Replies

Somewhere in my bookmarks, I have you disclaiming the "millions" thing.

That's true, but that's in reference to the number of folks who'd have been Amnestied by Section 245(i). What you may be unaware of is that hchutch has proposed something much bigger, hence my reference to "millions" on this thread.
He might be willing to explain it all to you sometime.

I don't see any mention of the amnesty issue here.

What's the matter? Am I beating up your colleages so badly that you need to start changing the discussion?

Actually, I haven't read the thread, so I'm not aware of the tally. I came across the post to which I responded while doing a general browse, and my interest was piqued.
I thought hchutch's "Tancredobots" and "making sense" remarks invited a little perspective.
As I said, I thought your post at #121 identified an aspect of the problem. I do think the focus is a little narrow, however. I don't think the attraction of Illegals to entitlements can be solved at the just state and local levels without those jurisdictions being given some lattitude by the Feds. We tried that with #187, and before it was thwarted by Gray Davis, it was on course to collide with Plyler vs. Doe in the US Supreme Court.
Without revisiting Plyler, and without the enactment of some enabling legislation from Congress, it's not easy to selectively deny entitlements to Illegals, leaving the States with all-or-nothing options. As much as I'd like to see the extinctintion of all entitlements, that's going to require a more incremental approach.

"I thought hchutch's "Tancredobots" and "making sense" remarks invited a little perspective."

I will say that the Tancredo-bots thing was a refreshing alternative to Bushbots, or Amen Corner for that matter.

"We tried that with #187"

The problem with Prop. #187, as far as I can tell, and I'm sure I'll get an argument here, is that it amounted to closing the barndoor shut after the cows got out.

You had already given away the house, and then you were coming back saying that these specific people could not gain access to programs they were already getting access to.

So, it got shot down by the politically correct.

"Without revisiting Plyler, and without the enactment of some enabling legislation from Congress, it's not easy to selectively deny entitlements to Illegals."

It is however, easier not to enact legislation which looks to specifically GIVE entitlements to illegals.

Here's a challenge for you.

I think I can safely assume that you would have all illegal immigrants immediately removed from the US if at all possible. A vast majority of these illegals are working, so these jobs would have to be filled, and we can't solve one problem without creating a bigger one.

Taking under consideration factors such as the decline in the worker-retiree ratio (needed to pay for social services for older Americans) due to the rapid retirement of the baby boomers, and the drop in the birth replacement levels for the US, where would you find workers to fill the immediate needs of employers?

Do you think that out-of-work tech jocks would jump on the farm and kitchen jobs?

How many people that you know would be happy with their children getting work picking oranges?

What is an acceptable wage for an American citizen working as a crop picker?

You may want to read the document I am linking you to before answering.

"To maintain the 2000 ratio between the working-age population (people between the ages of 20 and 64) and the older population (people ages 65 and older), the United States would need roughly 95 million more working-age persons in 2025, in addition to those already expected at current levels of immigration. In other words, if the entire working-age population of Mexico were to move to the United States in 2025, there still would not be enough people to restore the old-age dependency ratio of 2000."

http://www.prb.org/Content/ContentGroups/Report/025/ReportonAmericaGovtSpendng.pdf