Opinion: Want to unclog roads, lower rents? Stop attracting illegal immigrants

KIRO Radio - Seattle ^ | January 16, 2019 | BY DORI MONSON

[Oldeconomybuyer]

What if I told you that I could virtually eliminate gridlock in this region? That I could lower housing prices, especially for the poor and working class? And that I could raise wages, especially for the poor and working class? What if I told you I could do all of that, and it wouldn’t cost one penny in tax dollars?

If you would just have the wisdom to put me in charge, I could do all of that. What is this magic formula, you might ask? I’m willing to say things that people aren’t willing to say in this politically correct region.

If you put me in charge, I would put in place things like E-Verify, so that employers must determine citizenship status before they hire people. I also would cut off most state taxpayer benefits that go to illegal immigrants.

I wouldn’t try to do anything unconstitutional, like end education for them. But I would cut benefits such as housing and food, benefits on which our taxpaying legal residents spend billions. Not only would my plan not cost you a dime — I would save you billions a year.

You can eliminate gridlock, lower housing prices, and raise wages if you do what I told you just now. Let’s simply try to provide disincentives for illegal immigrants to come here. And really, what’s wrong with that?

The legal immigrants, God bless them, are welcome. The illegal immigrants are taking quite a toll on our society. That is my brilliant plan to save you money and make the region better.

[Socon-Econ]

This needs to be part of our reduce-immigration talking points. It’s hardly ever mentioned.

[rockinqsranch]

YUP!

[McGavin999]

I think there should be non English schools and English only schools. Stop teaching in multiple languages. Everyone is held back with bilingual education. SCOTUS said we have to educate them, then unless they speak English they can’t attend English only schools.

Legal immigrants work hard to learn English

[LouieFisk]

“This needs to be part of our reduce-immigration talking points. It’s hardly ever mentioned.”
—
Yup. The affordable housing part especially - and jobs. (Traffic isn’t terrible in many parts of the country).

[bramps]

I was thinking to myself today that I’d almost be willing to make a deal where there is no wall but every state has to agree to completely cut off benefits to illegal immigrants. It’s really the primary reason they’re here in the first place. To be fair, many do work but they’re also heavily subsidized. And they could not survive without those subsidies so they would have to leave or more important they wouldn’t come here in the first place.

[Vigilanteman]

Once upon a time, this was called common sense: If you have no legal right to be here, then you have no right to sop at the government trough. It was simple, logical and easy to understand.

Then some dictator in a black robe legislated from the bench. And we permitted it rather than impeached.

[LauraJean]

Yes they did. My grandparents immigrated legally from Hungary in the early 1900s. They learned to speak English. My mother and her siblings did go to Hungarian school but the emphasis was on learning English as a way to become American and succeed in life.

[rellimpank]

-—to say nothing of the spare prison and jail space—

[kiltie65]

Agreed. And also, I would charge a fee for every dollar sent out of the country to their family members in Mexico. I’m not totally opposed to sending money to family members in impoverished countries, think it is laudable, just need to charge a slight tax on every dollar sent out of the country. Who knows, it might even pay for a wall.

[i_robot73]

>
Once upon a time, this was called common sense: If you have no legal right to be here, then you have no right to sop at the government trough. It was simple, logical and easy to understand.

Then some dictator in a black robe legislated from the bench. And we permitted it rather than impeached.
>

Once upon a time we were a Const. Republic and the ‘public trough’ didn’t *EXIST* (and shouldn’t for a # of reasons/Amendments).

Instead, we’ve had a 3 co-equal circle-jerk to trample upon our Rights, Freedom and Liberty to grow govt.

[nathanbedford]

The Population of America Has More Than Doubled in My Lifetime.

For many years now I have taken a rather unfashionable position on Free Republic to the effect that population growth, mostly done by virtue of immigration both legal and illegal, is not good from a conservative point of view. I just found this reply I posted in 2012 which considers the connection between population growth (which more than doubled in my lifetime alone), and liberty:

Let us consider the idea of installing [millions of people] in one state and I will show you a dystopia rivaling our worst prisons. State control of everything would be mandatory; there will be no liberty. Everything, and I mean everything including air, light, water and exercise space for children would be rationed. The more density the less quality of life, the more density the less liberty.

The absolute number of people competing for space on the highways, for public services, for a hearing in our courts, our fish stocks, our beaches, our waterways, our land-use, all compete against one another for these resources. Inevitably, the government must arbitrate among these competing claims. Inevitably, those free beaches will be denied you and you will lose that liberty, just as you have lost your liberty to freely fish, to hunt, to build on your own land, to visit our national parks, to maintain animals on your property, etc. Do you really think your right to drink soda from a 16 ounce cup is in jeopardy in sparsely populated North Dakota as it is in densely populated New York City? Do you really think in a society of 310 million people we can survive without zoning laws limiting your right to use your property? You just lost liberty. It was not so when I was a youngster with 140 million people.

This is not a conservative question, we don't have to deny that there is insufficient habitable and desirable land for the doubling of American population every fifty years in order to maintain our conservative credentials. I don't know where this notion that growing population is good comes from among conservatives. Is it because misguided conservatives do not want to admit a predicate that allows for abortion? Is it because there is a Roman Catholic tradition that does not want to admit a predicate for birth control? Is it to sustain the Wall Street Journal's editorial approach of open borders? Is it because there is a misguided conservative tradition that no land use controls can be accepted even when we need actual protection from our neighbors?

The idea of Jeffersonian democracy, the idea of the New England Cracker Barrel democracy, only works when there is sufficient space for man to live independent both of his neighbor and the government. Double your population and halve your liberties

[Trump Girl Kit Cat]

I truly believe MOST Americans feel this way about immigration SILENTLY, they would never dare to say this out loud, HOWEVER put them in a private voting booth and you end up with Trump as POTUS!!! I believe the same goes for the Brits, you can poll them till the cows come home but they will never admit it out loud to ANYONE!!! We ALL have been brow beaten by the media AND free thought and speech no longer exists in either country!!!

[Nea Wood]

Those wacky fruits and nuts in California voted for something like this in 1994, I believe. One judge overruled the will of six million Californians and threw it out.

[nathanbedford]

I think you are right, let us hope so.

[TBP]

But with record numbers of blacks adn Hispanics employed, who will be dependent on (and enslaved by) Democrats?

[Brilliant]

Also reduce class size.

[unixfox]

Cut emergency room visits by allowing only those in DIRE need. If you got a cold or tummy ache, go somewhere else.

They get it for FREE now!

[Pelham]

Bump

[ek_hornbeck]

I agree. The official US population now is 330 million+, the actual number is probably higher due to undercounting of illegals. Without immigrants and their families, US population growth would be near zero, which is fine with me. I much preferred it when we were less densely populated, less congested, had more wide open spaces, more fish and game, and fewer regulations.

There's a reason why the red state vs. blue state (and the red vs. blue Congressional district within states) is mostly determined by population density: precisely the reasons you give.

With low population densities, nobody needs and few people want regulations on land and resource use. With high population densities, they become a necessity, because without them everything in densely populated areas becomes a sewer and a dump. That also explains for why Europe went the socialism/big government route long before the US did: we had the frontier and the wilderness long after it was gone in western Europe.

Your position may not be fashionable, but it's certainly accurate and factual.