illegal immigrants.......

I'll agree that the INS needs a TON of revamping to streamline the process. But I disagree that we should just discard the process. One of the reasons we have the process is to screen out felons and those carrying communicable disease.

BTW it's an imposition to obtain many governmental permits, etc. If I don't feel like waiting for hours in line and then being in the car with a DPS trooper, should I just say to hell with it and drive without a license? I doubt it.

 

Didn't catch the sarcasm...I thought you were asking a real question. I tried to give a real answer. But I do believe that the INS needs a complete overhaul.

 

Hayes, we agree on everything in this post, bilingual ed, the role of immigrants in US history, the idiocy of trying to simplify immigration policy to "we're a nation of laws." and illegal bad, nuf said..


Not much else to say except immigrants provide more eco benefits than they cost, they do pay taxes, including social security and income taxes. albeit ofte under fake social security numbers at times.

Almost all of the complaints are incorrect or artificially created.
Undocumented aliens used to be able to get social security cards, TX Drivers Licenses, get auto insurance etc. Laws in the last 15 years or so have made it so they can't get auto insurance, TDL's etc. This doesn't lead them to stop working and go home, just drive illegally without insurance or license. Of course these hardworking basically honest people do take up the law inforecment resources as they are imprisoned for driving without a license and deported and even jailed repeatedly.

 

Sweet. Remember that the next time you label me a 'neocon.'

 

Do you think pockets of slavery and indentured servitude will escalate in the future? It's already been going on in the US, but since the economy was booming, not much attention has been paid upon it.

 

Cohen, I look at both references, thanks for citing them. First despite the claim, the Center for Immigration Studies is not close to an unbiased source, so I only did a very brief look at it. Rand however, is pretty well known for doing balance studies. Both studies however, appear to only focus on 1 aspect of immigration--the net revenue from tax dollars relative to expenditures per immigrant. This is a minor issue in the debate of the economic impact of immigration.

For instance, let us assume per immigrant the rest of the taxpayers have to pay an additional $20 per year in taxes (taking the Rand figure of an average loss of $200 per year per immigrant and assuming per immigrant there are say 10 non-immigrant taxpaying citizens). How does that $20 per year compare with the lower costs (probably 20-60% lower) of food (from meats to poultry to grains to fruits), services (hotels, restaurants), housing, roads, buildings, and a host of other key elements of our infrastructure spread throughout our society? (Note: I was mainly using examples from unskilled and skilled labor—there are other more technical and specialized illegal workers harder to document—e.g., you can find foreign doctors and nurses working lower end (for us) medical care)?

Further, I doubt even that $200 net loss of government revenue is correct. Does the net loss of $200 dollars include the lower expenditures of our government due to cheaper building contracts that are afforded by immigrant labor (cheaper roads, bridges, government office buildings)?

One thing is for sure. It is easy to see why fiscal conservatives are seeking to expand the guest worker program. Then not only to we (most peoples) get the huge general economic benefits of immigrants and lower overall prices of goods and services, but the government then gets their piece of the pie too.

I think anyone who truly believes the immigrants are exploiting the good will and generousness of our nation hasn't put any rational thought into this. Without question it is the businesses and non-immigrants like me and many on the BBS that are getting the better of the deal (again with the exception of union workers in unskilled or many skilled areas—then you have a case for them negatively impacting your pocketbook--but that is another debate).

 

double post (can't figure out how to delete)

 

Some tid bits.

"I've always argued that this country has benefited immensely from the fact that we draw people from all over the world. And the average immigrant comes from a less benign environment, and indeed that's the reason they've come here. And I think they appreciate the benefits of this country more than those of us who were born here. And it shows in their entrepreneurship, their enterprise and their willingness to do the types of work that makes this economy function.

And I would be very distressed if we were to try to shut our doors to immigration in this country. I frankly don't envisage that happening, but I understand that there's always that tendency on the part of people who are here who, having come here four generations earlier, want to shut the door. And I don't think that's a good idea."(Alan Greenspan, July 18, 2001)

Also European economists as well as Greenspan have noted that the US likely to be an increasingly greater economic power in the world over the next century relative to the European Union in no small part do to our increasing projected pools of immigrant labor relative to Europe.

A good discussion of immigration issues presented to the Dallas Federal Reserve is here: http://www.dallasfed.org/htm/research/hot/bd0300.html

And note: these sources cannot reasonably be asserted as reflecting a "liberal bias" or even probably being considered from left of center. If anything these reflect the thoughts of fiscal conservative-moderate leanings. I am concerned however all this talk about economics will turn this thread back into a debate of "but, but, but, but they are illegal".

 

Desert Scar,

You and I agree on this. I had worked in construction in Houston when I was young. I saw the benefits of the Mexican Nationals firsthand for years.

I was only mentioning those analyses since HS had not seen any major (unbiased) analysis that claimed a net deficit for illegals.

 

The RAND report was a meta-analysis which is like a survey of studies, not a study from RAND itself. The other falls into the 'obvious bias' category. My point is that if we were to examine specific studies we would find those that conclude immigration is beneficial, and we would find those that are conclude it is undesirable. Those that conclude it is undesirable have 'immediately apparent bias.' I did not mean to state that there are none that conclude against immigration, only that there are no 'studies' that would survive 'peer review' that conclude so.