[ARealMothersSonForever]

influx of immigrants at one time having a disastrous effect, economically.
You are further supporting the anti immigrant stance. When confronted with information from the IRS, SSA, and MIT that blows away the "illegal" part of the argument; some circle right back to the economic argument. Unemployment a 6 year lows, record corporate profits, solid expansion, and stable markets are "disastrous"? Stick with the "Mexicans are burdens on the healthcare system" approach. Healthcare is a mess, and you might be able to blame it all on a socioeconomic class or race.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20050817-102626-3316r.htm

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

http://www.carryingcapacity.org/economiccosts.html

[nicmarlo]

I certainly am supporting the anti-ILLEGAL-immigration stance.

When confronted with information from the IRS, SSA, and MIT that blows away the "illegal" part of the argument; some circle right back to the economic argument.

Only in your mind.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

With the recent publication of the Rand Corporations long-awaited report Immigration in a Changing Economy: Californias Experience, a significant paradigm shift in economists thinking about immigration is complete. Traditionally, economists have taken a (mildly) benign view of immigration. But the new consensus is that this does not apply to the particular influx accidentally unleashed by the 1965 Immigration Act. The reasons: the paradoxes of the current selection system, which has produced an uncontrolled, largely unskilled, non-English-speaking flow; and the perverse incentives of massive transfer programs for health, education, and welfare. The solution, according to Rand: reducing immigration to "a moderate range around the 550,000 a year envisioned by the Jordan Commission in 1995 and embodied in the ill-fated 1996 Smith - Simpson bill. Instead, the influx is likely to be double or triple that range as far as the eye can see.

The Rand study comes four months after the equally devastating National Academy of Sciences report (see NR, "The Week, June 16). The NAS found that the infinitesimal macroeconomic benefits to Americans of the current immigration presence estimated at $1 to $10 billion in a $7.5-trillion economy were being swamped by a net fiscal cost estimated at $15 to $20 billion. In California, this net fiscal burden amounted to an astounding $1,174 tax for every native household. America had a revolution over less.

NR can modestly say that this new academic consensus represents a complete triumph for us and a fatal reproach to our numerous critics, including too many friends in the conservative establishment. We first reported the emerging paradigm shift in a June 22, 1992, cover story by Senior Editor Peter Brimelow, who developed this and other arguments in his 1995 book Alien Nation.

[FastCoyote]

"When confronted with information from the IRS, SSA, and MIT that blows away the "illegal" part of the argument; some circle right back to the economic argument. Unemployment a 6 year lows, record corporate profits, solid expansion, and stable markets are "disastrous"? Stick with the "Mexicans are burdens on the healthcare system" approach. Healthcare is a mess, and you might be able to blame it all on a socioeconomic class or race."

So, I guess I will just have to stick with my personal experience of the ill effects of the illegals, living here in Las Vegas, where there are 200,000. And having started a spanish TV station and a Mexican restaurant, and speaking relatively fluent Spanish, I guess I would know nothing about the thieving and barrios and worker displacement and law breaking that are occurring. Yeah sure, just open up the borders so Tijuana can become our new urban plan. Don't believe me? Let me take you on a tour of Vegas barrios that have grown up. AND I'll let you off in one of the hoods to walk out on your own. Okey Dokey????