Posted on 12/29/2005 5:53:27 AM PST by harpu
"We have a supply and a demand problem. The supply problem is coming across the border. We are in this bill doing something very specific about that with the inclusion of the amendment, with the passage of the amendment, to build some barrier along at least 700 miles of our southern border. I hope we continue with that, by the way, along the entire border, to the extent it is feasible, and the northern border we could start next." -- Rep. Tom Tancredo (R., Colo.)
So there you have it. Tom Tancredo has done everyone a favor by stating plainly the immigration rejectionists' end-game -- turn the United States into the world's largest gated community. The House took a step in that direction this month by passing another immigration "reform" bill heavy with border control and business harassment and light on anything that will work in the real world.
For the past two decades, border enforcement has been the main focus of immigration policy; by any measure, the results are pitiful. According to the Migration Policy Institute, "The number of unauthorized migrants in the United States has risen to almost 11 million from about four million over the past 20 years, despite a 519% increase in funding and a 221% increase in staffing for border patrol programs."
Given that record, it's hard to see the House Republican bill as much more than preening about illegal immigration. The legislation is aimed at placating a small but vocal constituency that wants the borders somehow sealed, come what may to the economy, American traditions of liberty or the Republican Party's relationship with the increasingly important Latino vote.
-big giant snip-
...At some point, the president of the United States will have to get behind the Statue of Liberty or Tom Tancredo's wall.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Nah. I just had this weird notion of following a train of thought thru a thread. I started the thought with a protest that small businesses should NOT be tasked with enforcing federal immigration laws. That is the job of the fed, and that if they really wanted to do so, they have the data and the enforcement powers necessary to do so. The fact is that they don't WANT to do so, because they recognize illegals working here as a source of revenue. I then cited a quick calc on how much "free money" comes into the fed due to the willing hypocrisy of Social Security and the IRS.
As sure as sh!t attracts flies, some freeper felt duty bound to point out that the costs to us are greater than the revenue generated to the fed. I said that this was not the point at issue i.e. "Wrong issue here, wrong thread."
As far as being "thread police" I fear that my qualifications are suspect. I sometimes forget to laugh at the people who post here and get upset with them instead. It is a character flaw that gets me suspended sometimes, so my track record doesn't rise to the quals necessary for internet police. I deal with many heavy breathers here who are so damn stupid that they can't tell the difference between complete amnesty and no borders vs. liberal immigration and dual paths to legal status. As a result, I get a good deal of the kind of cranially eviscerated vapid accusations lke this gem "Frankly, I find your support of illegal activity disgusting."..... whoops, er, that was YOUR post. Oh well. Anyway, if you were one of the OTHER imbeciles who accuse me of various and sundry activities, I would respond that I do not "support illegal activity" but rather think there is more than one way to deal with the illegal activity that has gone on. If that one went by too quickly for you, let me know and I will try to type slower for you next time.
Thank you for your kind and respectful comments. I will get back with you as soon as I can. I am unwinding a position on the dollar/euro, and the market is thin, so I don't want to screw myself on fills.
If you show a US citizen respect and value him/her you have a friend for life.It's a big deal to us as well.
Thank you for your Ad Hominem attack (a DU trait). It illustrates the activity "sometimes of a very personal nature" that immigration discussion can evoke.
The race-baiting puzzles me as much as the liberal. Goal number three as I currently see it "elect Republicans". The race-baiting is out of left field.
Simply calling you on your race-baiting tactics is not a "a DU trait" however much you try to spin it that way. You implied people are "xenophobic" for wanting our laws enforced, there's been enough of that coming from the left, we don't need it from supposed conservatives either.
Also I might add it's been pointed out to you numerous times on this thread few are calling for massive door to door deportations but rather just enforce the law as they're encountered. We need to go after businesses breaking the law too.
You keep going back to this "it's either that or legalize them" strawman argument. We've been down the legalize them road before and we're not going to fall for it again.
You implied people are "xenophobic" for wanting our laws enforced Didn't say that, you only said I did. But I do not think xenophobic policies are wise.
Also I might add it's been pointed out to you numerous times on this thread few are calling for massive door to door deportations But some are calling for massive deportations.
Better yet, just enforce the law, jail all the business owners (small and large) who hire illegals when they cannot find workers. This is a loser for the political party that does this.
We've been down the legalize them road before and we're not going to fall for it again.Previously we issued Green Cards in amnesty and then did not enforce the border. Temporary visas with a strong border and deportation has not been done previously.
Incidently, what do you see as goals in immigration? The goals not the methods.
That won't work. If you have a guest worker program you create all kinds of industries. It becomes part of the economy. People become dependent on it for their livelihood as sure as heroin addiction. How could the program possibly end?
I'm not saying that program should be temporary. I am saying that there should be no path to citizenship, and the workers would only be in the country for a set period of time.
For example, the first wave of workers would be allowed to stay here legally and work under a program for a period of 2-5 years. After that period is up, those workers will either return to their home countries, or re-enlist in the worker program.
By TEMPORARY, I mean no path to citizenship. If correctly done and strictly enforced, a TEMPORARY worker program can go in indefinetly as long as the need for workers is there, and never result in an amnesty. Combined with any plan, though, must be the end to automatic birthright citizenship.
What's "xenophobic policies" to you, enforcing the law? Since that's what most of us want you are basically calling us xenophobes. We're not a bunch of first graders here so please knock off the "it depends on the meaning of 'is' is" routine.
But some are calling for massive deportations.
Maybe some are but that's not going to happen and it's not the only option other than legalizing them as you keep implying. A policy of attrition, which includes secure borders would go a long way toward solving the problem.
Previously we issued Green Cards in amnesty and then did not enforce the border. Temporary visas with a strong border and deportation has not been done previously.
Nor we will see enforcement in any new program. How many times does it have to be pointed out that when it comes to immigration the government simply refuses to do it so excuse us for our cynical attitudes that will suddenly change with a new guest worker program.
Incidently, what do you see as goals in immigration?
As far as low-wage, low-skilled workers go that was already explained to you in a previous post you obviously didn't read.
Actually, the study you quoted presents a little different picture. You were not able to look closely ( I use a Treo too, so I understand you citing the inability to provide all the details, but you did provide the link, and I did go to it, and I thank you for it) at the study, but it really is not quite the picture you propose. Actually, the NUMBERS line up this way: The 1997 NRC study you cite (I have it open in front of me, you can link to it here ) actually says "Immigrants as a whole do not impose a financial burden on native born Americans..... the study calculates the fiscal impact of immigrants and their descendants on native born Americans.... tax payments minus the cost of government services they would consume....social security, medicaid, medicare, public schools, police and fire protection and government health services. The study found that the average immigrant.... paid in $80,000 MORE than he consumed in services over a lifetime." The number you cite ($89,000) is a first generation only figure for only "low skilled" immigrants -- to be honest, they comprise the vast majority of illegals, so we can use them as a population-- of cost vs. income but only for the first generation, with the next generation producing a net surplus of $75,000 per desdendant, eclipsing the $80,000 per person first generation that the study cited, and certainly eradicating the "debt" of parents. Further the gross outlay here in the study did not take into account the 96 welfare reform statutes (which reduced immigrant subsidies by 9,000 dollars per family). Finally, even if the "input v. output" curve were negative, NO sane economist would measure a person's value to the economy only on such terms. According to Julian Simon's study (1995), immigrants RAISE the overall wage and productivity scale. Even Borjas's oft-cited study only makes the case that illegals depress wages in SELECTIVE GROUPS (those with minimal educational/training skills), and that the .35 percent decrease per 1% rise in this group is "negligible." (his word, not mine).
This study (thanks again for it)goes on to either destroy, debunk or at least raise serious doubts about every single canard raised here on FR against immigrants, or as the hard core are prone to say, "against illegal immigrants, not immmigrants" (a distinction which fades quickly if you ask if we should allow illegals to become legal, btw).
At any rate, thanks again for the note, and the link is again HERE for anyone wishing to disturb their dogmatic slumbers on the issue.
So now you know.
Yep. Now I know
What polls...Are you serious? "Polls" do not replace "thinking". Failed President Clinton governed by "polls" but had no goals; President Bush leads the nation to the goals he envisions. Can't say I have any faith in polls.
...you jumping to the conclusion that Hispanics, legally in this country, would vote against Republicans...I said nothing about legal Americans of Hispanic or other ancestry. You draw that conclusion not I. Nevertheless, Democrats with the aid of the MSM will use any Republican heavy handed tactic as effective campaign fodder. Soccer moms, religious people, and other demographics would be targeted to undercut Republican support. Democrats cannot be allowed to regain power.
Just what do you want to accomplish with immigration? Is it enforce the law and send illegals away or do you have some wider goals?
When you made an inane statement about the fed receiving a lousy $5 billion from illegal aliens you made it part of the discussion.
Didn't Bush increase federal spending on education to $560 billion dollars per year?
Where do you think that money's going?
How is it not pertinent to this discussion that illegal immigrants are a NET drain of 10's of billions of dollars on our federal and state Taxpayers?
Motivating illegal immigrants to return to their home countries will reduce the federal, state and local portions of our National Debt not just reduce the yearly deficit.
"I just had this weird notion of following a train of thought thru a thread. I started the thought with a protest that small businesses should NOT be tasked with enforcing federal immigration laws."
This statement is both inane and specious. I'd also have to agree with you that it's a little weird, too.
Small business is being tasked with following the law, U.S. laws against hiring illegal immigrants, same as a driver is tasked with following the traffic laws.
What employers are being asked to do is easy.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. It takes HOURS on the phone to deal with the Social Security, and if there are any questions, be prepared to deal with a crew whose stupidity is exceeded only by their laziness. I know personally about this, because someone in Social Security wound up assigning three different tax id numbers to my business. They would receive the FICA payments for my employees under one of these, but reported to the IRS that no payments had been received on the other two, which caused the IRS to "update" their records to have three different companies under my name with three different tax ID numbers. So far, I have had to go to court twice to have tax liens lifted because of those imbeciles.
Your idea of "just making a telephone call" only shows that you have no experience at all dealing with these people.
Since that's what most of us want you are basically calling us xenophobes. I did not say this you did. What the heck are you talking about "it depends on the meaning of 'is' is".
...most of us... Generally, anyone with a different view on legal and illegal immigration is attacked when the issue arises here so I suppose only those with a certain view stick around.
Race-baiting is repugnant and reprehensible.
Didn't we prosecute a bunch of Wal-Mart employees who hired some illegal contractors? Was there a huge public outcry?
We don't need to put many people in jail. Once employers see that we are serious, they will get their act together.
Are you not aware of what you have said? Here's a quote from post 193:
Other outcomes and methods or the order of importance can be debated, but xenophobia is foolish.
There's no way to take that statement out of context, however the person wants the laws enforced, whether gradually or all at once you're implying xenophobia. Did it ever occur to you that fear of foreigners may not be the motive but rather it's the massive lawbreaking that's going on at taxpayer's expense?
Welcome to the immigration threads on free republic. Have you been called a quisling yet?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.