Posted on 04/02/2006 7:55:32 PM PDT by RWR8189
Today, criminal aliens account for over 29 percent of prisoners in Federal Bureau of Prisons facilities and a higher share of all federal prison inmates.[National Institute of Corrections, Federal Bureau of Prisons, June 2003.]
These prisoners represent the fastest growing segment of the federal prison population. Over the past five years, an average of more than 72,000 aliens have been arrested annually on drug charges alone.
If you want to impeach Bush, go join the trolls at DU. Keep it OFF FR.
Jim
Get the picture?
If they do pursue it, it will kill their shot at the presidency in 2008.
One thing has nothing to do with the other.
Trade agreements and illegal crossing of borders are separate issues.
The women depicted in this article was not an illegal border crosser.
then FR has gone downhill in recent years - to something dangerously close to DU
And you learned that in 3 days?
Do you, or is "R" all that matters to you?
R is all that matters at this time; it's a simple choice: us or them.
Yeah, all the newbies say that.
"R is all that matters at this time; it's a simple choice: us or them."
Once again, the owner of this site has said he's supporting R's over D's any day of the week.
We're split 50/50 nationwide, more or less.
Actually, we're split 35/35/30, with the 30 being independent.
Independents will not, I predict, want another grueling impeachment ordeal.
This is the question I have had all along. Where do they get this kind of money? If they can raise that money in Mexico, to get here, why don't they just stay in Mexico and live off that money? And work at whatever is making them this money in the first place. It would go a lot further there, seems to me. I think the whole scenario stinks. Who is really paying this money? Wouldn't surprise me if it's not the Mexican government itself, if this money really exists at all.
Two stories.
Labor Day weekend, 1983
I WAS behind the illegals in San Diego when I had to go to an emergency room in San Diego for a broken arm. I tripped over the dang sprinklers while working temporarily at Pt. Loma, and renting an apt. at Mission Bay.
Between all the stupid kids who got drunk on the beach and illegals who were there with knife marks and bullet holes, it took 6 hours for them to get around to setting my arm and letting me get the heck outta there.
2nd story. Sep. 2004 - another trip to emergency room, this for a viral infection the Doctors have no idea how I got. Since I had been around illegals, documented by the Docs in the interest of tracking down how I got what I got, I came to the conclusion that it was something being carried by illegals. I wound up having to stay in the Hospital for 11 days, where 30% was added on to my bill for all the folks who don't pay.
Who doesn't pay? Illegals who use the emergency room as their primary care, and check in for whatever surgery they need, then skip back home to avoid bills. I know about this personally, as the tenants in a home I rented,-- said tenants turned out to be illegals from Guatamala, originally allowed in for some coup or something. But they then brought in extended family AFTER the open door for them had shut. Tenants disappeared home (Guatamala) after getting his gut resectioned on our tax dollars as a result of alcoholism.
Amazingly enough, he showed up 2 years later with the same name but a different Social Security number.
BTW, I am actually envious of illegals. Because they get a complete set of matching documents, they can go to DMV's of just about any state and get a driver's license. I have yet to get a driver's license in my new state of residence as I never seem to have ALL of the pieces of paper that I need. Isn't it amazing - how difficult it is for native Americans to get a driver's license in a different state but illegals have NO problem???
Anyway, between being at the end of the line for treatment (San Diego) and having 30% added to my bill to cover those who skip on their bills, I've seen up-close-and-personal just how expensive having illegals around can be.
And the infection I had? Do you know that these illegals, since they don't go through any health checks, are carrying a deadly form of TB, resistant to every anti-biotic currently on the market, along with other horrrible dieseases.
Two kids in McLean, VA, have come down with TB, thanks to just having someone around who did their parent's lawns, or from an illegal's kid in school. Ain't it great?
I have become convinced we need to seal the borders. Tight.
And I think it was Sabretooth before he got banned from FR who suggested that a way to get the illegals to go home was to give Americans a $50 bounty for turning in any illegal!!!
He pointed out how 3000 Pakistani's took themselves home to Pakistan, at their own expense, when after 9/11, Immigration announced that they were going to crack down on Pakistani's who had overstayed their Visas!!!
This cute adage, that immigrants, "legal OR illegal will alwys have a very high negative impact in the beginning" has never taken into effect the impact of illegals whose negative impacts go on and on and on. They continue to use emergency rooms as medical care, they have more and more children, who impact our schools, and they continue to use welfare. They are NOT like previous immigrants, who get OFF of social services as they become more established and MORE integrated into the communities in which they live.
The truth is that these millions of illegals are not assimilating. They are continuing to live in their "barrios", their neighborhoods, they don't learn English, they don't plan on staying here forever - they only plan on sending money back home for some period of time before they will themselves cross back over the border and return home.
I watched the Columbians, Nicaraugans, Guatamalans in No. VA as compared to Koreans and Asians. The Koreans and Asians assimilated, got off of welfare, got better employment, sent their kids off to college that they paid for and became citizens. NONE of the Hispanics I mentioned at the beginning of this paragraph EVER became citizens. They continued to sap the system - welfare, education, foot stamps, whatever. They continued to speak Spanish in their homes and while shopping, didn't want to learn English but managed enough to get driver's licenses although the paperwork to do that was usually forged.
What is it that you don't get about these illegal immigrants who aren't anything like the English, Scottish, Irish who came here to settle America when we desperate needed immigrants?
We no longer need immigrants to the extent that we did when America was young and the West was still unsettled. We certainly don't need illegals who continue to drain the system - medical, educational and lower the wages for Blacks who don't seem to understand that the demographics of more and more Hispanics hurts them more than any other class of Americans.
Before they seal the borders, I hope there is some kind of push for self-immigration home, like happened with the Pakistani's, because I for one, have numerous individuals I'd like to turn in if they don't take their sorry selves back across the border.
THEN I want the border sealed, and then I want some kind of system for identifying who is here, what status they have, whether they can even speak English, and move on from there. I'd like some kind of immediate program for sending back acros the border, or deep into the countries from which they came, ANY and I mean ANY who are found to have committed a crime, and then the rest can work on some kind of worker permit - only if they go home first. ,p. They come back at our invitation, and only at our invitation. I don't want to see anyone allowed to stay here who crossed the border illegally. That is rewarding them for breaking the law, no matter how many different ways you try to slice and dice it.
You are entitled to your mis-informed opinion. I consider the sources that I mentioned to infinately more credible.
Sorry for the late reply. I've had a lot of work lately.
1. My point is that although many people use the "tax cost" argument in the immigration debate, most estimates of this cost put it at a relatively modest level, and therefore, if somebody's real issue is taxes, immigration should not rank too high on that person's list, as there are probably 10 other issues which could significantly reduce tax burden or the deficit before you would even have to focus on the effect of illegal immigration.
2. I think the cost of Medicaid subsidizing states is already included in most estimates of the cost of illegal immigration. On the other hand, you are probably right that the cost bore by healthcare providers may not be in those numbers (and this cost is eventually passed on to other people with medical insurance). Even if this were the case, note that estimates of the aggregate "uncompensated" cost of healthcare to the 50 million uninsured people in the US is about $40 billion (source: Kaiser foundation, I don't know what their politics are, if any, but this is irrelevant, if they are a liberal group they have an interest in making this number look bigger not smaller). If illegal immigrants account for 20% of both the uninsured population and the cost of treating the uninsured, then the uncompensated cost of treating illegal immigrants is about $8 billion. A portion of this is covered by Medicaid and is already included in most estimates of the "cost" of illegal immigration, with the rest covered by local and State governments and health care providers (who ultimately pass it on to other patients). As you can see, however you slice it, the "cost" of illegal immigration appears to be by most estimates, relatively modest in the context of other tax and budgetary issues. Not insignificant, but a far, far cry from what many illegal immigration foes fear and decry.
3. "We are subsidizing and perpetuating Mexico's failed economy at the expense of our own".
a) The Mexican economy is actually in not such a dire shape as you imagine it to be. Inflation has been low since the late nineties and growth has been higher than that of the US economy (which is only normal given the lower starting point of the Mexican economy). Now, this growth has not been enough to provide enough good paying jobs for the millions of Mexicans that are now joining the labor force due to Mexico's own baby boom in the 60s and 70s. The fact that Mexico is now losing out manufacturing jobs to China has not helped. Still, I think the term "failed economy" is a gross exaggeration and misrepresentation of the reality.
b) Why isn't Mexico a modern, 1st world country with all its resources? Well, I think the answer is Mexico both is and isn't a 1st world country. See, Mexico is really two countries: the modern Mexico is educated and highly dynamic, but the old Mexico (mostly in inaccessible rural areas or in marginalized urban "lost cities") is unneducated, untrained, unskilled and therefore, unprepared for the modern economy. If you look at percapita GDP in the main Mexican cities, it is not too different to what you would see in the 1st world. Much of the illegal immigration into the US comes from this "old Mexico". I think most developping countries (and even sectors of 1st world countries) have this same problem. It's hard to transition from an industrial society (or even pre-industrial in some cases) into a service/information economy. This doesn't necessarily have to do with failed economic policies.
c) You say the US is subsidizing the Mexican economy at the expense of its own. But economics is not a zero sum game. In fact, just the opposite is true. Let's say you are a brilliant scientist, lawyer or company executive and you have an assistant whose only skill is typing. Let's say you are so good that you are not only a great scientist, lawyer or executive, but can even type better and faster han your assistant. Does that mean you should do all his work? No. You will be more productive by focusing on your scientific/law/business related work and letting your assistant do the typing. By doing this you are both better off. By sending your assistant home (assuming you can't hire a better typist), you are both worse off. This is classic economics 101. So the US is not benefitting Mexico at its own expense. In fact, both are profitting from this symbiotic relationship. There's not a fixed amount of work to be done in the economy. If you eliminate millions of workers, other people would take the jobs at a higher wage. But eventually, given the low unemployment rate in the US, there would be a shortage of workers, which would result in higher wages for such jobs, but also in a lot of those jobs ceasing to exist. Now, it may not be the end of the world, but less construction workers, landscapers, restaurant workers and light industrial workers will mean higher prices for consumers and less goods and services produced, which means a lower GDP than the country would have otherwise had. Again, not the end of the world and an economy as resilient as this one will weather it, but you will most definitely not be better off for it (you may feel better without these different looking people speaking this strange language in YOUR country, but you won't be better off -and please note: I'm not pulling the racism card, but let's not be naive and accept that chauvinism and nativism play a role in this debate: you know, the whole "this is MY country" attitude, which frankly, I can understand -God knows how I would have reacted to the sudden arrival of thousands or millions of, say, Danish people to my Mexican home town-, but I think this emotional issue is getting the better part of people's rationality in this debate).
4. I'm certainly not a constitutionalist (or even a lawyer), but I'm sure that the current "interpretation" that grants American citizenship to US-born children of illegal immigrants is the law of the land as consistently interpreted by the courts and dictated by congress (even if you think this is a misinterpretation, what counts is what the courts think and have repeatedly asserted). Are you saying we should disregard the law of the land only when it coincides with your interpretation?
And you didn't answer my question about whether you are suggesting that we deny a school education to those American citizens.
5. I think I said it before, but since you ask: I AM a LEGAL immigrant. You also ask me why as a legal immigrant I defend "those who jump ahead of the line". My reasons:
a) Sentimental reasons/familiarity. The fact that so many illegal immigrants are Mexicans probably gets to a soft spot in my heart. The fact is that I like these people, and although I certainly don't know many illegal immigrants, at least not intimately, when I see one of these guys in a restaurant of behind a counter, I can't help but think that these hard working people are the salt of the earth. By the way, I feel the same way about most Americans, and actually most people I meet. And I'm sure I'm probably right most of the time. I think I ultimately believe most people are decent.
b) I don't perceive their being here as "jumping ahead of the line". To be honest, the legal immigration system seems to be pretty disfunctional at this point. Waiting times for immigrant visas are so long for most family and even employment categories that they are almost meaningless. For example, in my case, had I not qualified for an "alien of extraordinary ability" classification, my greencard would have effectively taken many, many years (perhaps even a decade or more). I think if there were actually a realistic legal immigration program people would not be trying to jump ahead of the line.
6. You disagree with me when I argue that enforcing immigration laws in their current state would be inoperant and assert that: "a nation without a secure border isn't one".
I don't dispute the right of the United States to secure its border. I think it should be done. And I think the terrorism threat is a good reason to do this. I think both the Mexican and Canadian borders should be secured, because although most of the current flows are through the Mexican border, I'm sure crossing the Canadian border is at least as easy if not easier. Again, I think this is only tangentially related to immigration as the vast majority of current immigrants are not terrorists nor criminals. Immigration laws should be changed to legalize and control the current immigration flows, so that law enforcers can focus on the real criminals: drug dealers, immigrant smugglers and even terrorists. Also, by legalizing the current flows, the US could secure more cooperation from the Mexican government in policing its own border (note that technically, illegal immigrants crossing the border have not broken any Mexican laws).
The US currently gives millions in aid to Colombia to combat drug trafficking. Mexico, out of national pride and fear of US meddling in its politics, shuns most form of outright aid from the US. The US has also spent over 200 billion in Iraq so far. Wouldn't it be exponentially more efficient to spend a fraction of that money in helping Mexico train their police to combat drug trafficking and immigrant smugglers (I have no sympathy for immigrant smugglers)? How much easier is it to police a few hundred miles of Mexican border with Guatemala and Belize compared to the task of securing thousands of miles of border with Mexico and Canada? With this I'm not saying the US should renounce border control and have completely open borders (this is utopia and probably not sound policy given the terrorist threat). What I'm saying is that border control should be boosted, but that buffer zones should be created in Mexico and Canada. By the way, you say that Mexico guards its border zealously. The fact is that most Latin American illegal immigrants come through Mexico and most people who come to Mexico illegally do it in order to cross to the United States, so Mexico is probably not doing as great a job as you seem to believe in securing their southern border.
7. Finally, do you realize what enforcing the current law without fixing it would actually look like?
Millions of people deported? Doors being knocked down at night? People rounded off at their homes or jobs? Thousands of US small and mid-sized companies bankrupt? An exodus of people going south? A sudden humanitarian crisis south of the border? Political and economic unrest in your neighboring country?
The only recent examples of millions of people being forced out of their homes are not ones that I would associate with something that could happen in the United States (Milosevic driving non-serbs away, Israel displacing people from occupied territories -in this case there were thousands, not millions-, millions of Africans fleeing war and famine). I love this country. I also love Mexico (not a mutually exclusive sentiment as much as some people seem to believe it is). I would never wish this upon my two favorite countries in the world.
So, about 0.5% of illegal aliens are in Federal prison?
Why does that not make me feel that illegal aliens are a threat?
Thanks. All very good points.
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.