Slate analyses illegal immigration
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Eh, come on...I'm must trying to start an intelligent discussion
You're right, of course. This just happens to be something that lights me up. Spent a portion of my Saturday in a protest of my Senators' stance on the issue. I have an interesting document on the subject that I'll post when I finish it if I can find a place to host it. Document supposedly created by an advisor to Vincente Fox documenting discussions with USA law makers a few years back. 12 page PDF. Interesting so far. From an antecdotal view, (supposedly) from a California school teacher: From a California school teacher - - -"As you listen to the news about the student protests over illegal immigration, there are some things that you should be aware of: I am in charge of the English-as-a-second-language department at a large southern California high school which is designated a Title 1 school, meaning that its students average lower socioeconomic and income levels. Most of the schools you are hearing about, South Gate High, Bell Gardens, Huntington Park, etc., where these students are protesting, are also Title 1 schools. Title 1 schools are on the free breakfast and free lunch program. When I say free breakfast, I'm not talking a glass of milk and roll -- but a full breakfast and cereal bar with fruits and juices that would make a Marriott proud. The waste of this food is monumental, with trays and trays of it being dumped in the trash uneaten. (OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK) I estimate that well over 50% of these students are obese or at least moderately overweight. About 75% or more DO have cell phones. The school also provides day care centers for the unwed teenage pregnant girls (some as young as 13) so they can attend class without the inconvenience of having to arrange for babysitters or having family watch their kids. (OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK) I was ordered to spend $700,000 on my department or risk losing funding for the upcoming year even though there was little need for anything; my budget was already substantial. I ended up buying new computers for the computer learning center, half of which, one month later, have been carved with graffiti by the appreciative students who obviously feel humbled and grateful to have a free education in America. (OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK) I have had to intervene several times for young and substitute teachers whose classes consist of many illegal immigrant students here in the country less then 3 mont
Okay, thanks Mike. See, now I've actually learned a little something regarding the other issues. Since I'm not American I know very little about the programs outlined in your post. When I posted this thread, I wasn't trying to say that I think illegal immigration was no problem, I just wanted people's opinion on the article. I actually think your government should be doing more to stop the flow of immigrants across the border. I just wanted to learn something about the issue and I did.
-
When in doubt, claim racism.
Red Stateler wrote:
When in doubt, claim racism.
Yeah, the comparison to slaves at the end was quite ridiculous. The math, okay, that's how we have intelligent discussions, but the conclusion was rather silly...
-
Clearly the system for dealing with illegal immigrants in the USA is wildly different than applies in the UK.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
CHEAP LABOR?
From that heading downward, I get the impression that very little is done to round-up these illegal immigrants and deport them. Your country even welcomes these peoples (in a manner of speak) as you actively provide housing, education, health and tax refunds. This is very alien to the way illegal immigrants are treated in the UK. If such peoples are found, they are rounded-up (together with their families, although the vast majority are here are without their families) and after the requisite procedures are followed, are very likely to be deported to their country of origin. And while these peoples are here, they pay no tax, do not qualify for tax refunds, do not qualify for housing, education and health. From this page http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article354784.ece[^] the use of fraudulent documentation is high, the degree of violence - verbal and physical - is normalised as high, the threat that their presence can be found out because of unscrupulous employers/work colleagues. The two systems are akin to chalk and cheese. This being the primary reason why I pose questions such as to Shog above and in other threads, I would like to understand more of the system employed in the United States and attempt to make comparisons with that which occurs in my own country - the UK. To be better understanding of the issues is beneficial.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
I get the impression that very little is done to round-up these illegal immigrants and deport them.
So little in fact that it is infuriating to the typical citizen. I don't know if you saw my previous thread on "Sanctuary Cities" or not but some cities such as San Fransisco and Austin have given their Police Departments orders to not question the citizenship (and not cooperate with federal authorities) of someone they encounter in the normal course of events. Here's an example. A policeman notices someone driving erratically. The policeman pulls the car over and asks for a driver's license. The guy he pulled over doesn't have one and "appears" to be a an illegal. All the policeman in these sanctuary cities can do is issue a ticket for the guy not having a license.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Your country even welcomes these peoples (in a manner of speak) as you actively provide housing, education, health and tax refunds.
A judicial system run amuk. Several cities in the USA have attempted to make it a crime or civil infraction to, for example, lease an apartment to an illegal. Federal courts have invariably struck down these laws by stating that it is the federal government's job to control immigration. ---- All the above is fascinating when you realize that our federal government has refused to enforce our borders and enforce our immigration laws. The same federal government that will not do so, makes it impossible for local governments to do what needs to be done - then, the federal government states that, "we have a broken system" that can only be corrected by granting the illegals amnesty (although they refuse to call it that) and make it easier to "bring them out of the shadows". Out of the shadows my arse. These illegals openly laugh at citizens who complain. ALl of the above is being done to bring in cheap labor for businesses, while transferring the actual cost to our citizens through higher taxes. A real pisser.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Enough of that BS below. Let's get a real topic going again. In this article[^] Stephen Landsburg of Slate magazine[^] analyses the economic cost of illegal immigration. He concludes with the following few paragraphs: 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? Agree? Disagree? Other input? The math is here[^].
73Zeppelin wrote:
Other input?
Just my 2 cents on his article. 1. While he equates opposing immigration (actually illegal immigration) to slavery, he seems to be endorsing the adoption of a new underclass that isn't quite "owned" but is forced into lower wages. I've always looked at illegal immigrants as basically a sort of slave-class which isn't allowed to participate in mainstream society. So to me his comparison seems backwards and endorsing a subjugated underclass with fewer rights seems more akin to slavery. 2. His cost analysis is intentionally oversimplified to only include wages and exclude social benefits. Another study (I don't have the link) which was posted in the Soapbox recently showed that the lowest quintile of wage-earners (the group in which most illegals belong) take more money in terms of benefits from the government than they put in. The fact that many are paid in cash and avoid taxes certainly ensures that their proportion is higher than legal Americans in that quintile. 3. More than anything, Americans oppose illegal immigration not for the economics (as NAFTA ensures there would probably be no net benefit ot loss) but because of security and cultural issues. Liberals endorse immigration policies that restrict immigration of talented people from Western European countries (the group with a culture most similar to our own), but encourage immigration from cultures not similar to our own (like Mexico and the Far East) in the interests of diversity. While liberals undoubtedly rejoice in the idea of uninsured Mexicans driving in swerving 1980's Nissans (because, after all, that's "different" than a doctor driving his Mercedes), most Americans want a slightly higher caliber of person. 4. Once again, this guy ignores the fact that Americans are complaining about illegal immigration and instead implies that immigrants are opposed based on race. When in doubt, claim racism. Americans don't oppose immigration, but we oppose the lack of control over it. We want to say who joins our little club.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
I get the impression that very little is done to round-up these illegal immigrants and deport them.
So little in fact that it is infuriating to the typical citizen. I don't know if you saw my previous thread on "Sanctuary Cities" or not but some cities such as San Fransisco and Austin have given their Police Departments orders to not question the citizenship (and not cooperate with federal authorities) of someone they encounter in the normal course of events. Here's an example. A policeman notices someone driving erratically. The policeman pulls the car over and asks for a driver's license. The guy he pulled over doesn't have one and "appears" to be a an illegal. All the policeman in these sanctuary cities can do is issue a ticket for the guy not having a license.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Your country even welcomes these peoples (in a manner of speak) as you actively provide housing, education, health and tax refunds.
A judicial system run amuk. Several cities in the USA have attempted to make it a crime or civil infraction to, for example, lease an apartment to an illegal. Federal courts have invariably struck down these laws by stating that it is the federal government's job to control immigration. ---- All the above is fascinating when you realize that our federal government has refused to enforce our borders and enforce our immigration laws. The same federal government that will not do so, makes it impossible for local governments to do what needs to be done - then, the federal government states that, "we have a broken system" that can only be corrected by granting the illegals amnesty (although they refuse to call it that) and make it easier to "bring them out of the shadows". Out of the shadows my arse. These illegals openly laugh at citizens who complain. ALl of the above is being done to bring in cheap labor for businesses, while transferring the actual cost to our citizens through higher taxes. A real pisser.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
I just saw an article on CNN about a town in NY that passed a law that the police can't even ASK a person about their status. Let me know when you have that full PDF up; I really want to read it. I personally think all laws that 'protect' the illegals should all be rewritten to specifically EXCLUDE them.
______________________ stuff + cats = awesome
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
I get the impression that very little is done to round-up these illegal immigrants and deport them.
So little in fact that it is infuriating to the typical citizen. I don't know if you saw my previous thread on "Sanctuary Cities" or not but some cities such as San Fransisco and Austin have given their Police Departments orders to not question the citizenship (and not cooperate with federal authorities) of someone they encounter in the normal course of events. Here's an example. A policeman notices someone driving erratically. The policeman pulls the car over and asks for a driver's license. The guy he pulled over doesn't have one and "appears" to be a an illegal. All the policeman in these sanctuary cities can do is issue a ticket for the guy not having a license.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Your country even welcomes these peoples (in a manner of speak) as you actively provide housing, education, health and tax refunds.
A judicial system run amuk. Several cities in the USA have attempted to make it a crime or civil infraction to, for example, lease an apartment to an illegal. Federal courts have invariably struck down these laws by stating that it is the federal government's job to control immigration. ---- All the above is fascinating when you realize that our federal government has refused to enforce our borders and enforce our immigration laws. The same federal government that will not do so, makes it impossible for local governments to do what needs to be done - then, the federal government states that, "we have a broken system" that can only be corrected by granting the illegals amnesty (although they refuse to call it that) and make it easier to "bring them out of the shadows". Out of the shadows my arse. These illegals openly laugh at citizens who complain. ALl of the above is being done to bring in cheap labor for businesses, while transferring the actual cost to our citizens through higher taxes. A real pisser.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Okay, thanks Mike. See, now I've actually learned a little something regarding the other issues. Since I'm not American I know very little about the programs outlined in your post. When I posted this thread, I wasn't trying to say that I think illegal immigration was no problem, I just wanted people's opinion on the article. I actually think your government should be doing more to stop the flow of immigrants across the border. I just wanted to learn something about the issue and I did.
Again - my apologies. This is a pretty emotional subject here. Those of us who hold the opinion that you can see through my post(s) on the subject hear ourselves referred to as "nativists" and "racists" when we're literally being invaded (by generally well intentioned and hard working people), with our culture and social fabric under duress while our federal government aids and abets through lax enforcement of our laws. very, very frustrating.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
IIRC The Constitution NEVER made slavery legal. It was very quiet about the subject of slavery because when it was written in the early, fragile, years of the Union, the Southern States were threatening succession if anything was done that would threaten the existance of slavery. There was no mention of it in the constitution, pro or con, and it was agreed that it would not even be discussed for the first 20 years after the constitution was approved. The subject was bothersome to several of the founding leaders (Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin - even though all of them owned slaves(I am not sure if that is true of Adams)) because they felt that slavery violated the very principles of the revolution and the Declaration of Independence. They simply did not know how to resolve the problem (eliminate slavery).
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Other input?
Just my 2 cents on his article. 1. While he equates opposing immigration (actually illegal immigration) to slavery, he seems to be endorsing the adoption of a new underclass that isn't quite "owned" but is forced into lower wages. I've always looked at illegal immigrants as basically a sort of slave-class which isn't allowed to participate in mainstream society. So to me his comparison seems backwards and endorsing a subjugated underclass with fewer rights seems more akin to slavery. 2. His cost analysis is intentionally oversimplified to only include wages and exclude social benefits. Another study (I don't have the link) which was posted in the Soapbox recently showed that the lowest quintile of wage-earners (the group in which most illegals belong) take more money in terms of benefits from the government than they put in. The fact that many are paid in cash and avoid taxes certainly ensures that their proportion is higher than legal Americans in that quintile. 3. More than anything, Americans oppose illegal immigration not for the economics (as NAFTA ensures there would probably be no net benefit ot loss) but because of security and cultural issues. Liberals endorse immigration policies that restrict immigration of talented people from Western European countries (the group with a culture most similar to our own), but encourage immigration from cultures not similar to our own (like Mexico and the Far East) in the interests of diversity. While liberals undoubtedly rejoice in the idea of uninsured Mexicans driving in swerving 1980's Nissans (because, after all, that's "different" than a doctor driving his Mercedes), most Americans want a slightly higher caliber of person. 4. Once again, this guy ignores the fact that Americans are complaining about illegal immigration and instead implies that immigrants are opposed based on race. When in doubt, claim racism. Americans don't oppose immigration, but we oppose the lack of control over it. We want to say who joins our little club.
Thanks for the input. Wow, what a backwards thread - you and Gaskey get 5 votes all-round and I get the three 1-votes for initiating the thread. That's pretty unusual... I'm not sure which group I riled up - the leftists or the right! :laugh:
-
How near to the knife edge is the current American economy. I ask this because if the bill gets a second reading, as suggested by your President [^], and a Z-visa is introduced thus giving some illegals some degree of legal status, will the cost to the economy caused by inevitable higher wages push the economy "over-the-cliff-edge" into some recession that could have worldwide implications. The degree of threat needs to be made known.
Well, deporting them all would have the same effect. Americans would have to pick up the ball and run with it and they don't come that cheap. Sounds like to save our economy we need to in fact do nothing.
This statement was never false.