The value of an immigrant's life?

[Pangloss]

Interesting article in Slate yesterday about placing a monetary value on immigrants. But I think he makes a major logical error.

 

http://www.slate.com/id/2168060

 

Here's a quote to show roughly what the article is about:

 

Let's do the math: When we admit an unskilled Mexican immigrant, his wage typically rises from about $2 an hour to $9 an hour—call it a $7-per-hour gain. To justify keeping him out, we'll have to weigh that gain against the harm he does to Americans.

 

...

 

Accounting for all that, it turns out that the immigrant's $7 gain is worth about five times the American's $3 loss. In other words, to justify keeping the immigrant out, you'd have to say he's worth less than one-fifth of an American citizen.

 

...

 

By contrast, there was a time when the U.S. Constitution counted a black slave as three-fifths of a full-fledged citizen. Alabama Gov. Bob Riley has recently apologized for the ravages of slavery. How long till politicians apologize for the ravages of our restrictive immigration policies?

 

In my view, his error is in the implication that we're not responsible for the current value of Mexican workers. That's like holding us responsible for the color of the moon. This is one of the most common fallacies proponed by the far left -- that Americans are responsible for everything and thus need to pay for everything to be fixed.

 

I do agree with him about the value of Mexican labor and that even once you parse out all the disadvantages it actually works out to our advantage. That part of what he's saying makes sense. The problem I have is with the concept that we OWE something to Mexicans. IMO we do not. I don't suggest that immigration is strictly a cost-benefit scenario; I do think there's a humane aspect involved. But I reject the notion that we're responsible and that we owe.

 

What do you think?

[Sepiraph]

I'd like to see an article on the monetary value of the British subjects who came to the land of the Indians before they took everything over and called it America. (and do it relative to the Indians, I reckon it would be something that approaches negative infinity)

 

However having said that, I would probably voice the same concern as the Americans if tons of illegal immigrants started to go through our borders.

[ParanoiA]

I guess I'm in a strange position, because I don't see the problem with virtual open borders, like the right seems to. Our country has always been the reject's home. Give us your tired, your poor...etc. I love that. We take your tired and poor and become the most advanced country on the planet. We're the melting pot and I'm proud of that. So why do we want to ditch that whole idea and restrict access?

 

On the same note, why does the left insist these people stay illegal, beat down to crap wages and no representation, no access to the same rights and laws as the rest of us? They keep using this misdirection technique, acting like they're fighting for the immigrants against these racist republicans, when they're actually fighting for them to stay illegal by not doing something about it.

 

These people deserve the same rights as the rest of us - particularly wages. And in my opinion, we should always offer the open door policy to all immigrants. Maybe this wouldn't be such a big deal if we weren't shipping jobs overseas and trying to be part of the global market...

[Sisyphus]

Does the left insist they stay illegal? I thought amnesty was a really popular idea.

 

Anyway, I don't see why we have to talk about fault in order to talk about solutions. No, it's not our fault they're in a bad position, but that doesn't mean we can't give them a hand. It's not a crime what we do, but it does totally suck, and maybe it doesn't have to. And yes, they're here illegally, and our existing laws (and perhaps fairness) say they should all just be deported, but reallistically rounding up 15 million people is just not going to happen, so give it a rest already.

[ParanoiA]

No kidding. Besides, can you imagine how disgusting it would look to see 15 million people rounded up and deported? It would be another stain in american history, and I'd be ashamed that it happened on our watch...

 

That said, after this amnesty party, we need to get complete control of our borders and enforce citizenship laws - including punishing employers for hiring illegals.

[John Cuthber]

I guess most employers who use illegal labour do it because it's cheap. What happens if you enforce a minimum wage?

[jackson33]

I guess most employers who use illegal labour do it because it's cheap. What happens if you enforce a minimum wage?

 

employers are required to check identification, not verify which is where the problem stems. its said, in LA you can get a complete package, SS Card, Drivers License, even a birth certificate for about 50.00.

 

no, immigrants generally just work harder than the average American. the pay is always above the minimum required by law, especially today when work forces are in demand. long time workers have moved up the scale to construction, warehousing and so on...farm workers in California can get 15.00 per hour under the current conditions...

 

since many migrants are in their first year, working in households or on day jobs there may be some abuse. this however will go on, regardless of legal or illegal....

[jackson33]

legal migration to the US since about 1820, has been pretty much constant in percentage. currently its about a million folks from around the world. illegal, temporary and guest programs laws were at one time enforced. todays supreme court actions have made enforcements near impossible, since every person in the US has the same legal and social rights of any naturalized American. as these laws became unenforceable or no effort was made to enforce, illegal entry became the ideal method to live in the US. all the rights and assurances, the probability of amnesty in time and the idea your on no surveillance list, or required to do what legals are forced to do.

 

as for open boarders, the Government receives about 3-5 million request for legal entry each year picking out that million. many other, especially in 3rd world countries don't bother to request as the waiting list from some places may be 20-40 years. the boarder patrol, claims to have returned 1 million people back to Mexico, in the past 12 months. under some estimates 2-3 million were missed. most feel the total immigration figures into the US each of the past 10 years is no less than 30 million, 10 million legal or under some timed program. over staying your visa or permitted time then makes you an illegal. keep in mind, anyone born in the US is and always has been considered a US citizen. that 20 million probable illegals give birth to legal citizens.

[Wormwood]

I guess I'm in a strange position, because I don't see the problem with virtual open borders, like the right seems to. Our country has always been the reject's home. Give us your tired, your poor...etc. I love that. We take your tired and poor and become the most advanced country on the planet. We're the melting pot and I'm proud of that. So why do we want to ditch that whole idea and restrict access?

 

We have had restricted access for over 100 years; more than half of the life of this country. The reason is, because contrary to the little phrase on the statue of liberty (which was a gift BTW), we do NOT want tired poor huddled masses yearning to be free. We want people that will contribute to society, and we want them in proportions that allow us to maintain some form of social homogeneity. The last thing we need is another special interest group.

 

 

On the same note, why does the left insist these people stay illegal, beat down to crap wages and no representation, no access to the same rights and laws as the rest of us? They keep using this misdirection technique, acting like they're fighting for the immigrants against these racist republicans, when they're actually fighting for them to stay illegal by not doing something about it.

 

Because a majority of Americans see illegal immigration as a problem, and no one wants to take the unpopular position of giving hand outs to the cause of these problems. Why not turn the question around...why do you want to see them legal? Should they be rewarded for breaking our laws? An appeal to emotion perhaps?

 

 

These people deserve the same rights as the rest of us - particularly wages.

They do, but in their own country. They don't DESERVE anything here. If they continue to export their problems to America, then how will the situation be better in 10 years? Why not just annex Mexico now and save ourselves the time?

 

 

No kidding. Besides, can you imagine how disgusting it would look to see 15 million people rounded up and deported? It would be another stain in american history, and I'd be ashamed that it happened on our watch...

Why? Would you say the same about any other criminal? 15 million pimps put in jail on my watch...I am so ashamed.

 

Basically your contention is that we as a society made laws, but they shouldn't have to follow our laws or respect our society because they are poor and we should feel sorry for them. I should happily pay taxes so that citizens of another country can have free public services that I am not even entitled to. I should smile when paying higher car or medical insurance, because the poor Mexicans will not fix their own broken way of life. Not to sound callous, but why should I care?

 

 

That said, after this amnesty party, we need to get complete control of our borders and enforce citizenship laws - including punishing employers for hiring illegals.

Seems like the EXACT same thing was said in the 80's and look how well that worked out. Letting Mexicans come here illegally isn't fixing the problem that causes their need in the first place. Give these 15 million amnesty, and just like last time that will send the clear message that following the law does nothing, but breaking the law is rewarded. And just like last time it will encourage MORE people to do the same thing.

[ecoli]

Amnesty isn't a bad idea, in theory. Presumably, in terms of national security, its a good thing, because your entering illegals, who we don't know about, into the "system," which makes things safer in general.

 

However, what I think needs to happen is that the boarder needs to be controlled before an amnesty is put into place. After Regan's amnesty, the number of illegals in the US jumped because people wanted to take advantage of it. We should institute comprehensive background and medical checks on all people coming into this country (no, Virginia, that's not a violation of their human rights). And we should give it more than 24 hours... that's just not feasible, as any government employee would know.

 

There's on thing that the defeated bill didn't really recognize. It only 24 hours for background checks, but there really is no guarantee that the immigrant is actually who he (and his paper's) say he/she is. So, sure the background checks might be clean, but that just means the name is clean... not the person.

 

When 30% of our prisons house illegals, you know the system isn't working. And that's a lot of people who are draining the economy, without contributing anything.

 

Another problem (which I heard on the radio this morning) is that many banks are taking advantage of the situation by making it easy for illegals to get their money out of the US. The Bank of America in Georgia, for example has a plan that allows free money transfers anywhere in Mexico. This is aimed towards people trying to send money home to their family. Obviously, there's nothing wrong with trying to feed a family, but when we're paying money to people in the US, we would like for that money to be spent in the US (at least a large portion). This is why, I think a new immigration program should make it easier for people with family living in the US already to join their loved ones.

 

I know some people (esp. Brits) think that "American culture" is an oxymoron. And I know that the the cultural melting pot serves to strengthen us, and is what the US is all about. However, in order to preserve cultural unity, I think we have to be a one language nation. English, though it's not the official language, it is the national language, and instead of pandering to the latino immigrants, we should make them work to learn english. I think that everyone under a certain age say 55, or something that, should be required to attend english immersion schools, if they are not passably fluent.

 

I don't mean that they should speak flawless english with no accent, but at least enough english, so that they can get by in larger society.

 

What we see, and I don't like, is a cultural shift, aided and abetted by Hollywood and the music industry, towards Spanish language and culture. Of course, there is nothing inherently wrong with this, but there immigrants are coming to the US to reap the benefits that we all enjoy. They should want (like my great-grandparents did) to embrace the culture of America.

 

note, that this doesn't mean giving up your own culture, but merely trying to fit in to us all. What's wrong with that?

[Pangloss]

Does the left insist they stay illegal? I thought amnesty was a really popular idea.

 

Anyway, I don't see why we have to talk about fault in order to talk about solutions. No, it's not our fault they're in a bad position, but that doesn't mean we can't give them a hand. It's not a crime what we do, but it does totally suck, and maybe it doesn't have to. And yes, they're here illegally, and our existing laws (and perhaps fairness) say they should all just be deported, but reallistically rounding up 15 million people is just not going to happen, so give it a rest already.

 

Yah, I agree, which is why I favored the solution that didn't pass Congress this week. Also unrealistic is the idea that we're going to make the border "100% secure". Yes, it does need to be improved (badly). Yes, we need to do something about the people we have here already. Yes, both of these things can be done. Isn't that what compromise is for? The collapse of the reform bill made no sense to me at all, either for its politics or its relationship with reality.

[ecoli]

Yah, I agree, which is why I favored the solution that didn't pass Congress this week. Also unrealistic is the idea that we're going to make the border "100% secure". Yes, it does need to be improved (badly). Yes, we need to do something about the people we have here already. Yes, both of these things can be done. Isn't that what compromise is for? The collapse of the reform bill made no sense to me at all, either for its politics or its relationship with reality.

 

The collapse was for several reasons.

 

1) boarder security has to come before amnesty

2) 24 hr background checks are in no way sufficient.

3) we have to guard against criminals using fake identities

 

 

unfortunately, these were pretty big items that weren't accounted for. In my opinion, when writing a bill of this nature, 'experts' have to be heavily relied on. Politicians, IMO, just don't understand the effect immigration will have, so it should be left to researchers and professors to tell them. Any plan should not be drafted in a back room somewhere, but well out in the open, and allowed to be discussed openly.

 

I know Bush et al. want push this through (probably just show he's doing something), but the immigration issue has been unresolved for a long time. A couple more months won't change things if we don't find a solution that really works.

[ParanoiA]

We have had restricted access for over 100 years; more than half of the life of this country. The reason is, because contrary to the little phrase on the statue of liberty (which was a gift BTW), we do NOT want tired poor huddled masses yearning to be free. We want people that will contribute to society, and we want them in proportions that allow us to maintain some form of social homogeneity. The last thing we need is another special interest group.

 

Then take the statue down or change the slogan because it's a lie.

 

Social homogeneity? The country getting a little less pale bother you some? I don't see any problems here, since individuality is promoted. The only problem is traditionalists who want to keep things relatively the same...

 

Why not turn the question around...why do you want to see them legal? Should they be rewarded for breaking our laws? An appeal to emotion perhaps?

 

Yes they should be rewarded citizenship for making it here. I don't really give a crap if they consider it reward or not. It's pragmatic. Our ancestors showed up and killed' date=' raped and enslaved the natives here and we were rewarded with our own little country huh? Today's illegals are guilty of not fitting in, and not learning the pledge of allegiance - though rather than pillaging the natives, they're working for them...for crap wages...

 

And I'm sorry my countrymen believe in the welfare state, perhaps if you wouldn't give handouts they wouldn't be able to sponge off of the tax payers. There are a lot of arguments about how they tax government programs, and my response is to quit with the government safety net. That's just one of many reasons not to have a welfare system.

 

They do, but in their own country. They don't DESERVE anything here. If they continue to export their problems to America, then how will the situation be better in 10 years?

 

Sure they do. They deserve equal treatment. Even criminals have rights. It's easier to see their due, when you consider yours. What makes you such a citizen? Because you were born here? Gee..bet that was tough. What else? Because you pay taxes? Yeah, I can see how envious working for two dollars an hour under the table can be...

 

There's not enough to being a legal citizen to justify the level of animosity towards illegal immigrants. I don't get it. I'm such a deserving citizen because I have a social security number and I can say my ABC's? But those illegal immigrants should be deported because they don't??

 

That's why I don't have a problem with amnesty. Citizenry is overrated fluff. All they should have to do is pay taxes, in my opinion. Which will actually be better for them, since their wages will go up more than the difference taken by taxes.

 

Why? Would you say the same about any other criminal? 15 million pimps put in jail on my watch...I am so ashamed.

 

Already covered above, but just wanted to be clear that yes, 15 million pimps put in jail on my watch would make me proud. 15 million non-criminals that we make believe are criminals would make me sick. This is based on the idea that a starving man who steals bread is not a criminal - maybe technically, but not realistically. Anyone who just starved to death instead, would be an idiot.

 

Basically your contention is that we as a society made laws, but they shouldn't have to follow our laws or respect our society because they are poor and we should feel sorry for them.

 

No. My contention is that we should not have laws that contradict our traditional offer of global welcome to all that can get here. My contention is also that if you're going to deport them for breaking the immigration law(s), then deport anyone else for breaking any laws also. After all, I break our laws all the time - floating stop signs, not using a turn signal, speeding, smoking herb, public intoxication...etc. And that's entirely trivial - the quality of my life is not in any jeopardy if I don't do those things.

 

But you want to stick it to people who broke one law - or one set of laws? Deportation for a crime that's far more harmless than the laws I and many others are breaking everyday? AND, that is arguably out of necessity and desparation? That's way too inconsistent and hypocritical for my taste. I say punish them for breaking the law, with reason, not hyped up Rush Limbaugh punishment.

 

Seems like the EXACT same thing was said in the 80's and look how well that worked out. Letting Mexicans come here illegally isn't fixing the problem that causes their need in the first place. Give these 15 million amnesty, and just like last time that will send the clear message that following the law does nothing, but breaking the law is rewarded. And just like last time it will encourage MORE people to do the same thing.

 

Except the problem last time is Reagan had no issues with the amnesty part, he dropped the ball on enforcement from that point forward. I think that second part is more important than the first part. And that's the part the country is so concerned about. But here we are, arguing about people that are already here, keeping us from doing anything about those trying to get in everyday.

 

Understand, I'm for a secure border. Probably moreso than you. I don't think there should be an inch of border that is not surveilled and secure. We should be patrolling that border like a maximum security prison - so we can check and filter criminals and such from the rest of the immigrants.

[ecoli]

Then take the statue down or change the slogan because it's a lie.

it's a slogan, not policy... but your point is taken.

 

Social homogeneity? The country getting a little less pale bother you some? I don't see any problems here, since individuality is promoted. The only problem is traditionalists who want to keep things relatively the same...

social heterogeneity doesn't bother me, as long as we retain a unifying cultural theme.

 

Yes they should be rewarded citizenship for making it here. I don't really give a crap if they consider it reward or not. It's pragmatic. Our ancestors showed up and killed, raped and enslaved the natives here and we were rewarded with our own little country huh?

The spanish raped the natives, and the result was the ancestors of the latino population that currently makes up most our illegals... life's funny that way.

 

Today's illegals are guilty of not fitting in, and not learning the pledge of allegiance - though rather than pillaging the natives, they're working for them...for crap wages...

they are also "guilty" for economically stressing our nations public resources... though I think our welfare policy is more to blame than the immigrants.

 

Sure they do. They deserve equal treatment. Even criminals have rights. It's easier to see their due, when you consider yours. What makes you such a citizen? Because you were born here? Gee..bet that was tough. What else? Because you pay taxes? Yeah, I can see how envious working for two dollars an hour under the table can be...

if an illegal citizen gives birth to a child on american soil, that child is an american citizen, right?

[Wormwood]

Then take the statue down or change the slogan because it's a lie.

 

You take it down; I live on the other coast!

 

Social homogeneity? The country getting a little less pale bother you some?

 

I said SOCIAL not racial. You know little things like language and culture. Nice try though.

 

I don't see any problems here, since individuality is promoted. The only problem is traditionalists who want to keep things relatively the same...

That's the ONLY problem eh? Keep this in mind for my last response in this post.

 

Yes they should be rewarded citizenship for making it here. I don't really give a crap if they consider it reward or not. It's pragmatic. Our ancestors showed up and killed, raped and enslaved the natives here and we were rewarded with our own little country huh?

 

Two things: First your position seems to be little more than Two wrongs DO make a right. Second, since you bring it up, look what happened to the first inhabitants of this land that had a passive stance on immigration. Didn't work out so great for them...

 

Today's illegals are guilty of not fitting in, and not learning the pledge of allegiance - though rather than pillaging the natives, they're working for them...for crap wages...

 

They make above minimum wage in most cases which is more than I can say for many lower class american citizens. Also they are pillaging when one considers that 20% of Mexico's GNP is American currency sent across the boarder. You are attempting to put a band aid soultion on a much larger problem.

 

And I'm sorry my countrymen believe in the welfare state, perhaps if you wouldn't give handouts they wouldn't be able to sponge off of the tax payers. There are a lot of arguments about how they tax government programs, and my response is to quit with the government safety net. That's just one of many reasons not to have a welfare system.

 

That is the most insane reasoning I have ever heard. We should make our society worse for people that are already poor here, because poor people in Mexico have no respect for our laws or society and they are willing to leech off of it. Why not just stop the people causing the problem? I have no problem with the state offering assistance to workers who are laid off due to outsourcing, or old people that have trouble making ends meet. I just don't feel like supporting the impovershed citizens of another country who could care less about me or my society.

 

 

Sure they do. They deserve equal treatment. Even criminals have rights. It's easier to see their due, when you consider yours. What makes you such a citizen? Because you were born here? Gee..bet that was tough. What else? Because you pay taxes? Yeah, I can see how envious working for two dollars an hour under the table can be...

This is a strawman. 2$ an hour is the average wage in Mexico...they do not come here for $2 an hour. It is usually $9 an hour and up for the type of labor they perform.

 

 

There's not enough to being a legal citizen to justify the level of animosity towards illegal immigrants. I don't get it. I'm such a deserving citizen because I have a social security number and I can say my ABC's? But those illegal immigrants should be deported because they don't??

 

Again, this sounds insane. You are saying that there is no difference in countries or cultures. If there were no difference, then we wouldn't be having this discussion because everyone would stay where they were. The American way of life is better, and it got that way because of our culture. If you think this makes me snobby or elitist that fine, but the fact still remains. Also, the increase of communicable diseases associated with illegal aliens alone is enough to warrant stern and immediate action.

 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43275

 

Already covered above, but just wanted to be clear that yes, 15 million pimps put in jail on my watch would make me proud. 15 million non-criminals that we make believe are criminals would make me sick. This is based on the idea that a starving man who steals bread is not a criminal - maybe technically, but not realistically. Anyone who just starved to death instead, would be an idiot.

This is BS. You give a free pass to one group of impovershed people that break the law to have a better life, but then condemn another. The pimps weren't hurting you, they just wanted a better life after all.

So what if they had to break a few unjust laws; they were just providing for their family. Hell, why send anyone to jail ever or hold anyone accountable for their own actions? I'm sure they all just want a better life on some level or another.

 

But you want to stick it to people who broke one law - or one set of laws? Deportation for a crime that's far more harmless than the laws I and many others are breaking everyday? AND, that is arguably out of necessity and desparation? That's way too inconsistent and hypocritical for my taste. I say punish them for breaking the law, with reason, not hyped up Rush Limbaugh punishment.

 

So you really want to compare forgetting to use a turn signal, to this:

 

The total K-12 school expenditure for illegal immigrants costs the states $7.4 billion annually-- enough to buy a computer for every junior high student nationwide.

 

In California, the $2.2 billion spent on the education of the children of illegal immigrants

 

Emergency health care for illegal aliens along the southwestern border is already costing area hospitals $200 million a year, with perhaps another $100 million in extended care costs.

 

 

Hospitals must provide emergency treatment to all who walk through the door, regardless of their citizenship status or ability to pay. In 2001, America 's hospitals provided nearly $21 billion in uncompensated health care services.

 

 

Hospitals in California rank first in the country in expenditures for providing health care to illegal immigrants.

 

 

The Center for Medicaid Services at the Dept. of Health and Human Services reported that for FY 2001, the health care costs for illegal immigrants in California were over $648 million. California paid 47 percent of these costs, or $304,785,368, for this mandate.

 

Fifteen percent of California 's prison inmates are undocumented aliens, costing the state more than $500 million annually.

 

http://www.house.gov/garymiller/IllegalsCost2005.html

 

Seriously?

 

I am guessing that you are not a California resident

[Wormwood]

I know some people (esp. Brits) think that "American culture" is an oxymoron. And I know that the the cultural melting pot serves to strengthen us' date=' and is what the US is all about. However, in order to preserve cultural unity, I think we have to be a one language nation. English, though it's not the official language, it is the national language, and instead of pandering to the latino immigrants, we should make them work to learn english. I think that everyone under a certain age say 55, or something that, should be required to attend english immersion schools, if they are not passably fluent.

 

I don't mean that they should speak flawless english with no accent, but at least enough english, so that they can get by in larger society.

 

What we see, and I don't like, is a cultural shift, aided and abetted by Hollywood and the music industry, towards Spanish language and culture. Of course, there is nothing inherently wrong with this, but there immigrants are coming to the US to reap the benefits that we all enjoy. They should want (like my great-grandparents did) to embrace the culture of America.

 

note, that this doesn't mean giving up your own culture, but merely trying to fit in to us all. What's wrong with that?[/quote'] So far I think your position in this post has been the most reasonable.

[ParanoiA]

social heterogeneity doesn't bother me, as long as we retain a unifying cultural theme.

 

Agreed. Which is why I take issue with demonstrations on american soil sporting mexican flags. It's insulting and doesn't go a long way to showing any willingness to unify with other americans.

 

they are also "guilty" for economically stressing our nations public resources... though I think our welfare policy is more to blame than the immigrants.

 

This is true, and I am certainly trivializing a bit, but from my perspective most of these "public resources" are poverty focused welfare programs of all flavors, which I am against. So, that puts me in a funny spot with all of this, because I'm of the mind that the government safety net should be eliminated, which would make it a non-issue concerning immigration. But most people don't agree with that idea, so it makes it an issue.

 

Since it won't be eliminated, my pragmatic default would be to deny all government services except the essentials, until proof of citizenship. No school, welfare, food stamps...etc. But that still doesn't evade costs associated with incarceration and medical. But when you take the sponging incentive away, I think you get rid of the losers.

 

if an illegal citizen gives birth to a child on american soil, that child is an american citizen, right?

 

Sure. Not sure of your point though. I was just trying to look at it for what it is - what we consider a "citizen" is more of a symbolic ritual of paperwork.

Maybe I'm trivializing that a bit too much, but I'm not appreciating the credit of the "citizen".

[ParanoiA]

You take it down; I live on the other coast!

 

Maybe ecoli can do it...I think he lives up there somewhere...

 

I said SOCIAL not racial. You know little things like language and culture. Nice try though

 

Well other languages and culture often come from other races...

 

But, why does the country need to homogenize?

 

Two things: First your position seems to be little more than Two wrongs DO make a right. Second, since you bring it up, look what happened to the first inhabitants of this land that had a passive stance on immigration. Didn't work out so great for them...

 

First: No, just trying to acknowledge the elephant in the room. I believe their intent is far more benevolent.

 

Second: A secure border - and I mean an actual secure border - should have been a priority decades ago. I don't know how passive a stance would be when you're literally - for real this time - going after and deporting those who don't take the path to citizenship. A virtual open border doesn't mean there's nothing expected of you. I just don't agree with this massive sweep of millions.

 

They make above minimum wage in most cases which is more than I can say for many lower class american citizens. Also they are pillaging when one considers that 20% of Mexico's GNP is American currency sent across the boarder. You are attempting to put a band aid soultion on a much larger problem.

 

Illegal aliens make above minimum wage in most cases? I think we'd better get some real numbers before we keep down this path.

 

And I'm not sure about what band aid solution you're talking about. I was finishing my comparison between our ancestors malevolence and the benevolent intent of the current crop of immigrants.

 

That is the most insane reasoning I have ever heard. We should make our society worse for people that are already poor here, because poor people in Mexico have no respect for our laws or society and they are willing to leech off of it.

 

No, I worded that terribly. My position is against government programs like welfare already. So, I consider that when thinking about this immigration issue. For me, ideologically, there's no issue since those programs shouldn't even be in place. And if people are spending their own money on it, rather than my tax dollars, then why would I care?

 

Although, I realize that realistically these programs aren't going anywhere. So, I'm of the mind to deny these services until citizenship. That may not stop the growth of the welfare state, but the problems associated with it are far greater than immigration.

 

Again, this sounds insane. You are saying that there is no difference in countries or cultures. If there were no difference, then we wouldn't be having this discussion because everyone would stay where they were.

 

No, there's difference between countries and cultures, but I can't see how an illegal immigrant working and living here for a number of years is so far away from being a citizen that he should be deported.

 

We're getting all bent out of shape over people that haven't pushed paper, or learned some of the language, jumped through some hoops we've set up - and while it's disrespectful, no doubt, I don't see the justification for rounding them up and deporting them - people who have spent time here, established lives, friends, families. They broke a law, but it's not worth deportation.

 

Also, the increase of communicable diseases associated with illegal aliens alone is enough to warrant stern and immediate action.

 

Again, virtual open borders does not mean non-secure borders. Or maybe I need to look that up too... I don't have any problems with practical filtering along the border. I just figured that was part of an actual secure border.

 

This is BS. You give a free pass to one group of impovershed people that break the law to have a better life, but then condemn another. The pimps weren't hurting you, they just wanted a better life after all.

 

Pimps hurt people. Or at least, the pimps I'd be proud to put away do. Selling sex doesn't hurt anybody, but when someone beats another down to do it, then it does doesn't it? I give a free pass to the impoverished people that run to america for a better life and condemn those that beat girls into selling their bodies. Any other questions?

 

So you really want to compare forgetting to use a turn signal' date=' to this:

 

Seriously?

 

I am guessing that you are not a California resident[/quote']

 

No, I'm not. You certainly have a point there. We get a lot of mexicans around here though. There are many parts of the town that are dominated by them. We certainly don't have the issues californians do, but are you suggesting that if all of those immigrants had been legal, that none of those costs would exist? I don't see any major shift in the numbers if they're all legal, so how does that support your point on illegal immigrants costing taxpayers?

[Wormwood]

Maybe ecoli can do it...I think he lives up there somewhere...

Let's get him on that then.

 

Well other languages and culture often come from other races...

So? That doesn't make it a race issue.

 

But, why does the country need to homogenize?

Social stability. If 1/4 speaks a different language then everyone else or has a different culture and allegence, this causes friction and a division of goals as a society. Instead of how do we improve life in our society, people ask, how can I improve life for my group in this society.

 

First: No, just trying to acknowledge the elephant in the room. I believe their intent is far more benevolent.

To me their motives are better concealed, but their goals are just as selfish as the colonists. In Cali I have to listen to groups of demonstrators talk about how America stole Texas and California and how they are going to take it back for Mexico...then these angry teens return to their parents house that I paid for. Fantastic.

 

Second: A secure border - and I mean an actual secure border - should have been a priority decades ago. I don't know how passive a stance would be when you're literally - for real this time - going after and deporting those who don't take the path to citizenship. A virtual open border doesn't mean there's nothing expected of you. I just don't agree with this massive sweep of millions.

I'm not sure how I feel about a massive sweep, but I certainly feel they should be punished.

 

Illegal aliens make above minimum wage in most cases? I think we'd better get some real numbers before we keep down this path.

 

Wages in the meat packing industry

have dropped from $19

per hour to $11 per hour and

still Americans lined up for the

jobs. Wage suppression is wide

spread and affects many industries.

Sheet-rockers for example,

fully unionized, command

$28 per hour. illegal aliens get

paid $12.

http://ctcic.net/ctcicnewsletterspring07.pdf

 

This is only a fraction of the damage they have done to American wages. It is a myth that they work for less than minimum wage. If you think you have something that proves that let's see it. I live around plenty of illegals and they are doing fine (most better than me thanks to "affordable housing").

 

No, I worded that terribly. My position is against government programs like welfare already. So, I consider that when thinking about this immigration issue. For me, ideologically, there's no issue since those programs shouldn't even be in place. And if people are spending their own money on it, rather than my tax dollars, then why would I care?

Well your position does make more sense in that light. I still disagree, but I see where you are coming from.

 

We're getting all bent out of shape over people that haven't pushed paper, or learned some of the language, jumped through some hoops we've set up - and while it's disrespectful, no doubt, I don't see the justification for rounding them up and deporting them - people who have spent time here, established lives, friends, families. They broke a law, but it's not worth deportation

It isn't just about pushing paper or learning "some language", it is also about basic respect. If your FIRST action in this country is to break our laws to serve your own interests, I say we don't need you. Do you think they care that we eat all of these billions of dollars in expenses associated with their unanounced visit? Also, as I have said, they spread diseases that used to be under control in this country. Do they care that they are making innocent Americans sick? All they seem to care about is their own financial situation and they have shown that they are willing to break the rules to get ahead. We used to call people like that criminals, and I think we are better off without them.

 

 

No, I'm not. You certainly have a point there. We get a lot of mexicans around here though. There are many parts of the town that are dominated by them. We certainly don't have the issues californians do, but are you suggesting that if all of those immigrants had been legal, that none of those costs would exist? I don't see any major shift in the numbers if they're all legal, so how does that support your point on illegal immigrants costing taxpayers?

That is not at all what I am suggesting. What I am suggesting is that if everyone had done everything the legal way, we would have about 14 million less Mexicans and those costs would disappear. I was not suggesting to make them all legal, or that there should be that many legal immigrants from ANY one area over such a short period of time.

[ParanoiA]

Social stability. If 1/4 speaks a different language then everyone else or has a different culture and allegence, this causes friction and a division of goals as a society. Instead of how do we improve life in our society, people ask, how can I improve life for my group in this society.

 

Uh...so what? I don't even ask how I can improve life for my group, I ask how I can improve life for ME. I think that's a weak argument, although popular. I've never agreed with the idea of "molding" society to behave in some preconceived method - rather let society evolve into whatever it evolves into.

 

You have a preconceived notion that homogeny should exist, whereas I'm indifferent. If homogeny happens, great..if heterogeny happens, great. We'll all still share the love of country, and all are required the oath of allegiance. The constitution and the framework of our government doesn't provide for molding societies to our mind's eye. That's fascism, socialism, communism - controlism...

 

To me their motives are better concealed, but their goals are just as selfish as the colonists. In Cali I have to listen to groups of demonstrators talk about how America stole Texas and California and how they are going to take it back for Mexico...then these angry teens return to their parents house that I paid for. Fantastic.

 

Didn't they steal it from the spanish? I thought they only had those territories for like 30 years or so, compared to hundreds of years of spanish rule. I don't know, I haven't cracked a history book in years, and I'm over due I think... Nevertheless, I sympathize with you here.

 

I'm not sure how I feel about a massive sweep, but I certainly feel they should be punished.

 

Agreed. Appropriately.

 

This is only a fraction of the damage they have done to American wages. It is a myth that they work for less than minimum wage. If you think you have something that proves that let's see it. I live around plenty of illegals and they are doing fine (most better than me thanks to "affordable housing").

 

But how does the fact that they are illegal, make it that way? Seriously. I'm not understanding how their illegality magically translates into lower paying jobs, but not lower than minimum wage. I would think that even if they're legal, they're going to take those jobs for cheaper pay than unions and so forth.

 

After all, once you're over minimum wage, it's all about competition - just like any business. And those businesses that are dodging union labor are breaking the law already, presumably, before we even talk about illegal workers.

 

If you had illegals working for under minimum wage, that would make more sense because it's their illegality that enables that function. In other words, they would have to be illegal, because no legal citizen would accept wages under minimum wage since it's just a matter of law - a quick phone call would fix it.

 

So, if you have illegals working cheaper, but not under minimum wage, then I dont' see how that would change once they're legal residents.

 

Did I just use a thousand words to say something that could have been said in 30?

 

It isn't just about pushing paper or learning "some language", it is also about basic respect. If your FIRST action in this country is to break our laws to serve your own interests, I say we don't need you. Do you think they care that we eat all of these billions of dollars in expenses associated with their unanounced visit? Also, as I have said, they spread diseases that used to be under control in this country. Do they care that they are making innocent Americans sick? All they seem to care about is their own financial situation and they have shown that they are willing to break the rules to get ahead. We used to call people like that criminals, and I think we are better off without them.

 

But most of the issues you're bringing up will still be issues when they're legal. It sounds like you have more of an issue with immigration, not just illegal immigration. That's fine, but I thought we were concentrating on illegals.

 

Yes they break laws to get here, but I think that's a little disingenuous. I mean, you could make it illegal to breath our air too, and technically they're all criminals because of it, but how realistic is that expectation? I know you disagree, and perhaps I should give it more thought, but I'm not buying into this "criminal" thing.

 

That is not at all what I am suggesting. What I am suggesting is that if everyone had done everything the legal way, we would have about 14 million less Mexicans and those costs would disappear. I was not suggesting to make them all legal, or that there should be that many legal immigrants from ANY one area over such a short period of time.

 

So we are talking about immigration in general. Their illegality is not the problem, the lack of controlled inflow is the problem?

 

That's a legitimate complaint. I think a secure border with practical filtering would take care of many issues, but it wouldn't take care of this. I'll have to give this some more thought, because you do raise some good points here that can't be ignored.

[ecoli]

Didn't they steal it from the spanish? I thought they only had those territories for like 30 years or so, compared to hundreds of years of spanish rule. I don't know, I haven't cracked a history book in years, and I'm over due I think... Nevertheless, I sympathize with you here.

 

 

nope, during the Mexican war US troops defeated an independent Mexican army, and annexed Texas into the US.

http://www.lone-star.net/mall/texasinfo/mexicow.htm

 

California also won independence from Mexico and was annexed by the US

http://www.southlandrealestate.com/CaliforniaMexicanWarFrm.htm

 

Sure. Not sure of your point though. I was just trying to look at it for what it is - what we consider a "citizen" is more of a symbolic ritual of paperwork.

Maybe I'm trivializing that a bit too much, but I'm not appreciating the credit of the "citizen".

 

I didn't have a point, I just couldn't remember if that's true. Your position on this makes sense, though... if a pregnant foreigner gives birth while visiting the US (legally or illegally) then the child is a US citizen. In that case, what does it mean to be a citizen?

[Wormwood]

Uh...so what? I don't even ask how I can improve life for my group, I ask how I can improve life for ME. I think that's a weak argument, although popular. I've never agreed with the idea of "molding" society to behave in some preconceived method - rather let society evolve into whatever it evolves into.

 

I don't blame you for being like that; in this political landscape that is the only behavior that is rewarded, but it isn't how things should be. Just consider this, if everyone were only out for themselves, we wouldn't even have civil rights. Civil rights/equal rights after all, was a molding of the views of society.

 

You have a preconceived notion that homogeny should exist, whereas I'm indifferent. If homogeny happens, great..if heterogeny happens, great. We'll all still share the love of country, and all are required the oath of allegiance. The constitution and the framework of our government doesn't provide for molding societies to our mind's eye. That's fascism, socialism, communism - controlism...

 

Homogeneity (to some degree, not total) is not only a comfort issue, but it is far more conducive to a population that can organize and resist things like fascism, communism, controlism. If we are already divided, then we are already defeated.

 

 

Didn't they steal it from the spanish? I thought they only had those territories for like 30 years or so, compared to hundreds of years of spanish rule. I don't know, I haven't cracked a history book in years, and I'm over due I think... Nevertheless, I sympathize with you here.

 

It's complicated. The Mexicans are the decendants of native inhabitants and the spanish. So one one hand we are condemned for taking America as a whole, but on the other hand we are especially hated for taking Texas and California.

 

Agreed. Appropriately.

 

But what's appropriate at this point? We could make them work off their debt...that sounds fair.

 

 

But how does the fact that they are illegal, make it that way? Seriously. I'm not understanding how their illegality magically translates into lower paying jobs, but not lower than minimum wage. I would think that even if they're legal, they're going to take those jobs for cheaper pay than unions and so forth.

 

It isn't solely that they are illegal; that is to say, it isn't only the act of breaking that one law that is the problem. It is the fact that so many people come here illegally. This floods the market and the demand for laborers goes down. If you know anything about supply and demand, you know what that does to any market. If the Mexicans did things the correct way, we wouldn't have to lose the progress that early American Union organizers fought and died for.

This is one of the things I was talking about with the whole divided loyalties comment. They don't care that they drive the wages WAY down (half in many cases) because many of them live 3-4 families per house until affordable housing kicks in and gives them a house because they make so little (because they drove the market wages down). Illegals are prefered because not only will they take way less than any American (because Americans have a different standard of living) but because the employers don't pay taxes or in many cases insurance for these guys. So they get by only paying social security and the illegals pay only SS and sales tax. Which means while most of us pay at least 34% of every dollar in taxes (including sales tax) illegals pay only 13.2% of their already diminished wages.

 

 

After all' date=' once you're over minimum wage, it's all about competition - just like any business. And those businesses that are dodging union labor are breaking the law already, presumably, before we even talk about illegal workers.

Certainly businesses are to blame as well.

 

If you had illegals working for under minimum wage, that would make more sense because it's their illegality that enables that function. In other words, they would have to be illegal, because no legal citizen would accept wages under minimum wage since it's just a matter of law - a quick phone call would fix it. [/quote']

 

Why do we have a minimum wage in this country? Certainly we could all just agree to work for minimum wage or less and make this cheap labor obsolete right? We have a minimum wage because we have a high standard of living in this country, and we realize Americans can not live a decent life by our standards for less than a given amount. It took many of these industries a long time to get wages up. For example construction. Unions fought and fought and finally construction was one of the few jobs a person with little education could get and still make enough to support a family. Now, this is no longer the case as wages continue to fall, the American middle class will disappear. After the middle class is gone, America will be fuedalistic more or less.

 

So, if you have illegals working cheaper, but not under minimum wage, then I dont' see how that would change once they're legal residents.

 

It won't. That's why we shouldn't suddenly make 15 million people from another country citizens. We should allow reasonable amounts that DON'T put a strain on our society. The illegals that are here should be entered into the system, given work visas, then immediately have them revoked for breaking the law. They can either stay and work off the debt we acrued dealing with this immigration problem, or they can self deport. No more money back to Mexico, or sidestepping the legal system due to being an illegal alien. We need harsh and swift action to show the world we will not sit back and be taken advantage of.

 

Did I just use a thousand words to say something that could have been said in 30?

Nah, you had some good questions in there.

 

But most of the issues you're bringing up will still be issues when they're legal. It sounds like you have more of an issue with immigration, not just illegal immigration. That's fine, but I thought we were concentrating on illegals.

I am concentrating on illegals. If they came here legally there would be about 14 million less of them, and these problems with disease and sidestepping the law would be a non-issue. For example: if you get into a car accident with an illegal, what do you think happens to him? Who pays for your car?

 

 

Yes they break laws to get here, but I think that's a little disingenuous. I mean, you could make it illegal to breath our air too, and technically they're all criminals because of it, but how realistic is that expectation? I know you disagree, and perhaps I should give it more thought, but I'm not buying into this "criminal" thing.

Apples and oranges. Breathing is a little different than taking advantage of people.

 

Also, it is unsettling to know that there are over a million people within an hours drive that have shown beyond a doubt that they will break the law or do what it takes to make their own lives better no matter the consequences for anyone else. Maybe this is the kind of community you want to live in, but it isn't what I want at all.

 

 

So we are talking about immigration in general. Their illegality is not the problem, the lack of controlled inflow is the problem?

Both are the same. Legal immigration IS a controled inflow and one that weeds out disease, language barriers, and poor people looking for a handout to a large degree.

 

 

That's a legitimate complaint. I think a secure border with practical filtering would take care of many issues, but it wouldn't take care of this. I'll have to give this some more thought, because you do raise some good points here that can't be ignored

.

You raise some interesting points as well. I have not fully decided what I think should be done about the problem that we already have, but amnesty isn't it.

[Wormwood]

I didn't have a point, I just couldn't remember if that's true. Your position on this makes sense, though... if a pregnant foreigner gives birth while visiting the US (legally or illegally) then the child is a US citizen. In that case, what does it mean to be a citizen?

I think this should be changed as well to stop this ridiculous abuse of the law. One of your parents should have to be a legal citizen before that should apply. Also, I think people should have to be 2nd or 3rd generation American before they are able to recieve public aid. This would end the anchor baby epidemic over night.

[jackson33]

I think this should be changed as well to stop this ridiculous abuse of the law. One of your parents should have to be a legal citizen before that should apply. Also, I think people should have to be 2nd or 3rd generation American before they are able to recieve public aid. This would end the anchor baby epidemic over night.

 

while i agree with you, to change would take a constitutional amendment, which would have to start in congress. this is highly unlikely to start with but if it were proposed, voted favorably, sent to the president and signed it would still require 3/4 of state approval which is even less likely to happen.

 

the current Governor of NM, Democratic Presidential Candidate and having served in US government, was born in California (purposely) from two Mexican Nationals. the Mom flown to LA area, gave birth, baby and mom returned to Mexico City. i might add the school systems along our southern boarder are overflowed with US citizens crossing the boarder each day to attend school and receive welfare.

 

not often talked about are the requirements for a any person to enter the US at the regular border crossing. going shopping, going to work or sight seeing the most common and all perfectly acceptable. no other requirements. in fairness this works for US citizens crossing into Mexico as well, but normally most, if not all, return to the US.

 

the courts have made denial of aid, or human resources the obligation of our system regardless of any status. just the fact the person is in the US, is all the courts require to enforce the practice. with the UN and so many internationals from the hundreds of programs available this will never be changed.

[Haezed]

Then take the statue down or change the slogan because it's a lie.

 

It's a poem by Emma Lazarus from a different era, placed on the memorial 16 years after her death. I don't think intentional deception was involved.

 

Maybe we can update the verse:

 

Keep your ancient lands,

keep your storied pomp,

come smuggled contraband,

start here with a lawless romp.

 

Give me your tired, your illiterate poor,

your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

No need to darken Ellis Island's door

for the law or simple courtesy.

 

Give me your huddled masses,

yearning to break the law to be free,

just be ready to work your tired asses,

to pay baby boomers' social security.

 

I'm a fun gal, the Mother of Exiles,

without further need of Anglophiles.

Coming illegally is not a crime,

if you but help pay our welfare dime.

See my smirk, see my sly wink,

demographics need a liberal twink.