GOP Nativists Tarnish Reagan's 'Shining City'

The Wall Street Journal ^ | Monday, March 15, 2004 | JASON L. RILEY

[presidio9]

Just what is it about immigration that makes so many conservatives lose their bearings?

Broach the subject, as President Bush did in January with his guest-worker initiative for illegal aliens, and free-market advocates start forgetting principles. (Flexible labor markets? What use are those?) Self-styled realists start fantasizing. (Let's just deport all 10 million of 'em, Elian-style!) And colorblind sensibilities are suspended. (White hegemony, where have you gone?) Suggest that immigration, legal or otherwise, not only is in the American tradition but a net benefit to our economy besides, and watch the editors at National Review and the pseudo-populists at Fox News come unhinged.

[OldFriend]

Shh, don't confuse Hannity with reasoned intelligent thought.

[waverna]

To borrow a phrase, "Its the illegality, stupid!"

[Monterrosa-24]

So the "ReConquest" continues with the help of this useful idiot. Personally I don't enjoy seeing our culture submerged by Mexico.

[Fee]

Imigration would work if it was done is a systematic way and not the chaotic illegal process which endangers national security. It would work if we had a frontier for them to go to if they initially fail in the cities. It would work if we did not favor nonEuropeans over Europeans in an affirmative action approach in determining who would come. Immigration would work if we had job offers coming out of our ears and our bank accounts are overflowing and we do not know what to do with the excess cash. The WSJ and many of its supporters are too focused on the quarterly earnings that they forget in the end the benificiaries of their global utopia must find a way to live securely amongst their citizens. If taken to its extreme, they would end up living in gated communities, and in the day time ride armored limos with armed guard escorts so they can get to a secured mall for shopping and disco for playing and must leave before nightfall to get back home to their fortress like enclaves, otherwise the security company providing the escort home cannot gurantee their safety in the darkness. Is that what they are willing to accept in order to get the largest profit at the lowest cost disregarding the social and economical dislocation they cause in their own country?

[azhenfud]

"....millions of hard-working illegals already here and making a contribution."

8-12 million Illegaliens costing taxpayers some $40 billion a year, making their "contribution".

[dts32041]

One of the little known facts about earlier waves of immigration is approximately 40% of the immigrants went back to their former home lands once they found out the streets weren't paved with gold.

Of course, we have now paved the streets with gold, and they just stay.

I have often wondered why history is no longer taught in schools, and i can come up with only one word demo rats.

[1rudeboy]

Interesting information, thanks.

[LN2Campy]

" ... Is that what they are willing to accept in order to get the largest profit at the lowest cost disregarding the social and economical dislocation they cause in their own country?"


Sadly, I do not doubt for a minute that the answer is "YES".

[international american]

"Foreigners have always served to enrich our culture"

Not anymore!

[international american]

"Of course, we have now paved the streets with gold, and they just stay.

I have often wondered why history is no longer taught in schools, and i can come up with only one word demo rats."



Two good points!

[presidio9]

Personally I don't enjoy seeing our culture submerged by Mexico.

The entire population of Mexico is 2/5 of our own. Exactly who would they manage to "submerge" our culture?

[Sabertooth]

Our current illegal immigration problems result from a policy at war with the law of supply and demand, a war that pro-growth conservatives understand is as unwise as it is unnecessary. Short of mass alien deportations at gunpoint, which would damage the economy and aren't likely to fly well with the public, any transition to a more sensible system will involve some sort of decriminalization.

What a damned, scaremongering liar. Self-deportation is the answer.

Figures the "market uber alles" WSJ would prefer an extremeist, border-dissolving law of supply and demand over the actual law of the land.

In addition to raising immigration quotas, President Bush wants to normalize the status of millions of hard-working illegals already here and making a contribution. The law-and-order tub-thumpers on the right denounce any such talk as amounting to an "amnesty" that ultimately rewards lawbreakers. That's a fair point, and their only legitimate one, but it doesn't suffice as an argument that advances the debate.

There's unintended the glimmer of truth: tub-thumping law and order trumps the Bush Amnesty and appeasement on Illegals that the Wall Street Journal desires, therefore "it doesn't suffice as an argument that advances the debate."

No fair using winning arguments against President Bush's sell-out to Illegal Aliens.

[kellynla]

Mass Immigration Cost American Taxpayers $69 Billion Net and 2 Million Jobs in 1997

Study by Dr. Donald Huddle Reports Legal Immigration of over 1 Million Per Year Accounts for over 62% of Costs
State Costs to Taxpayers are Also Soaring (1996 Net Costs % up from 1992):

California: $28 billion up 35%

New York: $14 billion up 29%

Texas: $7 billion up 37%

Florida: $6 billion up 77%

The first study of the net cost of immigration to American taxpayers in 1997 conducted by Dr. Donald Huddle, Professor Emeritus of Economics at Rice University, found that:

The nearly 26 million legal and illegal immigrants settling in the United States since 1970 cost taxpayers a net $69 billion in 1997 alone, in excess of taxes those immigrants paid. This represents a cost of $260 in additional taxes paid by each U.S. resident or $1,030 in additional taxes paid by each family of four. This cost is a substantial increase over the net immigration costs of $65 billion ins 1996, $51 billion ins 1994, $44 billion in 1993, and $43 billion in 1992.

Over 62% of the net national cost of immigration in 1996, $40.6 billion, was attributable to legal and legalized (amnesty) immigrants. Illegal immigration generates about 38%, $24 billion of the total net cost. Legal immigration levels are over one million per year, and rising.

During 1996, approximately 2.3 million predominantly low-skill American workers were displaced from their jobs due to the continued heavy influx of immigrant workers since 1970. Taxpayers paid more than $15.2 billion in public assistance for those displaced workers in 1996, including Medicaid, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), unemployment compensation, and food stamps.

A net deficit of $8.5 billion dollars to the Social Security system in 1996 is attributable to the economic impact of the foreign-born population. Continued mass immigration threatens the solvency of the Social Security system.

Net cumulative costs for the 1998-2007 decade are projected to reach $932 billion, an average of $93.2 billion per year, even with recent changes in welfare and immigration policies and a prosperous economy, if current mass immigration trends are allowed to continue.

Breakdown for 1997 Costs of Legal Immigration
Public Schools (Primary, Secondary, Higher, etc) $22.5 billion

Bilingual Education, ESOL, ESL Education $ 3.3 billion

Medicaid $12.8 billion

AFDC (for legal and illegal immigrant's offspring) $ 2.4 billion

Social Security $24.8 billion

Supplemental Security Income $ 2.9 billion

Housing Assistance $ 2.6 billion

Criminal Justice $ 2.6 billion

Jobs Lost by Americans $10.8 billion

Other Programs $51.4 billion

1997 Total Costs for LEGAL Immigration: $136 billion

Add 1997 total costs for illegal immigration of $41 billion and subtract an estimated $108 billion in taxes paid by all immigrants (legal and illegal) in 1997 to obtain the overall net figure of $69 billion charged to you, and other American taxpayers.

Other key facts regarding immigration are:

1.) If current immigration trends continue, the current U.S. population of

274 million will nearly double to over 500,000,000 by 2050. (The U.S. was 135 million at the end of WWII.)

2.) Harvard Professor George Borjas demonstrated that mass immigration costs American workers $133 billion per year in wage depression and job loss.

3.) The prestigious National Research Council found at the state and local levels (which bear most of the burden for K-12 education) the net fiscal burden of the average immigrant-headed household (i.e., after subtracting state and local taxes the household paid) was:

$1,484 per immigrant-headed household in New Jersey (in the 1989-1990 fiscal year); and $3,463 in California (in 1994-1995)(p. 276-277)

[international american]

".) Harvard Professor George Borjas demonstrated that mass immigration costs American workers $133 billion per year in wage depression and job loss."

Good for the economy:)

[x]

Shh, don't confuse Hannity with reasoned intelligent thought.

This op-ed doesn't seem any more "reasoned" or "intelligent" that things written on the other side. Indeed, it starts out with mere ridicule, abuse, and smear, and never gets above shallowness or seriously engages the criticisms of mass immigration. The writer does make a valid point about Social Security, but that's about it.

Time and time again, people characterize stale rehashes of the same arguments as "home runs" or "decisive refutations" when they're nothing of the kind. It would be better to just say, "I agree" and leave it at that.

The Wall Street Journal has long supported "open borders" for economic reasons. Most Americans would disagree strongly. Most Americans are right about this. The WSJ's commitment is more to a global economic system than to the United States or its traditions and institutions.

[Monterrosa-24]

Mexico can hold to a steady population and a high birthrate by sending the fruits of its excess birthrate here. Mexico is a huge country both geographically and by its population. Add to that the immigration from the OTMs (other than Mexican) like Guatemala, El Salvador, and Colombia and the numbers become ever more staggering. The truth is that in many towns here in Alabama, the culture has already been submerged by non-English speaking peoples. It is already too late. I love Latins but not by the ocean-load.

[Penner]

Notice how this elitist POS uses Reagan's "shining city on a hill" to back unfettered third-world immigration to this country. I don't think that's what Ronnie had in mind when he made that statement.

[PRND21]

Bump