Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

GOP Nativists Tarnish Reagan's 'Shining City'
The Wall Street Journal ^ | Monday, March 15, 2004 | JASON L. RILEY

Posted on 03/15/2004 8:41:52 AM PST by presidio9

Edited on 04/22/2004 11:51:16 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-103 next last
To: azhenfud
Key word here is "think".....hard to do if one suffers from rectal/cranial inversion.
51 posted on 03/15/2004 2:27:35 PM PST by american spirit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Get rid of all entitlements, and I'll be happy to support broad legal immigration.
52 posted on 03/15/2004 2:29:42 PM PST by Sloth (We cannot defeat foreign enemies of the Constitution if we yield to the domestic ones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
And California Republicans learned the hard way in the mid-1990s, courtesy of the anti-immigrant Proposition 187, that denying education and health benefits to eight-year-old aliens is a political loser in the long run.

It wasn't 187 that marginalized the GOP in CA. 187 was passed by a healthy margin in California--well beyond anything Republicans could've mustered without appealing to a broad voter base. So called "Son of 187" is on the agenda for November's CA election.

And as was said above, "It's the illegality, stupid."

53 posted on 03/15/2004 3:57:18 PM PST by newzjunkey (Send Dick Murphy packing; Ron Roberts for Mayor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: azhenfud
I think we both know that it *is* an "amnesty" since it is renewable and since the Bush Admin frontman on this, Tom Ridge, admits you can't just round up the illegals *now* because it's too large of a logistics issue that when their work permits *do* expire, no one's going to attempt the round up just as they won't know. It's "amnesty" in "fairness" and "compassionate" clothing. It didn't work in the 1980's, it won't work now.
54 posted on 03/15/2004 4:03:14 PM PST by newzjunkey (Send Dick Murphy packing; Ron Roberts for Mayor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
Well, John Tarton's background is quite interesting. Opened a Planned Parenthood abortion mill, of all things. And how exactly do these groups propose we GET to a population of 150 million?

After much hemming and hawing...by shooting the insufficiently white.

55 posted on 03/15/2004 4:30:00 PM PST by Poohbah ("Would you mind not shooting at the thermonuclear weapons?" -- Maj. Vic Deakins, USAF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: american spirit
You wouldn't know accurate if it hit you in the face.

The numbers you all spew actually do harm to the very cause you wish to bring front and center, because of their absolute transparency, and their total lack of balance.

Is there a cost to illegal aliens?

Absolutely.

Are your numbers balanced?

Absolutely not.

There are offsetting numbers that are never brought out because all you want to do is reel in the dupes that can't (or won't) see through your faulty thinking.

Like it or not, illegal aliens do add to the economy, this does not make their being here right, but it does not take away from the glaring fact that we save billions of dollars yearly in the cost of the goods delivered to consumers via the lower wages paid to them, or that Federal coffers have billions of dollars in surplus income tax and social security dollars paid in by these illegal aliens, that they will never recover.

You want to bring attention to your cause?

Stop assuming that the majority of the readers are mindless morons who can't figure out what's wrong with your "studies".

56 posted on 03/15/2004 7:17:09 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (Unless the world is made safe for Democracy, Democracy won't be safe in the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Mudboy Slim
It sucks their background can be used to discredit the perfectly-defensible position of being Anti-ILLEGAL Immigration,

Don't fall for the "guilt by association" gambit- it's just a logical fallacy that avoids dealing with the meat of the issue.

Guilt by Association is a class of fallacies in which a proposition is considered invalid because of a circumstantial association with a disliked person, group, other entitity, or concept. Alternatively, a proposition considered to be negative is affirmed by such an association.

http://www.sierrafoot.org/soapbox/fallacies/guilt_by_association.html

57 posted on 03/15/2004 8:48:39 PM PST by Pelham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Pelham; hchutch
"Don't fall for the "guilt by association" gambit- it's just a logical fallacy that avoids dealing with the meat of the issue."

You can see it coming from a mile away, can't you, my FRiend?! Mr. Hutch was tryin' to pull a fast one...heh heh!!

FReegards...MUD

58 posted on 03/15/2004 9:14:01 PM PST by Mudboy Slim (RE-IMPEACH Osama bil Clinton!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Pelham; Poohbah; Mudboy Slim
Bullcrap.

We're talking funding, and the FOUNDER of those groups who has had no problem taking the money from a very questionable source.

Or do you consider white supremancy and eugenuics to be acceptable? That's the agenda from the Pioneer Fund, which donated $1.5 million to those groups, or did you not bother to read the article? Or do you not want to handle with the fatc you seem awfully comfortable with a bunch of racists?

Logical fallacy? You're ducking the fact that these racists funded FAIR. And Tanton took their money. Either that is failure to duly research what they stood for, OR he KNEW what they stood for, and felt they were acceptable associates.
59 posted on 03/15/2004 9:58:56 PM PST by hchutch (Why did the Nazgul bother running from Arwen's flash flood? They only managed to die tired.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
"Bullcrap."

Heh heh heh.

"We're talking funding, and the FOUNDER of those groups who has had no problem taking the money from a very questionable source. Or do you consider white supremancy and eugenuics to be acceptable? That's the agenda from the Pioneer Fund, which donated $1.5 million to those groups, or did you not bother to read the article? Or do you not want to handle with the fatc you seem awfully comfortable with a bunch of racists? Logical fallacy? You're ducking the fact that these racists funded FAIR. And Tanton took their money. Either that is failure to duly research what they stood for, OR he KNEW what they stood for, and felt they were acceptable associates."

Yer arguing about FAIR, I'm arguing the issue!! ILLEGAL Immigration is the problem...and Dubyuh's plan rewards ILLEGAL behavior and does prescious little to dissuade future ILLEGAL behavior!! I'm a friggin' libertarian about most issues, but not about defending our borders!!

Now, if some group of ill repute agrees with my position, I'll let others debate them on this issue.

FReegards...MUD

60 posted on 03/15/2004 10:09:18 PM PST by Mudboy Slim (RE-IMPEACH Osama bil Clinton!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Mudboy Slim
I, for one, do consider who folks associate with and take money from when I decide whose agenda to support.

And this connection fromt he Pioneer Fund is one reason that has led me to believe that FAIR and their ilk TOLERATE bigots, and it's a BIG reason why I'm with the President on this issue. I won't be the only one who will change over this.

If folks lie down with dogs, they have no business complaining about other people pointing out the fleas they end up with once they get up. And those folks have pretty nasty ones, quite frankly.

Flat-out, maybe I'm some squish, but I'm staying pretty far off from their method of dealing with the problem on the borders for very good reasons. And they're going to have to be dealt with.
61 posted on 03/15/2004 10:15:35 PM PST by hchutch (Why did the Nazgul bother running from Arwen's flash flood? They only managed to die tired.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
chootch, what's fun about you is that you consistently use fallacies. Guilt by Association is one of the classics. Just because you apparently slept through logic, or never studied it, doesn't mean it's not there.

Before resorting to that fallacy you ought to consider that your favorite politicians likely get money from questionable sources. That doesn't invalidate them or their positions, unless their vote is for sale. The same is true of Tanton.

If you want to learn how to make your case you will need to improve your ability to use logic. You either don't know how, or perhaps it's that you resort to fallacies when you haven't got a good case. Copi's Logic is a good basic text, you could start there.
62 posted on 03/15/2004 10:17:21 PM PST by Pelham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
"I decide whose agenda to support..."

That's my point, I'm not supporting some activist group, I'm supporting the idea that ILLEGAL Immigration is a bad thing that can be ended if dealt with responsibly and assiduously!! I have no idea if FAIR and/or the Pioneer Fund agrees or not, so what they do does not bother me. If I was to contibute money to their cause, I reckon I'd try to find out a lot more info on them...but I'm not, so I won't.

FReegards...MUD

63 posted on 03/15/2004 10:22:32 PM PST by Mudboy Slim (RE-IMPEACH Osama bil Clinton!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
BTW, the Nazgul didn't die in the flood, only their horses did.
64 posted on 03/15/2004 10:24:47 PM PST by Pelham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
You are making common cause with the anti-white, anti-western left.
Don't through stones from a glass house.
65 posted on 03/15/2004 11:21:51 PM PST by rmlew (Peaceniks and isolationists are objectively pro-Terrorist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: american spirit
I would sure assume that if they've become naturalized I would think they could at least support themselves. I wouldn't even mind supporting them for a period of time if need be but I think the $ spent on them is outrageous.

Local paper had some articles stating the death rate was higher among Latinos (illegal or otherwise) because they received less training, took cheaper riskier jobs, poor education etc.

Get rid of farm subsidies, allow farmers to earn a decent profit (not a guaranteed one). Fine HEAVILY any individual/company for employing illegals. Deport existing illegals. DEFEND the borders.

66 posted on 03/16/2004 5:20:47 AM PST by 4CJ (||) OUR sins put Him on that cross - HIS love for us kept Him there. (||)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez; american spirit
Proof is in the numbers, Luis.

Do you have any substantiating your claim? Because without them your side of the debate is based purely upon emotion and no substance.

There are reasons EVERY state which is inundated with Illegaliens are having serious budget problems. There are reasons hospitals that are forced to "serve" Illegaliens are having to declare bankruptcy.

Argue your point with facts and figures, then we'll have a serious exchange. Okay?

And, BTW, $40 billion annually divided by the low estimate of 8 million equals a whopping $5000 EACH. So your $8/hr Illegalien worker "saving the economy" actually costs abt $10.50/hr. if EVERY ONE of the 8 million work. IF THEY WORK.
67 posted on 03/16/2004 7:07:42 AM PST by azhenfud ("He who is always looking up seldom finds others' lost change...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: 4ConservativeJustices
Those are excellent ideas and isn't it incredible that the fedgov shows more concern over defending the borders of Iraq or Afghanistan while leaving ours so porous. It's becoming pretty obvious that open borders and re-allocation of the this nations wealth throughout this hemisphere is leading us to some sort of "American Union" (much like the EU) that will have severe repercussions for our system of laws and Constitutional rights.
68 posted on 03/16/2004 7:53:09 AM PST by american spirit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: american spirit
Those are excellent ideas and isn't it incredible that the fedgov shows more concern over defending the borders of Iraq or Afghanistan while leaving ours so porous.

Two points, Dims are ok with it hoping they become dim voters, 'pubbies are ok because of lower wages - not the true economic cost to Americans.

Personally, I think we're being invaded, and illegals should be treated as such. Defend the borders!

It's becoming pretty obvious that open borders and re-allocation of the this nations wealth throughout this hemisphere is leading us to some sort of "American Union" (much like the EU) that will have severe repercussions for our system of laws and Constitutional rights.

Estados Unidos de Norte América.

69 posted on 03/16/2004 8:11:07 AM PST by 4CJ (||) OUR sins put Him on that cross - HIS love for us kept Him there. I approve this message. (||)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Isn't it interesting that when it's your ox being gored, (in this case your cheerleading for illegals) all of a sudden the hue and cry is for a "balanced" viewpoint on this issue when other posts you've made that wax so eloquently about their plight HAVE NEVER ONCE ADDRESSED THE ISSUE OF WHAT THESE ILLEGALS ARE COSTING THIS COUNTRY!.....not just in the billions of dollars expended but the human toll due to robberies, murders, etc. being committed by these people. Since the new code words for this ongoing debate are now "transparency and balance", I suggest you practice what you preach.

Sorry, some of your other observations don't have much credibility either.....namely the nonsense about all the "savings" we consumers get from the low wages paid to these people. I'm in area inumdated with illegal workers and I know for fact that home prices have not decreased, food prices in restaurants have not decreased as well as other services that utilize illegal labor. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that all the savings created by deleting American workers and hiring illegals is going RIGHT INTO THE POCKETS OF THE BUSINESS OWNERS and most assuredly not being passed on to the consumers....how much more elemental to I have be to get this point made?

Also, as far as the question of "bringing attention to my cause" is concerned, I feel more and more confident all the time when I see vain attempts such as yours to put a positive spin on this absurd notion that this unrestrained invasion is somehow beneficial for our country. I'm totally convinced that if my side prevails we'll have at least some chance of retaining our constitutional republic.....should you and your ilk triumph then no doubt we'll be living in a banana republic and I'll be seeing you in the bread lines.


70 posted on 03/16/2004 12:10:33 PM PST by american spirit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: hchutch; Mudboy Slim; Luis Gonzalez; 4ConservativeJustices; american spirit; Sloth
hchutch: In playing the game of Guilt by Association with regards to immigration, I hope you realize that you are condemning the vast majority of Americans.

Every poll I've ever seen where the question is directly asked shows that an overwhelming majority of Americans oppose increasing immigration levels into the United States. Most of the same polls show that a majority also want legal immigration levels decreased. Notice the preference for a recduction, not ending immigration and not letting anyone in as the left/WSJright often accuses restrictionists of favoring.

And if people like Tarton make you more sympathetic to the WSJ position of increasing already mass levels of legal immigration (forever apparently), then you should look into some of the groups and individuals who favor unending mass immigration. Look at their motives. You'll see for many it is nothing but a racial agenda of importing more of their people so as to increase their political power. The only difference is that their racial motives rarely get discussed, whereas any hint of so-called white supremacy will be brought to light and severely criticized.

Has it come to the point where the majority, mainstream position of Americans on immigration is verboten in public discourse? Must majority sentiment be silenced because some racists also hold the same view? Must the message (which is not racist) be tainted by the tiny minority of messengers who are bigots? Do you think the majority of Americans who want immigration reduced are all 'white-supremacists' or racists or xenophobes? I expect the Ted Kennedy and Jesse Jackson, and La Raza types to hold that view, but

And as far as your belief that the non-racists restrictionists must speak out more firmly against the racist restrictionists: Actually, they do whenever the subject is brought up. And besides, one could argue that for a restrictionist to go out of one's way to distance himself from the tiny group of racist gives more awareness and credence than those few deserve. It also gives credibility to the bogus charges of racism and xenophobia that those in favor of mass immigration will recklessly and reflexively cast at anyone who dares disagree with them.

Mudboy Slim: You're right about the blurring of legal and illegal immigration. It is a deliberate tactic to try and get the public to view them as inseparable. I respect your honesty, in that you are at least willing to admit that you're solution for the illegal immigration problem is to increase legal immigration to the point where there is no need for people to come or stay illegally. This is the solution of the WSJ wing of the GOP, but I've noticed the talking heads who go on tv etc will rarely admit this, and of course that is because Americans oppose increasing legal immigration.

But my question to you is what is a 'sensible' amount of legal immigration? We already admit about one million legals per year. Should it be doubled? Tripled? Just how far from what the public wants are you suggesting we go? As to their being plenty of room here for more people; you're probably right. But again, where does it stop? Will that be the case when our population hits nearly half a billion by 2050? What about if we hit one billion around the turn of the next century? And both of these are quite possible, even likely if immigration is not reduced.

And it should also be noted, that if one is concerned about the effects of immigration on the nation, you can't just look at illegal immigration. As I said, legals outnumber illegals, so you must look at the whole picture.

And of course it should go w/o saying to anyone with sense that to support reduction does not make one 'anti-immigrant' or even 'anti-immigration.' Remember, most in favor of reduction think that levels should be set between 200,000 and 300,000 per year. That would still be, on an absolute level, the most generous immigration policy in the world.

4ConservativeJustices: I'm sure you are aware that most in favor of less immigration have no problem with immigrants individually, but rather the effects of unending mass immigration.

Luis Gonzalez: Of course there are benefits from immigration, but they are often referenced in the press. It is the costs that get short-changed in the discussion. And the benefits by means of lower consumer prices are exaggerated. Its been proven, for example, that the percentage of consumer prices for produce due to labor costs is small. And any lower prices must be offset by the burden placed on taxpayers to provide education, healthcare, and welfare benefits to immigrants. The world would not come to an end if the supply of cheap labor were reduced. Businesses, employers, the entire economy would respond.

american spirit: The prospect of ending entitlements will be made more difficult by the mass importation of those more likely to rely on them.

Sloth: Mass immigration-yes, entitlements-no; is a common libertarian view of immigration. But have you ever stopped to consider that importing more and more people who will disproportionately use some form of welfare, will only increase the political power of those promising more benefits, thus making it almost impossible to get rid of the entitlements. That's why its so hard to get rid of govt programs, because you can be sure someone benefits, and the more that benefit the harder it is to get rid of the program(s). The same thing goes for multiculturalism. No, immigrants didn't create either, but many are natural customers of both.


To sum up, the desire for less immigration is not a racist, or even xenophobic position. It is the majority, mainstream postion of most Americans. Some racist also hold this view, but so what? Does anyone doubt that some of the enthusiasm for mass immigration comes from an equally racially driven motive from the left?

Also; for those who point to the last great wave as proof of the glories of mass immigration: That wave was ended by Congress in the early 1920s. For the next forty years we had moderate levels of immigration of about 210,000 per year. I have yet to hear one proponent of current mass immigration address this inconvenient fact when they try and shame their opponents by looking to the past. Why is that?

And one more thing hchutch: On an unrelated topic; where were the Ring Raiths and Nazgul when Theoden showed up in Return of the King? And did the Witch King go down in such a lame manner in the book?
71 posted on 03/16/2004 1:52:51 PM PST by Aetius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: american spirit
Isn't it funny that anyone who brings up the fact that your information is either incomplete, or just wrong is immediately called a cheerleader for illegals, anapologist, or sundry other names.

Why is it, I wonder, that you all can't stand someone asking for both sides on an issue, and when someone does, you enter into Clintonesque attacks on the individual?

If your numbers hold up to the light of day. then why are you so perturbed when they are brought into question?

Could it be because you are afraid of the truth?



72 posted on 03/16/2004 1:55:37 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (Unless the world is made safe for Democracy, Democracy won't be safe in the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Aetius
Myth:

"Immigration must be reduced because Americans say so in polls. When polled within the appropriate context, Every poll I've ever seen where the question is directly asked shows that an overwhelming majority of Americans oppose increasing immigration levels into the United States. Most of the same polls show that a majority also want legal immigration levels decreased."

Truth:

"Americans favor immigration. Republican pollster Vince Breglio found that by a two-to-one margin, voters support allowing U.S. citizens to continue sponsoring their adult children and brothers and sisters. And a national poll just released by the independent Grass Roots Research firm found that 61 percent of Americans agree with the statement that, "Anyone, from any country in the world, should be free to come to America if they are financially able to provide for themselves and their family." -- Source

73 posted on 03/16/2004 2:01:46 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (Unless the world is made safe for Democracy, Democracy won't be safe in the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Aetius
I'm sure you are aware that most in favor of less immigration have no problem with immigrants individually, but rather the effects of unending mass immigration.

You are correct. I try to make it known it my posts that I'm speaking about ILLEGAL aliens - we need to be able to accomodate those legally immigrating to our shores, and not burden the American citizens with the costs of their presence. My families migrated here back in the 17th century (some were already here) - they paid their own way. Same for legal immigrants.

IIRC, some legislators are attempting to allows illegals to attend colleges at in-state rates, which is a slap in the face to our citizens. Two years ago I was getting my license renewed, and the English speaking friend of a women of Spanish descent DEMANDED that the State Patrol give her the test in Espanol. The officer, and the hundred or so of us in line, laughed at the request. Why should she be able to take the test in Spanish when the street signs are in English?

74 posted on 03/16/2004 2:07:43 PM PST by 4CJ (||) OUR sins put Him on that cross - HIS love for us kept Him there. I approve this message. (||)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Aetius
"But my question to you is what is a 'sensible' amount of legal immigration?"

Here's what the Feds are looking at: we can admit the entire working age population of Mexico into the US in the year 2030, and that would not maintain the worker to retiree ratio needed to maintain the Social Security system afloat that we had in the year 2000.

75 posted on 03/16/2004 2:17:33 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (Unless the world is made safe for Democracy, Democracy won't be safe in the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: 4ConservativeJustices
The difference between illegal alien and immigrant are constantly blurred in this forum.

There is no such thing as an illegal immigrant.
76 posted on 03/16/2004 2:19:46 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (Unless the world is made safe for Democracy, Democracy won't be safe in the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: azhenfud
"Proof is in the numbers, Luis."

In this case, the proof is in the absolute lack of numbers that show anything other than a liability.

If you had the slightest understanding of business, you'd know just how wrong those numbers are.

You hurt yourselves, because until you figure out what economic benefits are being received from illegal immigration, you'll never make an impact in influencing the minds of intelligent people.

77 posted on 03/16/2004 2:26:47 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (Unless the world is made safe for Democracy, Democracy won't be safe in the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Since when does pointing out obvious inconsistencies in another person's stance and having spirited debate on a subject like illegal immigration somehow amount to some type of "attack"?......maybe in your world it is, although it's difficult to believe that someone who doesn't mind calling others names and who writes with such an ascerbic tone can also be so thin-skinned.....interesting.

Be that as it may, all the eloquence and propaganda surrounding the pro-illegal stance cannot ever offset the negative realities of what this disastrous, ill-conceived policy is doing to this country and the vast majority of clear thinking, TAXPAYING Americans agree with me on that position.....and that is the truth!


78 posted on 03/16/2004 4:05:03 PM PST by american spirit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Aetius
"I respect your honesty, in that you are at least willing to admit that you're solution for the illegal immigration problem is to increase legal immigration to the point where there is no need for people to come or stay illegally."

Where the HECK did I say that?! I simply believe that a lot of the antagonism against immigrants today is a result of the claim-jumpers who are spitting at our laws. I also believe LEGAL Immigration is a very good thing, as long as the immigrant groups are able to assimilate into their neighborhood, region and State.

FReegards...MUD

79 posted on 03/16/2004 4:10:19 PM PST by Mudboy Slim (RE-IMPEACH Osama bil Clinton!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: american spirit
Since you lied about my "cheerleading for illegal immigrants", and since you took issue with my pointing out your obvious inconsistencies. You continue to mislabel a defense of truth in this issue as a "pro-illegal" stance...how absolutely ridiculous.
80 posted on 03/16/2004 5:16:56 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (Unless the world is made safe for Democracy, Democracy won't be safe in the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez; american spirit
"If you had the slightest understanding of business, you'd know just how wrong those numbers are."

Luis, either dispute my position with evidence or you prove yours is grounded purely upon emotion and is invalid. Facts are ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION costs EVERY taxpayer. Businesses "benefit" because taxpayers have to pick up the tabs felon employers leave because their wages are too low for the Illegalien to afford basic services without taxpayer funded assistance.

Disprove it with reports, studies, or numbers. Disprove it with evidence to the contrary. You can't because it DOES NOT EXIST. What does exist are the numerous negative effects unchecked illegal immigration has on every segment of our society. Report after report, study after study. All confirm the same thing.

Intelligent people can SEE what illegal immigration is doing to America. Intelligent people.

81 posted on 03/16/2004 8:19:59 PM PST by azhenfud ("He who is always looking up seldom finds others' lost change...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: azhenfud
I have.

I took the time to get past the spin and find more information out. I didn't spend my time looking for information from people who would simply support my misconceptions, I challenged their date, and in turn challenged mine.

It's YOUR responsibility as a citizen to do the same for yourself, not mine to do it for you.

Illegal aliens have no right to be here, which is why their presence here is deemed to be illegal, but there is a positive economic impact to their presence, and the figures you spout are top loaded and simply wrong at times. They are very similar to the left's "tax break for the very rich" line.

By the way, I have posted the pertinent data in this forum ad nauseum, but it's never changed the mind of one single mule-headed nativist...I doubt that it would change yours.

82 posted on 03/17/2004 4:06:44 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez (Unless the world is made safe for Democracy, Democracy won't be safe in the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Mudboy Slim
You didn't say that anywhere Mud, but these guys are not concerned about what you say. If what you say is not vile against immigrants they label you a pro-illegal cheerleader.
83 posted on 03/17/2004 4:09:51 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez (Unless the world is made safe for Democracy, Democracy won't be safe in the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
The entire population of Mexico is 2/5 of our own. Exactly who would they manage to "submerge" our culture?

Bienvenudos a El Republico Popular de Aztlan (Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, California).

84 posted on 03/17/2004 4:14:20 AM PST by reg45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez; Aetius
"If what you say is not vile against immigrants they label you a pro-illegal cheerleader."

What an absurd notion...immigration has ALWAYS been a benefit to the growth of America, and it'll benefit us in the decades to come unless we allow the Federal Leviathan to spend us into oblivion. But no, I am in favor of no moratorium, I simply believe we cannot sit back and allow ILLEGAL Immigration to exist.

FReegards...MUD

85 posted on 03/17/2004 4:39:13 AM PST by Mudboy Slim (RE-IMPEACH Osama bil Clinton!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: presidio9; Monterrosa-24
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?

Exactly, in fact with a flat birthrate and millions of its citizens wanting to live in another country, it's mexico that needs to be worried about being submerged. If this keeps up, it possible that in a generation or two mexico won't exist as an independent nation. But as part of, or a protectorate of the US>

86 posted on 03/17/2004 4:59:07 AM PST by Sci Fi Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: presidio9; Monterrosa-24
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?

Exactly, in fact with a flat birthrate and millions of its citizens wanting to live in another country, it's mexico that needs to be worried about being submerged. If this keeps up, it possible that in a generation or two mexico won't exist as an independent nation. But as part of, or a protectorate of the US>

87 posted on 03/17/2004 4:59:07 AM PST by Sci Fi Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: presidio9; Monterrosa-24
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?

Exactly, in fact with a flat birthrate and millions of its citizens wanting to live in another country, it's mexico that needs to be worried about being submerged. If this keeps up, it possible that in a generation or two mexico won't exist as an independent nation. But as part of, or a protectorate of the US>

88 posted on 03/17/2004 4:59:10 AM PST by Sci Fi Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Fee
You said it all!
89 posted on 03/17/2004 5:02:11 AM PST by dennisw (“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sci Fi Guy
Thrice is nice...MUD
90 posted on 03/17/2004 5:16:27 AM PST by Mudboy Slim (RE-IMPEACH Osama bil Clinton!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez; american spirit
So Luis - you don't see any problem with the 8-12 million Illegaliens and you don't see a cost over benefit net effect? But you say it's up to me to dispute the evidence of report after report confirming Illegaliens' costs to taxpayers? LOL!

Really ingenuous counter, Luis. Apparently you refuse to consider what other "great benefits" those states mostly affected by Illegaliens are contending with. Overdrawn budgets, overwhelming crime, overcrowded schools, bankrupt hospitals, revolving door prisons necessary to make room for Illegaliens, and law enforcement agents overwhelmed almost to the point of surrender. The Illegaliens even cost legal aliens (migrant workers) by depressing normal wage rates to artificially low levels. That's fact, Luis. But should you understand that? Apparently not.

I challenge you to provide evidence in ONE AREA where volumes of Illegaliens "contribute" to the economy and do NOT resultantly cost taxpayers in some form. I challenge you to show where "taxes paid" by Illegaliens remotely offset the monetary cost to state and federal social programs they are bent on draining. It doesn't exist, but the evidence of their costs to taxpayers does. Luis, their "contributions" are glaringly apparent. Take your shades off, man.

As asked for in #81, show your numbers....
91 posted on 03/17/2004 8:21:49 AM PST by azhenfud ("He who is always looking up seldom finds others' lost change...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
First of all I'm not saying that immigration must be reduced simply because the majority wants it to be reduced. Majority sentiment does not automatically mean its right, though in this case I think it is. There are many reasons I think it should be reduced, and while the fact that most Americans want it is one reason, there are many more.

I bring up the the majority sentiment for several reasons. One is to show that it could be a political winner if handled correctly. Another is to simply point out the disconnect between what Americans consistently say is their preference versus what their elected leaders give them.

Now as to the polling data you cite: First of all, isn't it nearly 7 yrs old? But even if so, that's fine. Let's assume a poll released today showed the exact same thing. You would still have to square it with all the other polls on the matter. Secondly, the question of Americans' preference as it relates to numbers was apparently never asked. So, perhaps 61% did favor letting anyone with the means to support their family immigrate, but if in doing so it meant increasing imm levels was apparently never asked.

I agree that the wording of the poll makes a big difference. Perhaps its true that Americans support the specific examples presented in the poll. But the fact remains when Americans are asked the general question of whether they want immigration levels to stay the same, be increased, or be decreased; the percentage wanting an increase is always small. 'Stay the same' and 'decreased' almost always fight it out for majority or plurality status. Many other polls show a clear majority in favor of reduction. Go to numbersusa.com, and look on their polls section. This site may not cite polls unfavorable to their agenda, but that doesn't impugn the validity of those they do cite. ( Also: For all I know this site's creator may be a wacky environmentalist. I honestly don't know. It is useful to me for the stats and the collection of polls. Period.)

It would be very interesting if a extensive poll was done on this matter. Ask people if they want immigration reduced. If they say yes, then ask if they still think so if it means sponsored family members must wait longer to immigrate. On the other hand, ask people if they think anyone with the financial means to support themselves and their families should be able to immigrate. If they say yes, then ask them if they still think so if it means massive increases in already mass levels of immigration resulting in a population of India/China proportions. Ask them if they think family reunification should be fit into their desire for reduced numbers.

You could go on and on asking detailed questions trying to determine the purest public opinion on this complex issue. I hope someone does it, but in the meantime I'm not going to ignore the numerous polls I've seen backing up what I've said because of one seven yr old poll that might suggest otherwise.

As to other areas of this Cato article:

Cost/Benefits: As with polls, different studies show different things. Many examining the costs, for example, don't consider the cost of educating immigrants and their children based on the assumption it will pay for itself. Some consider the National Academy of Sciences study in the mid-late 90s to be most exaustive, and it showed imm was a net positive; to the whopping tune of less than one tenth of one percent of GDP, or in other words--nothing in an economy our size.

Also, they conclude this part with the oft stated desire to cut welfare, not the immigrants who use it. Again, the more people likely to use a program means it is that much harder to get rid of it.

Wages: Perhaps Borjas said that then, but since he has attributed at least some wage depression to mass immigration.

They conclude by saying; "Legal immigration has been one of the few constants throughout American history that has consistently served the nation well, both culturally and economically. "

Again, the US does not have a legacy of constant mass immigration. The last wave was drastically reduced by Congress. For the next 40+ yrs immigration averaged around a modest annual level of 200,000.



They also say; "In the immigration debate, the burden of proof should be on those who suggest shutting the golden gates tighter. So far, they have not made that case."

I disagree. The burden should be on those wanting to keep in place an unwanted policy that has probably brought no significant net benefit to native born Americans, and that will transform this nation into something its never been if levels are not reduced.



92 posted on 03/17/2004 8:55:12 AM PST by Aetius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: azhenfud
Two bits, four bits, six bits a dolla...all for illegals, stand up and holla.....sorry, couldn't resist.
93 posted on 03/17/2004 8:58:37 AM PST by american spirit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
To Jason Riley:

How many is enough? Would you like a population of 500 millions? 750 million? 1 billion? Throw in the fact that assimilation is considered racist and you have some real problems.

Of course, if you're a member of "The Annointed" and live in gated communities with armed guards, no problem.
94 posted on 03/17/2004 9:03:23 AM PST by jaime1959
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mudboy Slim
If I misinterpreted what you said I'm sorry, but didn't you say that once illegal immigration was brought under control then we could increase (already mass) levels of legal immigration?

Whatever the case, the question remains; what do you think is an appropriate level of legal immigration? Is the current one million annually not enough?

As to immigration always having been a boon, and always remaining a great benefit; maybe, maybe not. I'm still amazed that some people will base their confidence so much on past successes in assimilating mass waves of immigrants, yet seemingly ignore the great differences between now and then. Some of these differences include, but are not limited to, the modern existence of welfare, racial preferences, multiculturalism, and of course the lack of any reduction in sight like the one in the early 1920s that ended the European wave and allowed the US over 40 yrs of moderate immigration, which no doubt fascillitated the process of assimilation.
95 posted on 03/17/2004 9:04:35 AM PST by Aetius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Aetius
"...didn't you say that once illegal immigration was brought under control then we could increase (already mass) levels of legal immigration?"

After ILLEGAL Immigration is eradicated, we can look at the appropriate levels of Legal Immigration. Do the existing levels add up to "Mass Levels"? I'm not sure about the answer to that one.

"...what do you think is an appropriate level of legal immigration? Is the current one million annually not enough?"

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't...I believe the present situation--in which ILLEGAL Immigration is so rampant--taints our ability to determine what is the "right" number of immigrants to allow in every year. The number cannot be so large that we cannot hope to assimilate the newcomers into our culture.

"I'm still amazed that some people will base their confidence so much on past successes in assimilating mass waves of immigrants, yet seemingly ignore the great differences between now and then. Some of these differences include, but are not limited to, the modern existence of welfare, racial preferences, multiculturalism, and of course the lack of any reduction in sight like the one in the early 1920s that ended the European wave and allowed the US over 40 yrs of moderate immigration, which no doubt fascillitated the process of assimilation."

Good points, and I'd like to add that there should be a 3-year moratorium on newcomers receiving welfare and no retirees should be allowed to access a Social Security system they did not pay into.

FReegards...MUD

96 posted on 03/17/2004 12:26:49 PM PST by Mudboy Slim (RE-IMPEACH Osama bil Clinton!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Here are some interesting comments from "Democratic Underground" on the news that whites will be a minority in this country in a few decades:

"Majority rule by white people is sending this country to hell. I think it would be a better thing for world peace if racial diversity is more equally distributed in this country."

"This white is happily looking forward to a US where no Republican will ever be in the White House again."

"it also means the GOP will be a permanent minority party."

[It's good] "and here's why:

White guys have been voting by very large majorities for what are basically fascist candidates (and I say this as a white guy).

Our only hope of getting out of the situation we're in now is to make sure those white guys become a smaller and smaller part of the population.

They'll kick and scream and become more and more openly racist about this kind of thing, but tough shit. They're (we're) a minority in this country and a tiny minority in the world.

And if the only way to get rid of the neo-fascists and religious right who control the GOP is to reduce the percentage of whites in the population it is definitely the right thing to do."

"This is terrible news for the Goopers [GOP] Since blacks vote Dem 9 to 1, and party identification with Hispanics is 65% Dem to 26% Rep. "

97 posted on 03/17/2004 2:52:49 PM PST by jordan8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mudboy Slim
I'd like to add that there should be a 3-year moratorium on newcomers receiving welfare and no retirees should be allowed to access a Social Security system they did not pay into.

Sounds good to me.

98 posted on 03/17/2004 2:57:38 PM PST by PRND21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

I can't believe what I'm reading here. Illegal immigration is driven by the laws of supply and demand? Have those in favor of mass unskilled and illegal immigration ever heard of a SUBSIDY, which artificially increases demand for a product or service, in this case unskilled immigrant labor?

How is unskilled immigrant labor subsidized? Well, let's first look at education. It is typical for an unskilled immigrant family to have 3 to 4 kids, and education generally costs around $7,000 to $9,000 per kid, per year. That works out to around $20,000 to $30,000 or more a year, more than many unskilled immigrant families may make, much less pay in taxes (and many illegal immigrants pay zero in taxes). That doesn't include other heavy costs, including health care, housing assistance, food stamps, and law enforcement costs (I believe illegal aliens make up around 25% of California's prison population in spite of "only" being around 10 to 15 percent of the state population). Unskilled legal immigrants are also disproportionately involved in crime (at least Hispanics, a crude proxy for unskilled immigrants, are disproportionately involved in crime).

High levels of population growth in general (population growth is heavily driven by immigration and almost solely driven by immigration in California) can also strain resources such as power and water, increasing prices and worsening environmental problems...if environmental problems get worse, it is likely that stricter (and thus more expensive) environmental controls will be enacted.

I really think we should crack down on illegal immigration, which can be done relatively easily by enforcing employer sanctions (which would become much more possible if Republicans stopped selling out to big business and/or capitulating to the multicultural left). Of course the feds should also come down on illegal alien sanctuary laws and driver's licenses for illegal aliens, which give local/state sanction to violation of federal law.

When it comes to legal immigration, I think we should enact a merit/skills-based immigration policy and restrict the numbers to a few hundred thousand a year. People may consider such a policy "elitist," but is it any less fair than a system based on nepotism ("family reunification") and geography? (Mexico, due to its geographic proximity to the U.S., is able to send a vastly disproportionate number of immigrants compared to other countries).
99 posted on 03/17/2004 7:25:41 PM PST by duffman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

I should also add that even thrid- and fourth-generation Mexican-Americans have relatively low levels of education:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2495&page=9
100 posted on 03/17/2004 7:28:29 PM PST by duffman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-103 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson