Replies

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?

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

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?

"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.

"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