Posted on 05/12/2006 6:25:43 AM PDT by John Jorsett
On May 1st, Stanford students and employees rallied to support immigrant rights in the face of Senate Bill H.R. 4437, legislation aimed at cracking down on the United States’ 12 million illegal aliens. On this “Day Without Immigrants,” the supposition that xenophobia is at the root of anti-illegal-immigration legislation mutated bill H.R. 4437 into an attack on basic human rights of immigrants everywhere. Cries of “no human is illegal” smothered the truth: that the fiscal consequences of a massive undocumented population necessitate an immediate response to illegal immigration in the United States.
The notion that the “Day Without Immigrants” was a defense of human rights is founded upon a false presumption that xenophobia is the only possible explanation for anti-illegal-immigration sentiment in the United States. Protestors justified the “Day Without Immigrants” as a human rights initiative by asserting that the native-born American population is incapable of drawing the line between illegal and legal immigration, but rather views each with equal animosity. This is simply wrong. According to a national poll conducted in March by The Pew Research Center, only 22% of Americans say that legal and illegal immigration are equally problematic, while 60% say that illegal immigration is a bigger problem than legal immigration. A whopping 80% of Americans believe immigrants from Latin America work very hard, and 80% believe immigrants from Latin America have strong family values. These figures are up from 63% and 75%, respectively, in 1997. It would be an understatement to say that the United States is tolerant of its immigrant population. Anti-illegal-immigration opinion is rooted in legitimate fiscal considerations, not xenophobia.
The United States government simply cannot afford a population of 12 million illegal aliens. The IRS’s Individual Tax Identification Number program does allow some undocumented residents to pay some taxes. However, this limited tax collection does not nearly cover education, healthcare, and welfare services. In August 2004, the Center for Immigration Studies released a landmark study on the tax behavior of illegal immigrants. The study revealed that, in 2002, households headed by illegal aliens received $26.3 billion in government services, while paying a total of $16 billion in taxes. It doesn’t take a budget analyst to comprehend the significance of a $10 billion loss over one year. And with the rate of illegal immigration increasing from 2002 to 2005 to virtually no change in government policy, federal losses are inflating rapidly.
Fiscal disaster deriving from the inherence of tax evasion to illegal immigration is not confined to the federal level. In 2004, the Washington Times reported that California’s 3 million illegal immigrants sap the state government of $10.5 billion annually. The largest contributor to this sum is the $7.7 billion cost of educating the children of illegal immigrants, who make up 15% of California’s total student population. Undocumented aliens pose a greater budgetary threat to state governments, which do not employ expansive methods of illegitimate resident tax collection such as the Individual Tax Identification Number system.
It is clear that the burden of providing education, healthcare, and welfare services to undocumented aliens is a serious impediment to our state and federal governments. To this, the pro-illegal-immigrant bloc would retort that the tax burden is easily outweighed by the strength that undocumented aliens grant to our overall economy. The bloc would probably employ the old standby, “Illegal immigrants do the jobs that we are not willing to do.” This ubiquitous catch phrase, the illegal immigration debate’s most popular fall-back, is also its most blatant fallacy.
The fact is that “we,” America’s legal immigrants and native-born workers, are indeed willing to do the jobs that illegal immigrants do. Proof of this requires looking no further than the simplest of economic statistics, unemployment. According to analysis the Center for Immigration Studies released in March, in 2005 there were an average of 4,568,000 unemployed legal residents with a high school degree or less, including 723,000 legal immigrants. This statistic doesn’t jibe with the superstition that the illegal alien population has single-handedly adopted the burden of unskilled labor in the United States. Four and a half million legitimate residents of the United States, including many legal immigrants who joined in the May 1 protest, are competing with illegal immigrants for work, and losing. In short, illegal immigrants are doing the jobs we are willing to do.
At this point, the only way to claim an economic boon due to illegal immigrant labor is to contend that illegal immigrants, because they are undocumented, are not necessarily subject to the minimum wage and can therefore work for less than legitimate residents. However, this is an impossible outlet for defenders of illegal immigration with a human rights credo. It is preposterously self-contradictory to promote illegal immigrant rights because the lack of illegal immigrant labor rights fuels the economy.
Undocumented resident labor can offer no significant economic compensation for the disastrous toll illegal immigration wreaks on federal and state budgets each year. Given this conclusion, debating legislation such as H.R. 4437 as a matter of human rights is unsatisfying. Regardless of whether a human can be illegal, undocumented immigrants cost American taxpayers billions of dollars annually. Holding illegal immigrants accountable for this deficit is a matter of fiscal responsibility, not human rights.
I used to work for US Customs & Border Patrol HQ in the Ronald Reagan Bldg in downtown Washington DC. It was generally known that we could stop the flow of illegals over the border in a heartbeat. It was also generally known that that we were prevented from doing so on orders from the White House.
It is a complete freak that the ruling republicans don't understand that their current path leads to the extinction of republican majorities.
If they kicked out the illegals there might be a chance that the republicans could retain repubublican party leadership of the country. They have no chance if they continue the current course. Right now its a matter of been there done that. Give the illegals citizenship and they vote democratic. That's what they did after the 1986 amnesty. Keep the current course and the republican party splinters. Mexico was the essential issue that last gave the white house to the dems in 1992 and 1996. This time the losses will be more serious and permanent.
The party elders need to be slapped up both sides of the head and kicked in the but.
"Give the illegals citizenship and they vote democratic."
Can we "outvote" the 'Marxicans'? Is this just a "quick" revolution?
Some say that the "Reconquista" movement is a joke. But with the elections being decided by such close margins, ANYTHING is possible. All you need is a referendum and a populace motivated to go to the polls. It will be the easiest "takeover" you can imagine, current Congress being the example.
The leftists' argument goes something like this:
Most illegal immigrants are Mexicans, so anyone who opposes illegal immigration hates Mexicans because of their race.
They refuse to acknowledge that there are legitimate societal and historic, as well as economic, reasons to stem the tide of illegal immigration.
John 10:1 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter by the door into the fold of the sheep, but climbs up some other way, he is a thief and a robber."
Last time I checked, stealing was against the 10 commandments (not that this really has anything to do with the discussion...). Care to try again?
For what it's worth, I married an illegal immigrant. She couldn't even speak much English, but she had a hard earned college education and had serious career goals. She learned English quickly. She's doing great in the corporate world. Makes a lot of money. Works her butt off. The U.S. gains by her being here. But she had an education. That was the difference.
There are a lot of angles to this issue. I prefer the one that says it's not an immigration issue, it's an issue of what the hell is the govt doing down in Mexico. All this flows from that. Also, the legal immigration system in this country needs to be overhauled badly.
I defend it because so few are here at FR - and I don't want "open borders" - I want terrorists and violent criminals caught for instance. Read through my posts and let me know if you have any specific questions.
You missed the word "etc." I could keep going if you wish.
You guys are talking about CRIMES after they sneak across the border. I was limiting my comment to the specific act. Nothing is stopping us from changing that law. I don;t want illegal aliens killing Bald Eagles either. And, as for why the 10 Commandments are relevant, it is because we were (until relatively recently, a Christian nation ; )
The Los Angeles economy lost $200 million on May 1st (not May 5th). Multiply that by 365 ($73 billion) and pretty soon we are talking some real money.
I'm talking about the crimes they commit when they enter contrary to U.S. law and present fake documentation or statements to obtain work and services. The laws pertaining to those acts are as worthy of enforcement as any other.
I agree if they are caught they should be deported. Is that good enough?
Might hurt the 128 billion dollar drug trade via Mexico to America. Might stop thousands of illegals from storming across our borders. Might stop the loss of billions of tax payers hard earned dollars to going to people who have no right to use our social programs. Might save hundreds of American citizens from being raped, robbed, beaten and killed by drunk drivers from Mexico.
I vote for 365 days a year without ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.
1.LA is a city where the majority of it's population are there illegally. So basically illegals screwed themselves....which is fantastic as far as I and most taxpayers are concerned.
If illegals were to TRUELY "vanish" out of LA for a day...imagine how much that would SAVE the US taxpayers that remain....schooling / incarceration/ unfunded health care/ housing...the SAVINGS to taxpayers would be substantial and a welcome relief instead of their usual parasitic ways.
Illegals COST the California taxpayers 10 billion a year.
ROFLOL!!! Now that is the best laugh I've had all day......
Ummmm......let's see, ah yes...
"Thou shall NOT steal"....
"Thou shall NOT bear false witness"....
"Thou shall NOT covet your Neighbors house"...
And you are a LAWYER?????????????
BAAHHAAAAAAWWW!!!!!
Did you read the rest of the thread? I said that stealing, bearing false witness, and coveting your neighbor's ass WAS against the 10 Commandments - crossing a border was not.
And, if it cost $100 billion to get rid of them, you do the math.
Yes..I've read most of the thread.
This weak reply of yours...is funnier than your first post.
COME ON....!! You can't be a lawyer, really..??
Right??
Right??
Know when to cut your losses....As you are embarrassing yourself with this argument.
FWIW-
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.