Illegal immigration and national consciousness

[wingman]

we cannot support an unlimited number of people, legally or illegally, and unlimited is the number you are talking about. there is only so much room, only so many resources. it is terribly unrealistic to assume that we could or should just start dealing out citizenship willy nilly to anybody who wants in and says they will work. any government would collapse under such a policy.

Exactly, many people fail to understand that while rich America must have limits, even our own government seems to not understand this.

The idea we have unlimited space, money and still maintain our way of life
is naive, as the world continue to grow in population it becomes more
important we control our borders unless of course we wish to build a
new third world within our borders, perhaps that is what we are doing
where only the rich and poor survive.

 

[TallPine]

A declared liberal, declared female, who wants to talk about legal immigrants and amnesty for illegals, never mind the scope of the root article, is hijacking the thread. Are you asking for attention?

That really was uncalled for


And personally, I think the whole country has gone to heck ever since those Asians came over the land bridge from Siberia during the last ice age

 

[Herself]

A modest proposal:
We take in people who are likely to enhance America. I happen to believe that means people of like mind, of like values, and, yes, of like culture.

First point: this is, at the root, an argument in favor of central planning, the very opposite of capitalism.

...But it's not your decision on whom to admit. If done, it would be implemented by a group of bureaucrats, based on politically-driven policies handed down from Washington: in short, the very way it is done now. While I disagree with the present system of quotas, it is an effort to accomplish the result you want: to let in those most likely to have something to contribute.

There are problems with looking too closely. A sickly-looking fellow came here from Serbo-Croatia a long time ago, a young man with no job, little money and suffering chronic migraines. Another young man, a hunchbacked dwarf and avid socialist, came to the U.S. from Russia. He was broke, too. Not real likely prospects?
Keep 'em out, and your lights go out! The first is Nikola Tesla, father of the alternating-current power distribution grid; the second is Charles Proteus Steinmetz, who did much of theoretical and applied work behind the parctical aspects of it. ...Papa Steinmetz mellowed into a crusty but likeable sort; Tesla was a brilliant looney all his life.
It's very difficult to accurately predict just what good a person might do.

Immigration faces much the same problem as criminal justice; the system's got to have enough "slop" in it to avoid refusing or convicting the innocent, even at the cost of letting a few baddies slip through. There is no perfect justice this side of the grave; the only choice is which way you want to stack up the errors: missing a few baddies to get nearly all the good ones, or getting almost all the baddies at the cost of losing some good guys.

There really isn't an easy answer.

People who don't value America's core principles and won't further them are not great candidates for keeping the America we want.

They're also quite unlikely to do well here. ...And most such are not very likely to want to come here, either.

Limiting chances for legal immigration only turns away those who are most likely to be interested in becoming citizens; and it swells the pool of illegals, allowing better chances for persons not all interested in citizenship or the "core values" to slip in with 'em.

Like any product, limiting supply simply drives up the price and encourages the use of substitutes, including really lousy imitations.

--Herself

 

[longeyes]

Enough with the straw men. Who said I wanted to discriminate against your "motley crew?" Honestly. You'd be surprised how open I am to iconoclasts and freethinkers.

The danger today is not excluding the geniuses and mavericks and people marching to their own drummer. The danger today is that we are not excluding ANYBODY.

 

[odysseus]

I have been away from this conversation. A lot has been added, thought I would add some responses to it.

Woodland_Annie, I rarely go into statement by statement quote response - but the fruitfulness of posts lends me to do so. I apologize in advance if this looks odd.

I tend to say, "Open it." If they would have had illegal immigrants when my ancestors came over, they were escaping famine and war, and would likely have been kept out because they didn't fit the desirable WASP-ish characteristics of the nativists.

I find it very bad form and unfortunately common to the debate, that those in favor of amnesty for illegals and defense of illegal immigrants push forward and play the racism card. Now I am not ignorant to the fact racism in America is certainly strong (as it is in Europe and most any continent, even Asia against none Asians), however this is a separate conversation and not one for the discussion of illegal immigration from any country. My personal background has legal immigrants from 2 distinct regions both of far long ago and of recent time. Illegal immigration is not immigration. It is illegal entry and squatting in a country that has not welcomed you, even if you find someone who will pay you to work.

If we restrict immigration, do we only accept immigrants from "nice" countries? Countries of governments we are friendly with (which changes daily it seems - witness Iraq and Afghanistan)? Do we only allow rich people in from other countries? Do we accept only the people of a certain religion or skin color or political philosophy?

Again a discussion outside of illegal immigration. For the conversation, my own opinion is that it should be balanced regardless of race and wealth. However if you are a country in need and Congress recognizes this fact because of war of various reasons there could be special acceptances. Do more wealthy and educated people from other countries find the immigration process more accessible? Well yes, but that has always been an issue. It's not just racial either, for example many people from India who immigrated here for the most part are from the upper echelon's of their people. It's complicated in itself without trying to defend illegal immigration as acceptable due to perceived racism. Thousands of legal immigrants who are not "wasp" like as you put it come into this country every year. I don't have statistics in front of me, but I imagine they total more than your defined "wasp" types do.

I'm not saying Mexico would be far more prosperous if we hadn't invaded and taken those lands.

I think this is more revealing of your perspective than other comments. You have some form of guilt by a misguided belief that we "stole" lands from Mexico. While there could be solid debate, the push west by the US and our fights with Spain and Mexico are of historical value only at this time.

So much of what becomes US policy has to do with business dealings. If the multinationals were forced to stay in this country and hire at a decent wage, then we wouldn't be having a discussion about keeping poor people out. We'd be looking for ways to bring more in.

I agree on US policy. However that's what has become an issue internally by us, that our economic health is of priority to the protection of our state. That's another debate. Also those multinational corporations build and hire people in those countries. It is their own issue of supply and demand. We fought hard in this country for labor rights and the right to collectively bargain. That is their own issue to gain those rights too (ex. China), and we can be supportive of those ideals in their own countries. This has little value to the conversation of illegal immigration. There will always be a more prosperous nation to which those of less wealth will seek to go to.

If it's illegals using social services and not paying taxes because they're paid under the table that is a problem, then give them amnesty and let them work legally towards citizenship. Give them a valid SSN and let them work at jobs and pay taxes.

I cannot think of a worse way to condone and continue to support illegal activity as is illegal entry into a country then to do this. This is a terrible idea for many reasons. Outside of that, from an economics point of view that seems to be added to your point, I am not convinced we would be ahead on the accounting books by allowing illegal immigrants this allowance. Most money still will spill out into Mexico - which is why the corrupt Mexican government doesn't want to see their people come here only by legal immigration. Many agendas based on greed and power want to keep illegal immigration from Mexico going just like it is, from both sides of the border.

IOW if I were a conservative and/or male, would it matter?

Of course not. If you weren't, would it matter?

 

[gc70]

The bottom line is that we, the American people, can choose to leave the door wide open, shut it tight, or anything in between. In recent decades, the majority of the people have not been aware enough of the issue to care or to voice an opinion, but that is changing - quickly.

Although I personally favor an expansive immigration policy, I am disgusted with the current situation. The US is supposedly a nation of laws, but we are paying lip-service to a restrictive immigration policy while turning a blind eye toward the flood of illegal entrants. We should enforce our immigration laws or change them, but certainly not allow the current travesty to continue.

 

[cz75bdneos22]

no fence needed...

why waste billions of dollars more...just deploy the four border states national guard to help the border patrol do its job...they NG are already on the states payroll, so make them work for it..that would kill two birds with one stone...it deals with stopping Illegal immigration and also tackling the drug supply problem across the Southern border...any supporters? no need for no stinking "Militia"...let the real deal do the job...

 

[Herself]

cz75bdneos22: The legality of employing soldiers as border guards along a border between the United States and a country with which we are not at war is questionable at best. So that's kind of a problem with using the National Guard.

There's also the fact that Guard units are already a little busy right now, helping the full-time armed forces in Iraq and Afganistan and elsewhere.

I remain convinced that illegal immigration is a created problem; if legal immigration were not artifically limited to restricted numbers, it would be an insignificant problem.


Longeyes: once again, I have failed to communicate my point to you. Well, at least I tried.
N.B.: The use of examples is not a "strawman;" your expressed desire for a predictive selection process was handed a couple of applicants to examine and the result of applcation of overly-strict critera was suggested. A parallel was made to the American "assumed innocence until convicted" system of criminal justice. You chose not to refute it.
As for the danger being "that we are not excluding ANYBODY," this is hardly the case. In fact, legal immigration does have quotas and health requirements and many are excluded. As for illegal immigrants, they're hardly "included," as they cannot artcipate in many Federal programs. While individual States have made decisions with which many of us disagree, that is an issue to be addressed at the State level. CA in particular tends to go its own way; and perhaps should be allowed to. There's no other teacher as good as failure.


Generally: we all keep bandying very broad terms about, like "a flood," "a few" and my own references to quotas. Has anyone got a link to well-substantiated, objective numerical data? Things like raw numbers of legal immigrant and demographic data on their national origins, actual immigrationm quatoas, and dependable numbers on illegal immigrants would be really useful. It could be that good numbers would tell the tale, one way or another.

I'm going to be very skeptical of any source with an axe to grind, pro or con; this an emotional topic, as we have all demonstrated, and that means an increased liklihood of stroked or cherry-picked numbers. But there's got to be some useful data somewhere.

One datum that has stuck with me concerns population densities within the U. S. as compared to most Western "first-world" nations: we have got enormously more space per capita than all the rest, save for Canada. So arguments suggesting the nation's got no more room for newcomers are really hyperbole. Room, we have lots of.

--Herself

 

[gc70]

Originally posted by herself
The legality of employing soldiers as border guards along a border between the United States and a country with which we are not at war is questionable at best. So that's kind of a problem with using the National Guard.

You may want to review the Posse Comitatus Act.

National Guard units operating under the authority of state governors are specifically exempt.

The use of federal troops for law enforcement purposes (normally prohibited by the Act) can be authorized by Congress.

And the President can waive the Act's restrictions in emergencies.

 

[gc70]

Originally posted by herself
Generally: we all keep bandying very broad terms about, like "a flood," "a few" and my own references to quotas. Has anyone got a link to well-substantiated, objective numerical data? Things like raw numbers of legal immigrant and demographic data on their national origins, actual immigrationm quatoas, and dependable numbers on illegal immigrants would be really useful. It could be that good numbers would tell the tale, one way or another.

How about the Pew Hispanic Center's report on Unauthorized Migrants: Numbers and Characteristics. Some key points from the report:

• As of 3/2004, 10.3 million unauthorized migrants; 57% Mexican and 81% Latin American. (page 4)
• About 610,000 legal arrivals per year (5-year average since 2000) versus 700,000 unauthorized arrivals per year. (page 6)
• "1 in 11 Mexicans in the U.S." (page 36)

Originally posted by herself
I'm going to be very skeptical of any source with an axe to grind, pro or con; this an emotional topic, as we have all demonstrated, and that means an increased liklihood of stroked or cherry-picked numbers. But there's got to be some useful data somewhere.

Judge for yourself. "Founded in 2001, the Pew Hispanic Center is a nonpartisan research organization supported by The Pew Charitable Trusts. Its mission is to improve understanding of the U.S. Hispanic population and to chronicle Latinos' growing impact on the entire nation. The Center does not advocate for or take positions on policy issues. It is a project of the Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan "fact tank" in Washington, DC that provides information on the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world."

The overall numbers in the Pew Hispanic Center's report roughly coincide with Census Bureau and INS numbers.

 

[longeyes]

The use of examples is not a "strawman;" your expressed desire for a predictive selection process was handed a couple of applicants to examine and the result of applcation of overly-strict critera was suggested. A parallel was made to the American "assumed innocence until convicted" system of criminal justice. You chose not to refute it.
As for the danger being "that we are not excluding ANYBODY," this is hardly the case. In fact, legal immigration does have quotas and health requirements and many are excluded. As for illegal immigrants, they're hardly "included," as they cannot artcipate in many Federal programs. While individual States have made decisions with which many of us disagree, that is an issue to be addressed at the State level. CA in particular tends to go its own way; and perhaps should be allowed to. There's no other teacher as good as failure.

We're not talking here about LEGAL immigration, we're talking about ILLEGAL immigration. I'm sure there are Teslas and Steinmetzes and a host of mute inglorious Miltons toiling away in car washes, lettuce fields, and seedy Las Vegas hotels, but you don't make arguments about vast social problems based on anecdotal evidence. The criteria for inclusion aren't esoteric; they begin with needed job skills--I think we have enough unskilled labor here already, frankly--and shared philosophical values. If that's too restrictive/predictive for you, well, that's the way I see it. And I'm not alone.

Legal immigration is restricted because we don't want another half-billion people in the U.S. Maybe you do, Herself, but most of us don't. You believe there's a lot of empty space in America, do you? How about resources for the people you'd like to bring here? Water? Enough of that, you think?

Where was it you said you lived again?

 

[Herself]

You may want to review the Posse Comitatus Act.

National Guard units operating under the authority of state governors are specifically exempt.

But the Feds have jurisdiction over national borders; taking that approach is clearly an effort to accomplish an end prohibited by the law by using a technicality. Isn't there enough of that sort of thing already?

The use of federal troops for law enforcement purposes (normally prohibited by the Act) can be authorized by Congress.

And the President can waive the Act's restrictions in emergencies.

I guess I'm just too conservative about such matters. Every time the Feds have been given a new power to use, they have kept it and done unintended things with it. Waiving Posse Comitatus prohibitions would be a real boon to the next Administration to pull another Waco or Ruby Ridge, for instance.

--Herself

 

[Herself]

Legal immigration is restricted because we don't want another half-billion people in the U.S. Maybe you do, Herself, but most of us don't. You believe there's a lot of empty space in America, do you? How about resources for the people you'd like to bring here? Water? Enough of that, you think?

Where was it you said you lived again?

You are becoming personal. We've already both been material contributors to getting one thread of this nature locked; let's try to not do so again.

I have no intention of bringing anyone here, nor do I either like or dislike their arrival. They bring themselves. How any of us feel about it is more a topic for the TV chat shows -- Oprah, perhaps. It's not germane to claims of actual harm.

As for water, it doesn't get used up when it is used (unless you're cracking hygrogen or the like). It's quite easily recycled, one way or another, even the water you spray on the lawn. That whole Club of Rome "Limits to Growth" line is a bit out of place. The water I drink here in Indy comes, in part, from the White River -- downstream of the discharge from sewage-treatment plants in Anderson and Muncie. Better living through science!

--Herself

 

[gc70]

Originally posted by herself
But the Feds have jurisdiction over national borders; taking that approach is clearly an effort to accomplish an end prohibited by the law by using a technicality. Isn't there enough of that sort of thing already?

Balderdash! I have substituted a link to a 58-page Congressional Research Service report on the Posse Comitatus Act for my original limited link. If you read the CRS report, you will find that the topic of the National Guard is not a "technicality." Indeed, the authority of governors over the National Guard stems from the Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16) and has been upheld by the courts.

 

[longeyes]

You are becoming personal. We've already both been material contributors to getting one thread of this nature locked; let's try to not do so again.

Just taking note of the fact that you live in Indiana, far from the madding crowd of illegals who have re-made Los Angeles in the last decade. You really need to get out more and see first-hand what's going on in some of the Western cities.

You neither like nor dislike the arrival of illegal aliens? And how any of us feels about the influx doesn't matter? I see. Well, I'm sorely tempted to be "personal" but I'll just say I'm puzzled by your attitude. As the "the claims of actual harm," that's been covered here, there, and everywhere many times. Illegal aliens are prime contributors to crime, and they are major takers of public treasure. California, where I live, is now spending upwards of $5 billion a year on illegal alien services. That's what I call Harm, bigtime. You want to see another hundred million in the U.S., all laying claim to social welfare services? By the way, I do blame our government along with the social welfare and education mafias that feed off the "newcomers."

 

[Herself]

Okay, here are some rough numbers, using data from sources provided by gc70 (thank you!) and the Census Bureau at http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html

These numbers are very raw and I invite criticism of my math -- it's late!

"About 610,000 legal arrivals per year (5-year average since 2000) versus 700,000 unauthorized arrivals per year."

I'm going to assume they are all Mexican or Latin American, and add them together: 1,310,000 per year.

U. S. Population as of today is 297,884,765.[1] Total immigrants arriving in the last year represent 0.4397% percent of that total, of whom a bit over half are illegals: 0.2349% Hardly a "flood!"

But that's not fair, really; maybe they're adding up more quickly than the native-born. How does immigration compare to those who arrive the old-fashioned way, by being born? Births in the US ran at very close to 14 per 1000 per year from 1997 though 2002, so I'm using that to get 4,170,386, or about 1.39% of the total population. Call it three times as much per year as the increase from total immigration, and 5.9 times as much as the increase from illegal immigration.[2]

Yes, it looks to me we're safe: we breed faster than they are sneaking in.

I'm surprised. I really thought the numbers would be bigger. Half a percent? Not statistically significant.

--Herself
___________________________
1. 2005 number was 295,734,134 if anyone wants to use it instead. Or get earlier numbers from the Census.

2. The numbers can be refined by assuming immigrants have children after arrival at the average rate, and shaving 0.4397% and 0.2349% from the total births to adjust for total immigrant contribution and illegal immigrant contribution; it does not change the "us vs. them" increase significantly. You can even the double the birthrates and it's still not significant.

 

[Herself]

Just taking note of the fact that you live in Indiana, far from the madding crowd of illegals who have re-made Los Angeles in the last decade. You really need to get out more and see first-hand what's going on in some of the Western cities.

We have plenty of ex-Mexicans in Indiana (please see my last posts in the locked thread) and I visit the Dallas-Ft. Worth area regularly. I am not seeing social chaos.
Los Angeles has been "remaking itself" for decades now, driven by the natives as much as any newcomers, and not in any direction I especially approve of. But it appears the majority of native Angelinos must like it, or they'd do something different.

You neither like nor dislike the arrival of illegal aliens? And how any of us feels about the influx doesn't matter? I see. Well, I'm sorely tempted to be "personal" but I'll just say I'm puzzled by your attitude.

Does how you feel affect any actual harm done? Nope. Just raises your own blood pressure and shortens your life.
My attitude has just now been tempered by my calculator. Please check my math.

As the "the claims of actual harm," that's been covered here, there, and everywhere many times. Illegal aliens are prime contributors to crime, and they are major takers of public treasure.

Anecdotes. Do you have any real numbers, or just more emotion? (I'm not gonna have to get all Phil Donahue and "validate your feelings" here, am I?) Also: "public treasure?" What, like the Hope Diamond?

California, where I live, is now spending upwards of $5 billion a year on illegal alien services. That's what I call Harm, bigtime.

It's what I call California, bigtime. That's why those of us in the flyover states look askance at CA. I didn't hold a gun on your state legislature and make them do that -- and of the two of us, you are the one with a voice in that state's affairs.

You want to see another hundred million in the U.S., all laying claim to social welfare services?

Let's see, at 700,000 per year, that will take...carry the zed...142.85 years. Goodness, yes, I would love to be around to see that! And that assumes all 700,000 are deadbeats; unlikely. If as many as half of them are, we'll be waiting 285 years. Sign me up!

By the way, I do blame our government along with the social welfare and education mafias that feed off the "newcomers."

In fact, the "social welfare and education mafias" are a part of government. They're not some seperate thing. And they'll feed off any resource they can get.

--Herself

 

[LAK]

Exactly, many people fail to understand that while rich America must have limits, even our own government seems to not understand this.

The idea we have unlimited space, money and still maintain our way of life is naive, as the world continue to grow in population it becomes more important we control our borders unless of course we wish to build a new third world within our borders, perhaps that is what we are doing where only the rich and poor survive.

Right; we are already swamped with cheap labor which has depressed lower, middle and even some upper incomes. When you punch a hole in the bottom of a bucket, water does not just seep out of the bottom layers; the whole level goes down.

In order to raise the standard of living in neighboring third world countries like Mexico and S America by eliminating borders and immigration controls, a level playing field in terms of labor must be created. Under these conditions, ours will go down to meet theirs. Not the other way around. Our middle class is bleeding out rapidly, and will largely cease to exists the ways things are being driven.

The United States as a nation does not exist to take in any and everybody from other countries anymore than your or my household exists to take in any and everyone off the streets.

If people want to come to this country to get an education, let the get a temporary visa to do so, then go back to their homeland and use it to build their own successful nation. Not bleed ours away for us.
------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[RealGun]

I don't see how walls and troops do any good until there is the resolve to shoot people trying to cross, including children. Employing a wall of bullets is not going to happen. I don't know...maybe you could gas them and drop them back in Mexico. And that's assuming Mexico would allow you to do that, sticking a toe on their side. The expense of prisons and camps is stupid. I think you start by removing economic and medical incentives to come here illegally.

Altering the discussion to LEGAL immigration issues is a bleeding heart, blissninny approach to the problem. We already know that amnesty program concepts are extremely unpopular, so why stir the pot? Rather than any solution, this attempts to make the problem go away without addressing that the situation will only get worse with a hands off approach.

I think, however, that it would be very interesting to know exactly how Mexico and the US handle LEGAL immigration. Why is that hard, and why do so many have to go around it? We seem to have job openings, so why aren't they posted? If it's all about being paid under the table, that's what should be addressed.

 

[Herself]

Remember, you're talking about a "flood" of illegals consisting of 0.2349 percent of the U.S. popuation per year.

It's a trickle, at most.

C'mon, guys. It's not rocket science.

--Herself

 

[Glock Glockler]

Herself,

Do you really believe the numbers provided by the census bureau? It seems to me it's in their interest to keep the reported number of illegals low, having them high would sort of like giving your boss a report that says you've been screwing up.

You might think illegals are insignificant but I doubt the people who have had to deal with hospitals shutting down and skyrocketing taxes share your sentiment.

 

[Herself]

Herself,

Do you really believe the numbers provided by the census bureau? It seems to me it's in their interest to keep the reported number of illegals low, having them high would sort of like giving your boss a report that says you've been screwing up.

Would you like to borrow my tinfoil hat?

The quoted numbers for immigrants aren't from the Census, who probably don't set out to undercount illegals but surely do simply because the illegals aren't likely to cooperate. The numbers are from the Pew Foundation, by way of THRer gc70

You might think illegals are insignificant but I doubt the people who have had to deal with hospitals shutting down and skyrocketing taxes share your sentiment.

Provide examples, please. Anecdotes and internet rumors do not count.

Note those "skyrocketing taxes" are state taxes, which should be dealt with at the state level. Why should the Feds limit the generousity of any single state of the Union, no matter how self-destructive it may be? Why should you and I have to bail out California but any means?


The numbers are insignificant. A population growth of less than one-quarter of one percent per year due to illegals is not statistically significant. It's a zit on bacillis on a flea on a horse!

--Herself

 

[carlrodd]

The numbers are insignificant. A population growth of less than one-quarter of one percent per year due to illegals is not statistically significant. It's a zit on bacillis on a flea on a horse!

--Herself

now that you have done all that math, and for the sake of argument we'll assume it's reasonably accurate.....do some more math. find out the percentage of that influx of immigrants that settles in urban centers in california and the southwest. i don't know what it is, but i do know the majority of latin american immigrants settle in these parts of the country. if the majority of 1.3 million immigrants settles in such a specific portion of the country, math says that for that portion of the country, it WILL be an epidemic.

 

[longeyes]

I'm late, I'm late, for a very important date

We have, I see, gone down the rabbit-hole into Wonderland. The influx is insignificant? To laugh or cry, that is the question. Judas Priest!

 

[carlrodd]

We have, I see, gone down the rabbit-hole into Wonderland. The influx is insignificant? To laugh or cry, that is the question. Judas Priest!

that's why i'm waiting for more math. i must admit that i have, in the not too distant past, made the mistake of underestimating the problem this presents in certain parts of the country, because where i live the numbers just aren't as bad. apparently herself is from a similar place. maybe herself should also calculate the average number of tax dollars spent on a single illegal immigrant and then times it by her 700,000. no matter where they settle, that amount money, which increases exponentially every year is of great concern.