2009: The Year in Hate

[Red Arrow]

If these were wealthy immigrants who were bringing in large amounts of capital to invest in our local economy, is there any doubt their arrival would be less controversial?

If they were bringing large amounts of capital, there would probably be a legal way to enter the USA.  The "cost" of a green card would be chump change.

[guido911]

I think your post pretty much sums up the differences we have. I can understand your preference for aliens respecting our laws. I wish Americans would respect our laws too. They don't and, pragmatically, we resort to varieties of ways to enforce, encourage or incentivise the behaviours we know are needed.

Like speeding in construction zones. Its illegal. We arrest people, we ticket them, we post limits, we put up flashers, we run public service ads educating people about them. Then they speed anyway. The methods used simply aren't working because the need for speed is too great and there isn't 100% enforcement. Patience is learned early in life and the solutions to a lot of such behaviors lie there.

Same thing with tax evaders, cell phone drivers, smoking etc. Sometimes we even allow or reward some bad behaviors in order to accomplish a greater goal. We forgive late parking fine penalties, we make sentence modifications for criminals in return for information, we allow pleadings to lesser charges in order to save the taxpayers money. All pragmatic efforts to make a faulty system work. Some allege the level of justice received is in direct proportion to the cost of the lawyer. If true, we have some citizens whose wealth makes their citizenship better than others. Which brings up another irony. If these were wealthy immigrants who were bringing in large amounts of capital to invest in our local economy, is there any doubt their arrival would be less controversial?

Anyway, in the end I believe you are more idealistic than I am. I don't ever see a manmade system that can effectively do what you and Hoss think the law can do with illegal immigration because the factors involved, greed, ignorance, jealousy and chauvinism are immutable. Therefore, I would opt for some way of pragmatically dealing with those factors for the greater good. We simply can't build enough prisons, hire enough security or build enough walls to do otherwise.

It's not about idealism or pragmatism, or any other "ism". It is about you equating illegal aliens as legal immigrants or U.S. citizens. It is almost as if you could care less about the rule of law and insist that we as a country should just forget particular rules of law for the sake of compassion. We pass laws through our elected officials for a reason, and you could care less about the rule of law and create exceptions on grounds of pity.

[rwarn17588]

It's not about idealism or pragmatism, or any other "ism". It is about you equating illegal aliens as legal immigrants or U.S. citizens. It is almost as if you could care less about the rule of law and insist that we as a country should just forget particular rules of law for the sake of compassion. We pass laws through our elected officials for a reason, and you could care less about the rule of law and create exceptions on grounds of pity.

So what would you do?

[guido911]

So what would you do?

First of all, I would edit my previous post to read couldn't care less. (h/t). Second, I believe we should enforce our immigration laws before there is any discussion about amnesty of any kind.

[rwarn17588]

First of all, I would edit my previous post to read couldn't care less. (h/t). Second, I believe we should enforce our immigration laws before there is any discussion about amnesty of any kind.

OK ... so let's get into specifics.

When you talk about enforcement, are you talking mass deportations? Are you talking massive arrests of employers who flout the law? All of the above? Is there anything I'm missing?

And are you willing to pay the massive amounts of tax money that this effort(s) will require?

I'm not being a smart*ss; I'm genuinely curious to see how far you're willing to go with your stance and what it entails.

[Conan71]

This is an excerpt from an exchange on the issue from a few years ago with pappaspot, I still feel the same way.  Locating, rounding up, and deporting 20 to 30 million people is a pipe dream. Parenthesis are added to give context of the on-going conversation without re-posting the whole thing here:

"I believe many of the illegals remain illegal due to ignorance of our legal immigration channels.  They are afraid to come forward out of fear of being deported.  Give them a specific window of time to become legal without fear.

I don't think anyone would disagree with your point that if you had a child, you'd want the best healthcare and education.  However, we need to take away the incentive for parents to do this (have anchor babies here by bestowing instant citizenship on people born to citizens of other countries here), unless the Mexican government is willing to pick up the tab.  Otherwise, provide those services only to those who are here legally. 

Just because someone is born here to a mother who doesn't respect our culture or laws, doesn't make them legal in my books, because they won't be brought up to respect our culture, language, and laws.  I don't believe picking up the tab for healthcare and education for every third world immigrant should be incumbent on legitimate American tax payers.

As far as what happens to the children of illegals we'd boot out for non-compliance, sorry to sound hard-hearted, but if the parents weren't willing to get legal, when the opportunity presents itself, that's on the parents of those kids, not our government and not my conscience.

Unless everyone has forgotten, until the early 1900's churches were about charity and governments were about governing.  Now it seems to be reversed.  If it bothers people what would happen to these kids, they can tell their church to start building orphanages.

Real simple summary-

1)Lock down the Mexican border.
2)Give those already here a chance to comply.
3)Kick out the ones who don't."

We need to fund the bill that was passed in 2006 to build the impenetrable border fence.  There's an example of a worthwhile stimulus project.  My beliefs on this issue have zero to do with a racial or ethnic bias.  We simply cannot afford all the amenities we are providing for legal citizens, much less leaving the back door open for anyone else who wants to slip in and suck up our largesse. 

[rwarn17588]

<snip>

Real simple summary-

1)Lock down the Mexican border.
2)Give those already here a chance to comply.
3)Kick out the ones who don't."

We need to fund the bill that was passed in 2006 to build the impenetrable border fence.  There's an example of a worthwhile stimulus project.  My beliefs on this issue have zero to do with a racial or ethnic bias.  We simply cannot afford all the amenities we are providing for legal citizens, much less leaving the back door open for anyone else who wants to slip in and suck up our largesse. 

I think it's a good discussion. However, there are several big problems with this proposal:

1) How is this going to get through the Congress? I don't see either party wanting to come to grips with this.

2) In the remote event that such legislation happens, where are you going to get the money? Are you advocating massive cuts in defense or other programs to do so? Because that's the only way to keep the deficit from ballooning further.

3) Do you think building a fence would solve the problem? In case you haven't noticed, there's a lot of commerce that goes back and forth on the border each day and, thus, ample avenues for smuggling. Also, there are things called the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, in which someone in boats could simply bypass the wall.

4) Are you willing to put up the huge disruptions and unrest that will almost certainly occur in the wake of such legislation?

Let's face it -- illegal immigration has always been a safety valve to keep labor costs down (hello, cheap produce) and fill blue-collar jobs that have chronic vacancy problems.

After reading the problems above, I can see why politicians are all too willing to kick the can down the road.

Illegal immigration may be a problem, but a concerted effort to end it may create much more serious problems. Sort of like the War on Drugs.

[Red Arrow]

The citizens of the US need to make up our minds that we really do want to "get rid of the illegals" and be willing to pay more initially for goods and services.  I cannot quantify the levels since I don't know the true cost of social services, lost income tax, lost revenue due to their spending,  etc.  At least initially some things will cost more.

Make it more expensive to hire illegal aliens than citizens or legal aliens.  This is the difficult part. Prosecute any and everyone who knowingly employs an illegal alien.  Some will creep through this "knowingly" crack but fake ID can be hard to spot.  Verify Social Security Numbers.  A quick trip by the SS Admin through their computers should show things like two addresses for the same number.  No jobs, a lot less illegals.  I admit, not a total absence of illegals. I believe the TW has already reported that local economy has already caused some decrease in illegals.  The same as we cannot win the war on drugs as long as there is a demand for drugs, we will not even reduce the illegal alien traffic until it is less desirable to hire illegal workers than legal aliens or citizens.

No social benefits for illegals.  I hear they get some benefits. I have no first hand knowledge. No unemployment, food stamps, regular health care (even for the kids) etc.  Want your kids in public schools?  Show a US income tax return and/or evidence you are here legally. (I expect anyone here as independently wealthy and without US income will probably not be illegal.) Several families living in a single house with a lot of kids doesn't support the school system.  Otherwise have your kids educated in the home country.  I would not deny emergency humanitarian health care.  Go to the emergency room with a minor illness, cut or scrape? Too bad.  Come in bleeding, broken bones?  OK, we'll fix you up even if it is "on the house".

Deport illegal alien parents with "anchor babies" and tell them to take the baby with them.  What country would deny a parents' right to bring back a baby just because the parents were out of the country when the kid was born.  Are the kids born in the US automatically not a citizen of their parents' country?  Perhaps the parents were just on vacation to the USA when the kid was born.  When the "born in the USA" (Sorry Bruce) kid can be supported by its family or by itself, it can return and claim citizenship if it wants to.  

OK lefties, here's where your man can shine... Have Prez Obama wheel and deal with Mexico to have them use their own money (probably actually from the US via oil sales) help their poor and make it so there is not so much need for them to come to the USA.  Just spread the money around. Or, build the economy.   There is money in Mexico.  I believe it's just distributed even worse than in the US.   I know that not all the illegal aliens come from Mexico.  Perhaps Mexico can help absorb some of the Central American illegals.  (Not holding my breath.)

The concept is simple.  Make it undesirable for the illegals to come here illegally.  Make it unprofitable for employers to hire illegals.

The implementation is always the tough part.

[rwarn17588]

The implementation is always the tough part.

Understatement of the week.

[Conan71]

I think it's a good discussion. However, there are several big problems with this proposal:

1) How is this going to get through the Congress? I don't see either party wanting to come to grips with this.

2) In the remote event that such legislation happens, where are you going to get the money? Are you advocating massive cuts in defense or other programs to do so? Because that's the only way to keep the deficit from ballooning further.

3) Do you think building a fence would solve the problem? In case you haven't noticed, there's a lot of commerce that goes back and forth on the border each day and, thus, ample avenues for smuggling. Also, there are things called the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, in which someone in boats could simply bypass the wall.

4) Are you willing to put up the huge disruptions and unrest that will almost certainly occur in the wake of such legislation?

Let's face it -- illegal immigration has always been a safety valve to keep labor costs down (hello, cheap produce) and fill blue-collar jobs that have chronic vacancy problems.

After reading the problems above, I can see why politicians are all too willing to kick the can down the road.

Illegal immigration may be a problem, but a concerted effort to end it may create much more serious problems. Sort of like the War on Drugs.

Rwarn, the genie is out of the bottle. The Senate passed a bill in Sept. '06 authorizing 700 miles of fence be built and appropriated about $1.5 bil of the $6 bil estimated to get it started.  That still doesn't cover all the border, but it's a start and they got 80 or so Senators to vote for this, so it wasn't that difficult to get done.  If congress were willing to vote to cover all gaps and provide additional man-power to prevent human smuggling, they can do it.  To bring people in illegally on a large scale via water is not impossible but very difficult.  You cannot stop all illegals from entering this country and a better tracking system should be in place for those here on temporary visas. I can assure you, close tracking is done in other countries and there is no reason we should not do so here.  

Estimates of the costs to taxpayers of illegal immigrants, based on studies I found while Googling range in net costs to federal taxpayers of $10 bln to $20 bln a year.  However, one study suggests the cost to California alone for providing education, healthcare, and other social services is as much as $9 bln a year.  

http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecentersf134
http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/000506.html

Obviously, instantaneously sending 20 or so million people out of the country at one time would create one hell of a vacuum and there are occupations we need unskilled labor for which many Hispanics appear quite willing to do.

Where to get the money?  It hasn't been a problem to find money to prop up the auto industry, spread around billions of extras in the healthcare bill as incentive to get it to 60 ayes, prop up the banking system, etc.

If a sensible approach to dealing with the existing immigration problem is taken (i.e. you can't just "send them all back") you won't see a spike in produce or durable goods prices.  If there is a slight rise, that would likely affect the average consumer very slightly and should result in less burden on federal assistance and social programs which means less revenue needed by the government which should translate to lower taxes.  You can either pay it on the front end or back end.  Personally, I'm always going to choose paying in the free markets and less to government because government is inefficient by design.

If anything they should have taken about $100 bil from the stimulus and put it toward a sensible program to lock down the border (helps the construction industry in some areas hard hit by the economy like Arizona and California) and get started on a government-sponsored "get on the path to being legal" agenda.  No this would not be an "amnesty". As mentioned in my previous post, put out a timeline with strict deadlines and requirements and throw out anyone who does not comply or is undesireable as a U.S. citizen (i.e. drug dealers, murderers, etc.).

This could have had a far better multiplicative effect on the economy plus bring into line more of these immigrants enjoying full citizenship rights some day.  Many use bogus SSN's, neglect to get health care or buying auto liability insurance simply because they are afraid of "the man".  

It's not that difficult, all it takes is people in Washington doing things for the right reason and exercizing simple common sense.  I absolultely refuse to look at the status quo and say: "this is too big of a problem to do anything about so I think it's okay to let it fester another 20 years."  That's the wrong attitude and approach.  

[waterboy]

I had no idea until this thread that this forum  was populated with so many utopian idealistic folks. Conan, Guido, good luck with your fantasy island constructs. Can't wait to visit the wall, and write graffiti on its billboards that Stokely will probably sell. I made the remark early in this discussion that we would have to decide just where we wanted to spend our resources, either in managing a problem or punishment. That seems to have been reinforced. As for me, I would like to have seen some of my arguments addressed but at least the issues and perspectives have been fleshed out.

And, I had no idea that Red and I could come from such different perspectives and arrive at the same conclusions.

[Conan71]

I had no idea until this thread that this forum  was populated with so many utopian idealistic folks. Conan, Guido, good luck with your fantasy island constructs. Can't wait to visit the wall, and write graffiti on its billboards that Stokely will probably sell. I made the remark early in this discussion that we would have to decide just where we wanted to spend our resources, either in managing a problem or punishment. That seems to have been reinforced. As for me, I would like to have seen some of my arguments addressed but at least the issues and perspectives have been fleshed out.

And, I had no idea that Red and I could come from such different perspectives and arrive at the same conclusions.

How is what I propose some sort of punishment, waterboy?  Would it not please you to see a government better place the resources we give it so that at this point in your life, they would require less of your hard-earned revenue which you could place toward your retirement?  I fail to see how my approach is anywhere close to utopian.  It's quite workable and fair to people who do not have legal status in this country now.

If I'm being idealistic, I'd far rather take that approach on how to bring a humanitarian approach to our immigration problem rather than to stick my head in the sand and take a cynical "it's too late" approach.  Have you ever considered how many illegal immigrants don't get healthcare for themselves and their kids because they live in fear of being deported?  How else to quit treating them as "second class citizens" as you claim?  What do you do about the constant influx of more illegal immigrants if we grant unconditional amnesty to those already here and we fail to impliment and enforce a sensible guest worker program?

I know, let's just grant U.S. citizenship to all 6 billion or so people world-wide then we can just be shed of this problem for good!

[Hoss]

How is what I propose some sort of punishment, waterboy?  Would it not please you to see a government better place the resources we give it so that at this point in your life, they would require less of your hard-earned revenue which you could place toward your retirement?  I fail to see how my approach is anywhere close to utopian.  It's quite workable and fair to people who do not have legal status in this country now.

If I'm being idealistic, I'd far rather take that approach on how to bring a humanitarian approach to our immigration problem rather than to stick my head in the sand and take a cynical "it's too late" approach.  Have you ever considered how many illegal immigrants don't get healthcare for themselves and their kids because they live in fear of being deported?  How else to quit treating them as "second class citizens" as you claim?  What do you do about the constant influx of more illegal immigrants if we grant unconditional amnesty to those already here and we fail to impliment and enforce a sensible guest worker program?

I know, let's just grant U.S. citizenship to all 6 billion or so people world-wide then we can just be shed of this problem for good!

Watch IRS agents heads explode in 3...2....1

 

[guido911]

OK ... so let's get into specifics.

When you talk about enforcement, are you talking mass deportations? Are you talking massive arrests of employers who flout the law? All of the above? Is there anything I'm missing?

And are you willing to pay the massive amounts of tax money that this effort(s) will require?

I'm not being a smart*ss; I'm genuinely curious to see how far you're willing to go with your stance and what it entails.

I didn't think you were being a smart @ss in the least and I agree this is an interesting subject given the economic, social, and political implications of immigration reform. I really believe the starting point is to make the U.S. an unattractive target for illegals, which would include mass crackdowns on employers of illegals and bankers that extend credit to illegals, terminate access to medical and educational facilities to those that cannot produce proof of lawful residency, and terminate the "sanctuary city" concept and require all cities to comply with federal immigration law.  

[guido911]

I had no idea until this thread that this forum  was populated with so many utopian idealistic folks. Conan, Guido, good luck with your fantasy island constructs. Can't wait to visit the wall, and write graffiti on its billboards that Stokely will probably sell. I made the remark early in this discussion that we would have to decide just where we wanted to spend our resources, either in managing a problem or punishment. That seems to have been reinforced. As for me, I would like to have seen some of my arguments addressed but at least the issues and perspectives have been fleshed out.

And, I had no idea that Red and I could come from such different perspectives and arrive at the same conclusions.

How is wanting the laws of this country enforced Utopian? Tell you what, please make a list of all the laws that should not be enforced and the reason for doing so--maybe there are some laws out there I can ignore to improve my quality of life.