of sarcasm, wasn't well attributed to my typing in this area either.
So, the dirt. Rick, I did use your link, I am only that lazy in reality, like getting up from my chair to use the bathroom...it can wait, right. The address was an article of someone who seemed upset, (so deemed by me, in judgement of the use of strong political language such as "alarmist," and "indignant anti-immigration forces," and "vitriol.") Tom Barry also seems to share the misconception, as many liberals do, that when conservatives talk about this issue, we are addressing legal as well as illegal immigrants, hence the use of "anti-immigration forces," repetitively in his article, and hence the many, many times we have been called rascists.
We are more really really pro legal immigration than anything else. Anyhow, his article, I feel, is inconsequential based on that fact and based on the study that he sights, because it is all in regards to immigrants as a whole and does nothing to segregate legal from illegal immigration. It is unclear to me whether Ruben G. Rumbaut was intending to make a point toward illegal immigration vs crime, or whether he was under the same false assumption that it is what we are opposing, but on both of those fields he was flawed in citation of his facts. His facts were only in reference to immigrants in general, in the which by the way I found I was in general interest and agreement from the social aspect.
As a side note he really doesn't even make a good case for immigrants in general. I.E. citing crime rates falling in heavily populated immigrant cities. I don't see how he can credit a falling crime rate to immigrants not committing crimes. There are so many other factors to take into account. Who know whether or not it is a uniformily ethnic drop, it may not be, and even then it doesn't address their legallity. Furthermore he cites that there is a higher prison rate among immigrants than of those born here. Again not addressing the legality. Having said that, Ruben is a progessor of Sociology so I assume he is interested in the assimilation of immigrants and how they fair. Again I state, I saw no comparison in his study, that differentiated between legal and illegal immigrants to any consequence. In fact, as I have said before I would make his point for him, possibly better. That legal immigrants seem to make better citizens than many Americans do. Suprise, suprise, that is what legal immigration is designed to do, create wholesome up-standing citizens. Remember, legality is the issue and not immigration.
So, that leads me to my next point, what I want to know is this. What is the comparison of illegal immigrants vs legal immigrants in the US, then what is the comparison of illegals in prison vs illegals. That to me is the question, I think. I have seen common figures like 44 million immigrants, 21.3 of which are illegal. I am seeing 27%quoted as the illegal population in prisons, what I can't find solid figures for is the number of non-US born inmates (illegal and legal alike.) I have heard 33%, but can't back it up yet. All the other numbers I can back up. Also, I found it interesting the number of independent studies done by gov't and non gov't entities that were examining this issue, yet the only study I seemed to find for the other side of the argument seemed to quote or reference Ruben's study. But maybe I wasn't looking in the right places right? I thought I was trying to be impartial, after all if I am being decieved, I wanna know! I just haven't found that to be the case.
So I guess I am saying that even though your article was interesting from a perspective of not my own, I feel it was inconclusive and am interested to see what else we can come up with on the facts. I feel the study wasn't discisive enough with numbers, it seemed to draw too many conclusions, and wasn't relative to what I feel is the real debate.
You said that you didn't feel that illegal immigration is a problem economically in response to my question, and I wanted to clarify... You don't feel it is having a noticable impact at all, or it only has a small one, or it has an impact, but doesn't matter because it is worth the cost?
Last comment, regarding our world relations and image..."It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat." -Roosevelt.
No matter what we do we will be criticized. If we do nothing we will be criticized, but most of all if we act in what we think is best we will be criticized. If we are right and great we will be hated for being so. Let's just worry about us and what is right for our country.
Hey, Jar - thanks for that - I did read it all, but it took some time!:) I'll tell you what, I'm basically the only proponant of my position on immigration, and therefore I think I need to just bow out of this one - I don't have the facts I need to back it up - for me it is mostly a feeling. It's an emotional issue - one where I try to put myself in others shoes and see where they're coming from. I wish I had facts to back it up, but I don't right now. You asked me to clarify my stance - I think that illegal immigration does have an impact on the economy, but the amount of work being done by the immigrants in menial positions for cheap wages, I think, makes up for that problem by supplying a cheap-as-free labor force. So I think it evens itself out. Some people earlier talked about the immigrants using my medical money - -that problem would be completely ileviated if we had socialized medicine - However, I will address that more later. Anyways, Jar, keep looking, and if you can find statistics on illegal vs. legal crime rates, let me know -that article was the best I could find, but there is probably a better one out there - peace - Rick
Cool. Discussion suspended for now then. Hopefully we will have access to more info in the future, better and more accurate and all. Although I hope it doesn't take another decade... he he, (6's right!) later.
First off: what a great site! I've been looking for something like this for a while now.
I often hear that illegal immigrants cost the taxpayers "far too much" in services -- medical care, educating their children, and incarceration being the primary areas. But how much do they cost us, exactly? The problem is, no one knows for sure, because no one even knows how many illegal immigrants there are. Numerous studies have been done with estimates of total costs ranging widely. Generally, anti-immigration ("immigration reform") lobbyists estimate between $10 billion and $36 billion annually in costs to Americans for all services. To put these numbers in perspective:
2008 Federal Budget for Military & National Security: $717 Billion
Social Security: $608 Billion
Medicaid: $202 Billion
Also, the $36 Billion does not take into account contributions immigrants make to our economy, such as the goods and services they buy, the costs employers save in paying lower wages and no health insurance coverage, 401(k), etc, and the overall lower costs of goods and services employers are able to pass on to consumers. Indeed, some studies have shown that illegals have a net positive effect on the US economy.
Post a Comment