Posted on 03/31/2006 12:13:03 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez
Princeton University sociologist Douglas S. Massey reports that 62 percent of illegal immigrants pay income taxes (via withholding) and 66 percent contribute to Social Security. Forbes magazine notes that Mexican illegals aren't clogging up the social-services system: only 5 percent receive food stamps or unemployment assistance; 10 percent send kids to public schools.
Economist Larry Kudlow praises Hispanic entrepreneurship: "According to 2002 Census Bureau data, Hispanics are opening businesses at a rate three times faster than the national average. In addition, there were almost 1.6 million Hispanic-owned businesses generating $222 billion in revenue in 2002."
Total crime and property crime in California are half what they were in 1980; violent crime has fallen more than a third. The state's Hispanic population during that time has increased 120 percent.
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
OK, imagine this.
Dramatic decreases in the number of illegal border crossings yearly allowing the existing border patrol to catch border jumpers more efficiently.
How is that done?
Read the following article:
"When a More Open Border Is Better"
Mention the bracero program to a civil rights advocate or academic, and you're likely to hear words such as "exploitation," "unfortunate" and "let's not have another bracero program." What you won't hear is that the bracero program confirmed the central premise of President Bush's immigration proposal: that permitting greater access to legal visas can indeed reduce illegal entry into the United States.
Operating from 1942 to 1964, the bracero program allowed Mexican farmworkers to be employed as seasonal contract labor. Although the U.S. government permitted the admission of Mexican farmworkers before 1954, limited enforcement and other factors provided little deterrent to illegal entry.
A controversial crackdown on illegal immigration began in 1954. But Joseph Swing, commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, preceded the crackdown by working with growers to replace an illegal and therefore unpredictable source of labor with a legal, regulated one. Although it was popularly believed that employers preferred hiring people who were here illegally, Swing got a favorable reaction from growers and from Congress for pushing the substitution of legal for illegal workers.
Senior immigration law enforcement personnel understood that market forces were the best way to control the southwestern border. A February 1958 Border Patrol document from the El Centro (Calif.) district, referring to the bracero program, states: "Should Public Law 78 be repealed or a restriction placed on the number of braceros allowed to enter the United States, we can look forward to a large increase in the number of illegal alien entrants into the United States."
Increased bracero admissions produced dramatic results. After the 1954 enforcement actions were combined with an increase in the use of the bracero program, illegal entry, as measured by INS apprehensions at the border, fell an astonishing 95 percent between 1953 and 1959.
But complaints from unions that bracero workers created too much competition helped bring an end to the program in 1964. What happened to illegal immigration after that? It skyrocketed; from 1964 to 1976, while the number of Border Patrol agents remained essentially constant, INS apprehensions of people entering illegally increased more than 1,000 percent. It was the start of the illegal immigration tide that we see up to the present day.
The bracero program had its flaws, including evidence that there were employers who treated workers poorly and that a large number of bracero workers never received withheld wages. In designing new temporary visa categories, we should learn from the past. While many people, as before, will choose to work in the United States on new temporary visas and go home, others, particularly those who have been here for years, will seek a path to permanent residence. The extent to which Congress follows through on the president's call to increase legal immigration numbers, which would enable more workers to stay, assimilate and become part of America, will be watched by both employees and employers.
Whatever its faults, the bracero program annually attracted up to 445,000 people who chose to come here and work under its rules. Relatively few chose to enter the United States illegally to work in agriculture. While it is argued that bracero admissions harmed domestic agricultural workers, it's unlikely that the situation of domestic workers improved once they competed primarily against people who were entering illegally.
Why did the end of the bracero program result in greatly increased illegal immigration? Policymakers should heed the findings in a House report: "Reason clearly indicates that if a Mexican who wants to come to the United States for this employment can enter this country legally, with all the protection and benefits that a well-considered and well-administered employment program give him he will do so, rather than come in illegally." The report goes on to note: "If, because the program is not available or is not realistically geared to the requirements of employers or workers, the Mexican seeking employment finds it's impossible or difficult to come in legally, many of them will find their own way across the long border between the United States and Mexico and get employment where they can, under whatever wages and working conditions they are able to obtain." The report was written in 1954.
The only proven way to control the border is to open up paths to legal entry, allowing the market to succeed where law enforcement alone has failed.
Like I said I am amazed to find I am mostly in agreement with your goals. We no doubt will disagree on the means towards that end. But what the heck.
I am not a libertarian. And that's putting it extremely mildly.
I was the one who asked that question. If you took offense, I don't care. I don't subscribe to Political Correctness. I don't avoid asking tough questions because they might "offend" someone.
I am trying to find out why so many people get so personal, passionate, and ugly when it comes to immigration. If they have had bad personal experiences, I can understand and respond accordingly. For example, most immigrants, like most people generally, do not commit crimes when they are here. So that it isn't it. It's something else.
I'm fine with more border control. But why fine employers? Who they hire, and on what terms, is none of my business. Nor should it be. Besides, if they are paying lower wages, they can sell me their stuff at lower prices. So why on earth would I want to punish employers?
You must be off your meds. The IRS has absolutely no input into deciding who is "illegal". It can't arrest anyone for that "crime", it can't fine or penalize anyone for that "crime". If anything, the issuance of ITINs gives the "illegals" the appearance of legality, making a mockery of their illegal entry into this country.
You also need to do a little judicial review. The courts, including the Supreme Court, have repeatedly ruled the IRS administrative actions are considered "Due Process".
I have no idea what you are asking me. Are you asking me that if we never allowed immigration, and deported all immigrants who were already here, immigrations would never commit crimes here?
Incidentally, speaking of crime rates, does everyone realize here that the the overall U.S. crime rates have dropped in the last 10 years? This is so despite the immigration "problem" you are all whining about.
=========================================
I was also NYPD, I know a housefull of illegals when I see one. Although I am certain that you are right about a few of the babies.
It's also a tiny fraction of the length of the one that would be required for the US border
I'm going to hazard a guess that if we emulate the Israelis on this, it might just occur to us to make it a tad longer.
Other than that, the two would be equivalent in every way.
Just listening, even to Foxnews and their pundits, I would say they are going to cram this down our throats. Very few are now speaking out against what basically amounts to amnesty. I'm disappointed, I'm angry, and I think I'm going to get an ulcer....
susie
Why are you amazed?
We are normally on diferent sides of a debate.
The way for the conservatives in Congress to fight back is to introduce just a border-security bill - nothing about imposing felonies or anything else that the Democrats can attack, just border security. Everybody claims to be in favor of it, so let's see if they're willing to put their money where their mouths are. It would put the amnestites back on the defensive where they belong.
Hardworking they may be, but you must have an eyebrow raised when you see them marching down the street with Mexican flags in American cities or calling for socialist-style 1-day all-Latino strikes, not to mention that recent inciteful billboard that said "Los Angeles, Mexico."
All persons who enter the United States illegally are therefore criminals. I am not addressing this comment to anyone who enters the country legally.
Yeah, there we go. You are an employer, and your "freedom" actually means the freedom to impose Hobson's choice on your employees. It means your freedom to hire and fire and change their wages up or down at will, to get his work for next-to-nothing and call it a square deal.
But let the other guy try to bring in a labor union, and you'll scream bloody murder -- or you'll just exercise your "freedom" to fire him on the spot for being so uppity as actually to try to negotiate from a position other than flat on his belly.
Guys like you give capitalism a bad name.
Learn some accounting, Luis, before you make sweeping statements like that. SS funds can be lent, not given, for other programs.
Now answer his question. Why do you homer for the illegals?
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.