A platform for immigrants - NY Times Lunacy

New York Times ^ | Aug 29, 2004 | NY Times

[skeeter]

Chavez needed to limit the supply of labor in order to drive up wages. A ruthless man, he apparently is on the same side as many who are posting here who want to limit the number of immgrants comong here to work.

Chavez was a socialist.

There are two countries - one carefully limits immigration to that which provides the greatest collective benefit and strictly enforces its immigration laws. The other allows the wholesale importation of millions of dirt poor laborers, most from a politically unstable neighbor, with the effect of driving down wages & squeezing the middle class.

Which country is more at risk of eventual socialization?

[Aetius]

Yeah, it says we'd need at least 5 million legal immigrants per year to save an inherently flawed system! I don't see the logic of making the immigration problems worse in order to prop up a Soc Sec system that should be moved towards private retirement accounts and away from a pay as you go system.

But again, if that is the solution one prefers, then the politicians should just be honest about it. Bush, Kerry, etc should go before the public and say that they want to increase immigration levels by a factor of 5, that they want 5 million legal immigrants per year instead of our already large influx of one million per year. Honesty is preferable to deception.

They also mention the National Academy of Sciences study done back in the mid-late 90s to study the fiscal impact of immigration. The bottom line of that study was that immigration was a net benefit -- to the whopping tune of about one tenth of one percent of GDP. In other words; nothing.

[Luis Gonzalez]

It isn't about whether you see the logic of it or not, the fact remains that Americans will neither A) go for an increase in legal immigration of that magnitude, and would most likely dump any politician who brings it up, or B) give up Social Security.

Meanwhile, any effort by any administration to make any inroads into this issue is greeted by jeers from most because the only acceptable solution to some, is the immediate resolution of the issue; plainly spoken they want to get to the end of the race without actually running the course.