What to do about Illegal Immigration????

[Master of Ossus]

A hike in consumer prices for starters. But that's trivial compared to the other costs. The financial costs alone of deporting huge numbers of illegals and building a wall and minefields from San Diego to Harlingen are more than this country could afford.

Oh, of course. Building a wall is going to bankrupt the US.

And why didn't we see a rise in consumer prices during previous periods in which immigration and border security have been strengthened? Inflation figures barely budged.

Bite my ass you little cunt. I never claimed it would shut down the US economy, you lying little shit. You're the one erecting strawmen here, so why don't you take your strawman, soak it in gasoline, shove it up your ass, then light it?

Oh, of course. It's such a strawman, given your claims that cheap labor was a cornerstone of the US economy.

By the way, if you're too fucking retarded to note sarcasm when I put this at the end of a paragraph, that's your problem. I don't dumb down what I write just so imbeciles can get it. Now go fuck yourself!

Elfdart, you seem to be completely unable to argue your perspective in actual points in this thread. I've asked you why we didn't see any effects of economic disaster during previous periods in which we have booted out illegal residents and strengthened border security. Your response? Silence. And if you think a two-sentence blurb including an insult followed by a indicates sarcasm clearly then you are insane.

You have also blatantly lied in this thread about the US use of agricultural subsidies, even claiming that they facilitated "dumping" when the US sells agricultural exports in Mexico.

And while you're explaining how Allah transformed tomatoes into their present shape but won't do it again unless we're really nice to illegal immigrants, why don't you answer my question: do you honestly think the US economy will shut down without Mexican labor?

You can shove this strawman up your flaming asshole, too.[/quote]

What strawman? You argued that it was a cornerstone of the US economy. I suppose if you remove a cornerstone, something collapses and does not shut down, but really there's no substantive difference between the two states when we are discussing an economy. So by all means, enlighten us, Eltard. Why would the US economy collapse THIS TIME we kicked the illegals out when it hasn't in the past? Why is there such a difference between an economy collapsing and "shutting down?"

[theski]

*snip*

That is disturbing and rather disrespectful. Any details as to the school and such?

On the other hand, I don't think there's anything we can do about it, practically speaking. Closing the borders might temporarily slow the tide, but it's not a long-term answer.

I think at this point people just want to see something done, even if it isn't necessarily viable for the long term.

Here is the info on the pic

Whittier area students from Pioneer, California and Whittier high schools walked out of classes to protest the proposed federal immigration bill March 27, 2006. The protestors put up the Mexican flag over the American flag flying upside down at Montebello High. (Leo Jarzomb/Staff photo)

[Elfdart]

Oh, of course. Building a wall is going to bankrupt the US.

This country is already deeply in debt. Where's the money for this wall going to come from?

And why didn't we see a rise in consumer prices during previous periods in which immigration and border security have been strengthened? Inflation figures barely budged.

When have we ever kicked millions of people out of the country? Or resorted to mass killings to keep immigrants out?

Oh, of course. It's such a strawman, given your claims that cheap labor was a cornerstone of the US economy.

Sure is.

You have also blatantly lied in this thread about the US use of agricultural subsidies, even claiming that they facilitated "dumping" when the US sells agricultural exports in Mexico.

I guess Oxfam is lying too:

Oxfam Report and Summary

Under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Mexico has rapidly opened its markets to imports from the US, including corn. Since the early 1990s, US corn exports to Mexico have expanded by a factor of three. These exports now account for almost one third of the domestic market.

Surging imports have been associated with a steep decline in prices. Real prices for Mexican corn have fallen more than 70 per cent since 1994. For the 15 million Mexicans who depend on the crop, declining prices translate into declining incomes and increased hardship. Many people can no longer afford basic health care. Women have suffered disproportionately. Male migration and falling incomes have increased the labor demands on them, both on household farms and in income-generating activity beyond the household.

One of the primary factors behind the advantage US corn has in the Mexican market is US government payments to the sector. The US corn sector is the largest single recipient of US government payments. In 2000, government pay-outs totaled $10.1bn. To put this figure in context, it is some ten times greater than the total Mexican agricultural budget.

There's more in the report.

What strawman? You argued that it was a cornerstone of the US economy. I suppose if you remove a cornerstone, something collapses and does not shut down, but really there's no substantive difference between the two states when we are discussing an economy. So by all means, enlighten us, Eltard. Why would the US economy collapse THIS TIME we kicked the illegals out when it hasn't in the past? Why is there such a difference between an economy collapsing and "shutting down?"

When you remove or damage a cornerstone, you remove or damage a cornerstone. You don't collapse a building unless you remove the foundation. Proof once again that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Most illegal immigrant construction workers know that, and since homegrown fucktards like you don't know -another reason we need them.

I'm sure businesses will look for alternatives if illegals are kicked out and kept out, but the only way they would recruit American citizens to pick strawberries (for example) is by offering MUCH better pay and benefits. In order to pay for that, businesses will either have to give up a larger percentage of profits (unlikely) or pass along that cost to consumers (very likely). If costs go up at any stage of production, the retail price goes up, too. An expanded guest worker program might help, but a large number of the dumbfucks who want illegals kicked out and kept out don't want "spics" in the country, period whether legal or not. The same Congress that wants to make it a felony to aid illegals in any way isn't about to invite more immigrants in legally, even though Dubya himself is for it.

[MKSheppard]

When have we ever kicked millions of people out of the country?

Operation Wetback kicked out between 1 and 3.8 million mexicans in 1954, and ironically made "Wetback" a popular reference to mexicans.

[Elfdart]

No other immigrant group has so uniformally demanded that the United States assimiliate to their culture, not the other way around. In a country that has hostorically ensured that children of immigrants learn English to expedite assimiliation, these yahoos would carve out their own "Mexican Quebecs"

I've got a little news for you, dumbass. The vast majority of Hispanics aren't immigrants and never were. If you have such a problem with Hispanic enclaves, stay out of Texas, California and the area in between them. A little clue should be the names on the map.

Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez

I'm only quoting the best ones:

Open letter to CNN and other mainstream US media outlets:

1. The vast majority of Hispanics/Latinos in the U.S. (75 percent of us) were born and raised here, including many of us who have roots here that predate the arrival of the pilgrims.

2. "Immigrant" is not synonymous with "Latino" and the media should stop pretending they mean the same thing.

3. The CNN analyst who said today "Keep in mind, Latino voters are LEGAL immigrants, not illegal immigrants" should be FIRED for sloppy thinking. MOST LATINOS ARE NOT IMMIGRANTS AT ALL, PINCHE CABRON.

5. Just because someone waves a Mexican or Colombian flag at a peaceful demonstration does not mean the demonstration is a "riot" or the people unAmerican. Lou Dobbs should get his panties out of a knot and realize it is no different than someone waving an Irish flag in Southie or an Italian flag in Queens. These flags are not waved as proof of national allegiance; they are waved in solidarity with a person's cultural heritage.

6. You can be a Mexican American and never have had an ancestor come over the US border; vast portions of the United States of today USED TO BE MEXICO or SPAIN. If you failed to learn this in high school, your teachers should be fired.

7. The vast majority of Hispanics/Latinos in the US speak English as a first language. The Pew Center for Hispanic research shows that by the third generation, all Latin American immigrant descendents - 100 percent of them - are English-first, English dominant. Zero percent speak Spanish as a first or primary language by the third generation.

8. The US has TWO international borders, not ONE. To date, not a single terrorist has gotten to the US through Mexico; to date, at least two suspected terrorists have arrived here through Canada. In fact, I would not be surprised if, while the media and xenophobes are focused on the Mexican border, terrorists figure out that it might be a good idea to walk over from Vancouver to Seattle for a latte.

9. Not all Hispanics/Latinos are Mexican or of Mexican origin in the U.S., and most people of Mexican extraction in the US were born in the UNITED STATES.

14. Please remember that the least legal and least assimilable of American immigrants were...the English. And the only people who can claim to be true "Americans" are Native Americans.

All best,

Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez

Less than a hundred years ago, in New York alone there were 7 Italian newspapers. In large parts of the city Italian was the only language spoken. Same goes for Polish in Chicago and German in many parts of New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Ohio. There were other non-English speaking enclaves elsewhere. Within a generation, they mostly spoke English and within two generations they almost exclusively spoke English. This pattern is repeated over and over. So Hispanic immigrants are no different from their Italian, Polish, German or other immigrants. The only difference is that anyone who tried to call an American of German descent whose ancestors have lived here since the revolution of 1848 an "immigrant" would be written off as a moron at best and a bigot at worst. Anti-hispanic prejudice is coddled and pandered to by government officials.

This article points out that they don't just assimilate by adopting a new language:

For further evidence that American-born Hispanics are assimilating, just look at the numbers of conversions to Protestantism: one quarter of all Hispanics declare themselves Protestant (40 percent of those even call themselves “born again”).

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1689

Someone from a non-English speaking country who moves here probably isn't going to assimilate all that much, but his or her kids certainly will and his grandkids might not know the language of the old country at all. So if you're worried about assimilation, just wait a few years.

[MKSheppard]

The vast majority of Hispanics aren't immigrants and never were.

How do you explain the 12 million figure for illegals then?

[Elfdart]

When have we ever kicked millions of people out of the country?

Operation Wetback kicked out between 1 and 3.8 million mexicans in 1954, and ironically made "Wetback" a popular reference to mexicans.

"Wetback" was a common term for Mexicans long before Eisenhower. If you had bothered to click the link on the page you listed, you would know that the 1-3.8 million figure is pulled straight out of thin air. They assume Mexicans ran back across the border.

It is difficult to estimate the number of illegal aliens forced to leave by the operation. The INS claimed as many as 1,300,000, though the number officially apprehended did not come anywhere near this total. The INS estimate rested on the claim that most aliens, fearing apprehension by the government, had voluntarily repatriated themselves before and during the operation. The San Antonio district, which included all of Texas outside of El Paso and the Trans-Pecos,qv had officially apprehended slightly more than 80,000 aliens, and local INS officials claimed that an additional 500,000 to 700,000 had fled to Mexico before the campaign began. Many commentators have considered these figures to be exaggerated.

But that's not all:

http://www.pbs.org/kpbs/theborder/histo ... ne/20.html

In some cases, illegal immigrants were deported along with their American-born children, who were by law U.S. citizens. The agents used a wide brush in their criteria for interrogating potential aliens. They adopted the practice of stopping "Mexican-looking" citizens on the street and asking for identification. This practice incited and angered many U.S. citizens who were of Mexican American descent. Opponents in both the United States and Mexico complained of "police-state" methods, and Operation Wetback was abandoned.

Thanks for proving my point that most of this is motivated by racism against Hispanics -whether illegal or legal immigrants, or American citizens.

[Elfdart]

The vast majority of Hispanics aren't immigrants and never were.

How do you explain the 12 million figure for illegals then?

Hispanics account for >14% of the population, or over 41 million people. Even if we assume all 12 million (your figure) illegals are Hispanics, that leaves @ 70% who are not illegals.

I guess 4th Grade Math is too much for you.

[Surlethe]

I'd be interested in seeing figures as to just how much the US economy depends on cheap, illegal labor. According to NPR, illegal immigrants make up nearly 5% of the labor force. If we deport half of them -- effectively removing about 2% of the workers in the United States -- what will the short-term economic impacts be?

[Death from the Sea]

why does it have to be "Mexican American"???? or any other so and so - American" why can't people just be Americans?

[GuppyShark]

Reminds me when Marvel's Black Panther was being critically acclaimed and everyone called T'Challa the "African-American" superhero. He was African, and head of state of an African nation.

[Master of Ossus]

This country is already deeply in debt. Where's the money for this wall going to come from?

The same place all the rest of our money comes from--oh, wait, I forgot. Another $1 deficit will cause us to go bankrupt--we obviously can't afford that, even if it will significantly improve the economy.

When have we ever kicked millions of people out of the country? Or resorted to mass killings to keep immigrants out?

What is it with you and mass killings? And, anyway, we've significantly strengthened our border and immigration policies several times throughout history--never with disastrous economic consequences.

Sure is.

Evidence? Wait, that's that thing you gloss over constantly in favor of launching a campaign of fear.

I guess Oxfam is lying too:

Oxfam Report and Summary

Under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Mexico has rapidly opened its markets to imports from the US, including corn. Since the early 1990s, US corn exports to Mexico have expanded by a factor of three. These exports now account for almost one third of the domestic market.

Surging imports have been associated with a steep decline in prices. Real prices for Mexican corn have fallen more than 70 per cent since 1994. For the 15 million Mexicans who depend on the crop, declining prices translate into declining incomes and increased hardship. Many people can no longer afford basic health care. Women have suffered disproportionately. Male migration and falling incomes have increased the labor demands on them, both on household farms and in income-generating activity beyond the household.

One of the primary factors behind the advantage US corn has in the Mexican market is US government payments to the sector. The US corn sector is the largest single recipient of US government payments. In 2000, government pay-outs totaled $10.1bn. To put this figure in context, it is some ten times greater than the total Mexican agricultural budget.

Oxfam never claimed dumping, you lying little shit--something that is obviously lost on retards who assume that a low price=dumping. But Oxfam is completely wrong in its implication that the US payouts to the corn sector keep the price low. And, anyway, their analysis is retarded--the US pays out to agricultural producers, and they compare these payments to the Mexican agricultural budget for perspective? ROFL.

There's more in the report.

That report is clearly, irrevocably flawed. And, yes.

When you remove or damage a cornerstone, you remove or damage a cornerstone. You don't collapse a building unless you remove the foundation. Proof once again that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Most illegal immigrant construction workers know that, and since homegrown fucktards like you don't know -another reason we need them.

Another reason we need skilled labor--and, yes, buildings with removed cornerstones have been known to collapse.

I'm sure businesses will look for alternatives if illegals are kicked out and kept out, but the only way they would recruit American citizens to pick strawberries (for example) is by offering MUCH better pay and benefits. In order to pay for that, businesses will either have to give up a larger percentage of profits (unlikely) or pass along that cost to consumers (very likely). If costs go up at any stage of production, the retail price goes up, too. An expanded guest worker program might help, but a large number of the dumbfucks who want illegals kicked out and kept out don't want "spics" in the country, period whether legal or not. The same Congress that wants to make it a felony to aid illegals in any way isn't about to invite more immigrants in legally, even though Dubya himself is for it.

Or else the companies will do what they've consistently done when illegal migrants have been given the boot: add capital as a substitute and charge marginally higher prices for a time before coming up with even less expensive ways to provide the same service. And what's with the "large number of dumbfucks" argument--no one here is making that argument, asstard, which makes it yet another one of your retarded red-herrings. Also, if what you're saying is true about the economy being heavily damaged by the loss of asstard illegals, then the same Congress would have no choice but to make up the difference by allowing in more legal immigrants, don't you think?

[Master of Ossus]

It is difficult to estimate the number of illegal aliens forced to leave by the operation. The INS claimed as many as 1,300,000, though the number officially apprehended did not come anywhere near this total. The INS estimate rested on the claim that most aliens, fearing apprehension by the government, had voluntarily repatriated themselves before and during the operation. The San Antonio district, which included all of Texas outside of El Paso and the Trans-Pecos,qv had officially apprehended slightly more than 80,000 aliens, and local INS officials claimed that an additional 500,000 to 700,000 had fled to Mexico before the campaign began. Many commentators have considered these figures to be exaggerated.

In other words, the presence or lack thereof of the alleged illegal immigrants posed virtually no economic damage.

But that's not all:

http://www.pbs.org/kpbs/theborder/histo ... ne/20.html

In some cases, illegal immigrants were deported along with their American-born children, who were by law U.S. citizens. The agents used a wide brush in their criteria for interrogating potential aliens. They adopted the practice of stopping "Mexican-looking" citizens on the street and asking for identification. This practice incited and angered many U.S. citizens who were of Mexican American descent. Opponents in both the United States and Mexico complained of "police-state" methods, and Operation Wetback was abandoned.

Thanks for proving my point that most of this is motivated by racism against Hispanics -whether illegal or legal immigrants, or American citizens.

Right, so because some vaguely analogous deeds in the past were racist then all actions that deport any Mexican Americans are clearly motivated by racism against illegal or legal immigrants. Do you even read your own typing?

And, wait, there's more!

Hispanics account for >14% of the population, or over 41 million people. Even if we assume all 12 million (your figure) illegals are Hispanics, that leaves @ 70% who are not illegals.

I guess 4th Grade Math is too much for you.

How does this support your original claim, which is that "[t]he 'vast majority' of Hispanics aren't immigrants and never were?" Do you really consider 58% a "vast majority?" And that just counts the FIRST GENERATION immigrants (and only the legal ones at that), even though a significant source of conflict which has been pointed out numerous times in this thread is that some ethnic groups from Latin America cling to their cultural values and deliberately avoid assimilating.

[apocolypse]

Elfdart, one of the problems with the comparisons you're making between Latinos and prior minorites (back in the 1800's etc) is that for the most part, the immigration was more controlled. Yes, we did experience brief swells and such, but the majority were processed through specific points and made citizens etc. At no time throughout history did we share a large and relatively unguarded border with Italy, Ireland, Germany, China, or any other nation. And, those people eventually assimilated because their immigration was not sustained in quite the same numbers throughout a relatively long period of time. This has not been quite the case with the present scenerio, so the examples aren't entirely applicable imo. Do note that I'm not disagreeing with Latino assimilation. It can and does happen, however it's a long process and made all the more difficult with a large and consistent influx. Something does need to be done to at least slow it down. It should be rather obvious to most here that many Latinos do not quite think of themselves as Americans first, so it should also be evident that the assimilation process is lagging.

[Uraniun235]

The only problem would be that getting the visa would have to be quick and relatively inexpensive such that it's actually practically possible to legally acquire a visa.

That should happen around the next ice age. I came legally from a strong ally nation, have a spotless record, and lived here for over a decade. My green card renewal was still late by nearly a year. RENEWAL!

That's what I figured, unfortunately.

Although I can't help but wonder how much it would cost to add staff and resources to, er... whatever department handles immigration... to make it more effective and responsive, as opposed to the Great Wall of America.

[Glocksman]

Assimilation/cultural issues aside, the primary problem is that they snuck into the country illegally.
I could care less about some enclave in Texas or California that is entirely Spanish speaking, as long as the people in it are citizens or are legally entitled to be here.
God forbid that we actually enforce our damned laws and deport people who sneak across the border because to do so would be racist and 'deprive the economy of cheap labor'.

In fact it's ironic to see some of the more liberal posters on this board basically defending the right of Wal-Mart to use 'guest workers' to drive down wages even further.

[Metrion Cascade]

It has been proposed that a 700mi wall be built along the border.

Price tag? $280 billion.

Of course it's not a matter of either patrolling or building barriers. Both are already done. It's a matter of the balance between those.

I think job 1 is funding the border patrol agency to the point that it can patrol the whole thing regularly, and job 2 is more barriers and surveillance in certain areas. Surely some areas (such as those along which the US side is an expanse of desert where it's harder to disappear) can be covered entirely by surveillance, with agents on call if anyone crosses.

And this 'amnesty' thing Mr. Dobbs is referring to...

I can't make heads or tails of what he wants done on that score, but I'm glad someone's being so vocal. Whether or not one considers it 'amnesty' to allow currently illegal aliens to spend 11 years earning citizenship (based on the backlog) and then pay a fine, what's the alternative? Deporting 11-20 million people?

I'd just love to hear what sort of fine is being proposed, though.

[Lord Poe]

Video blogging sites are filling up with videos of the protests, and stuff like this:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2DUI1V9FSHI

[Elfdart]

The same place all the rest of our money comes from--oh, wait, I forgot. Another $1 deficit will cause us to go bankrupt--we obviously can't afford that, even if it will significantly improve the economy.

Another strawman. I believe a wall would cost more than a dollar, you dishonest little cocksucker. As it is now, every month the government has to borrow billions.

What is it with you and mass killings?

I read Yellow Rain Man's posts, asshole.

And, anyway, we've significantly strengthened our border and immigration policies several times throughout history--never with disastrous economic consequences.

Nothing like what's being proposed.

Oxfam never claimed dumping, you lying little shit

The paper is titled "Dumping Without Borders", you lying fucktard.

--something that is obviously lost on retards who assume that a low price=dumping. But Oxfam is completely wrong in its implication that the US payouts to the corn sector keep the price low.

Why? Because you say so?

And, anyway, their analysis is retarded--the US pays out to agricultural producers, and they compare these payments to the Mexican agricultural budget for perspective? ROFL.

The $10 billion subsidy is for corn alone. If the Mexican government's entire budget is less than one-tenth that much for ALL agriculture it shows how huge a subsidy it is.

That report is clearly, irrevocably flawed.

It must be, because the Masturbator of Ossus says so. After all, it relies on facts, where the ignorant opinions of the Masturbator of Ossus are infallible.

Another reason we need skilled labor--and, yes, buildings with removed cornerstones have been known to collapse.

Concession accepted you mendacious fuck. There's a big difference between "have been known to collapse" and dead certainty.

[Elfdart]

Assimilation/cultural issues aside, the primary problem is that they snuck into the country illegally.
I could care less about some enclave in Texas or California that is entirely Spanish speaking, as long as the people in it are citizens or are legally entitled to be here.
God forbid that we actually enforce our damned laws and deport people who sneak across the border because to do so would be racist and 'deprive the economy of cheap labor'.

Police don't pull over and issue tickets to every single car or truck that exceeds the speed limit. Not only is it not practical to do so, it would throw a big monkeywrench into everyday life if they did. Instead they nail a few of the worst offenders and try to make an example out of them.

We have a statute of limitations on many crimes because after a time it isn't realistic to say, haul someone into court on a 10-year-old shoplifting charge. People who have lived on a piece of land for a certain number of years are considered the de facto owners and residents even if the land wasn't theirs to live on -in other words, squatter's rights. Sure it shouldn't have been allowed to happen, but to go back and try to undo it would cause a bigger headache than letting it go.

Someone who may have entered the country illegally a number of years ago, has otherwise abided by the law and has family and other roots in the community should be granted citizenship if he or she requests it and should be allowed to stay. To arrest and deport one parent who is here illegally (but otherwise not a troublemaker), but leaving the other parent and children behind is pointless and cruel. Deporting American citizens is illegal and vile. So the best solution is to let that one illegal member of the family stay. Why do you think so many teenagers took part in demonstrations? I'll tell you: Because many of them have (or had) one or both parents who were here illegally at one time and the prospect of having a parent kicked out hits close to home. They also realize that whether their families are here legally or not, this kind of bullshit will give racist goons another excuse to hassle them.

In fact it's ironic to see some of the more liberal posters on this board basically defending the right of Wal-Mart to use 'guest workers' to drive down wages even further.

Yeah, they're depressing wages by taking all those toilet-scrubbing jobs I had my heart set on when I was a kid.

[Edward Yee]

I think job 1 is funding the border patrol agency to the point that it can patrol the whole thing regularly, and job 2 is more barriers and surveillance in certain areas. Surely some areas (such as those along which the US side is an expanse of desert where it's harder to disappear) can be covered entirely by surveillance, with agents on call if anyone crosses.

But at the end of the day, their asses have to be covered from political backlash for doing their job, assuming that job 1 was implemented (i.e. accusations of racism -- assuming that the agents involved weren't racist, that is); sounds the same to me as "cops versus locals" (lest a populist politician ride resentment of legit but heavy enforcement to his or her office and then pay back said constituents by gutting the police, so to speak).

[Lonestar]

I've got a little news for you, dumbass. The vast majority of Hispanics aren't immigrants and never were. If you have such a problem with Hispanic enclaves, stay out of Texas, California and the area in between them. A little clue should be the names on the map.

Shocker. I would have never known that if you hadn't told me. Good think I didn't grow up in California and Texas, otherwise my name isn't Lonestar.

But Hispanics that have lived in the Country since "forever" aren't the ones demanding that the government teach/release everything in Spanish as well as English. Why? Because those fellas assimilated long ago, you flaming piece of retarded monkey shit. It's illegals and recent immigrants who are fighting to turn the Southwest into the what will become the Quebec of America.

[MKSheppard]

Linka

Mexican illegals vs. American voters
By Tony Blankley
Published March 29, 2006

It is lucky America has more than two centuries of mostly calm experience with self-government. We are going to need to fall back on that invaluable patrimony if the immigration debate continues as it has started this season. The Senate is attempting to legislate into the teeth of the will of the American public. The Senate Judiciary Committeemen — and probably a majority of the Senate — are convinced that they know that the American people don't know what is best for them.

National polling data could not be more emphatic — and has been so for decades. Gallup Poll (March 27) finds 80 percent of the public wants the federal government to get tougher on illegal immigration. A Quinnipiac University Poll (March 3) finds 62 percent oppose making it easier for illegals to become citizens (72 percent in that poll don't even want illegals to be permitted to have driver's licenses). Time Magazine's recent poll (Jan. 24-26) found 75 percent favor "major penalties" on employers of illegals, 70 percent believe illegals increase the likelihood of terrorism and 57 percent would use military force at the Mexican-American border.

An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll (March 10-13) found 59 percent opposing a guest-worker proposal, and 71 percent would more likely vote for a congressional candidate who would tighten immigration controls.

An IQ Research poll (March 10) found 92 percent saying that securing the U.S. border should be a top priority of the White House and Congress.

Yet, according to a National Journal survey of Congress, 73 percent of Republican and 77 percent of Democratic congressmen and senators say they would support guest-worker legislation.

I commend to all those presumptuous senators and congressmen the sardonic and wise words of Edmund Burke in his 1792 letter to Sir Hercules Langrishe: "No man will assert seriously, that when people are of a turbulent spirit, the best way to keep them in order is to furnish them with something substantial to complain of." The senators should remember that they are American senators, not Roman proconsuls. Nor is the chairman of the Judiciary Committee some latter-day Praetor Maximus.

But if they would be dictators, it would be nice if they could at least be wise (until such time as the people can electorally forcefully project with a violent pedal thrust their regrettable backsides out of town). It was gut-wrenching (which in my case is a substantial event) to watch the senators prattle on in their idle ignorance concerning the manifold economic benefits that will accrue to the body politic if we can just cram a few million more uneducated illegals into the country. ( I guess ignorance loves company.) Beyond the Senate last week, in a remarkable example of intellectual integrity (in the face of the editorial positions of their newspapers) the chief economic columnists for the New York Times and The Washington Post — Paul Krugman and Robert Samuelson, respectively — laid out the sad facts regarding the economics of the matter. Senators, congressmen and Mr. President, please take note.

Regarding the Senate's and the president's guest-worker proposals, The Post's Robert Samuelson writes: "Gosh, they're all bad ideas ... We'd be importing poverty. This isn't because these immigrants aren't hardworking, many are. Nor is it because they don't assimilate, many do. But they generally don't go home, assimilation is slow and the ranks of the poor are constantly replenished ... [It] is a conscious policy of creating poverty in the United States while relieving it in Mexico ... The most lunatic notion is that admitting more poor Latino workers would ease the labor market strains of retiring baby boomers ? Far from softening the social problems of an aging society, more poor immigrants might aggravate them by pitting older retirees against younger Hispanics for limited government benefits ... [Moreover], t's a myth that the U.S. economy 'needs' more poor immigrants.

"The illegal immigrants already here represent only about 4.9 percent of the labor force." (For all Mr. Samuelson's supporting statistics, see his Washington Post column of March 22, from which this is taken.) Likewise, a few days later, the very liberal and often partisan Paul Krugman of the New York Times courageously wrote : "Unfortunately, low-skill immigrants don't pay enough taxes to cover the cost of the [government] benefits they receive ? As the Swiss writer Max Frisch wrote about his own country's experience with immigration, 'We wanted a labor force, but human beings came.' " Mr. Krugman also observed — citing a leading Harvard study — "that U.S. high school dropouts would earn as much as 8 percent more if it weren't for Mexican immigration. That's why it's intellectually dishonest to say, as President Bush does, that immigrants 'do jobs that Americans will not do.' The willingness of Americans to do a job depends on how much that job pays — and the reason some jobs pay too little to attract native-born Americans is competition from poorly paid immigrants." Thusly do the two leading economic writers for the nation's two leading liberal newspapers summarily debunk the economic underpinning of the president's and the Senate's immigration proposals.
Under such circumstances, advocates of guest-worker/amnesty bills will find it frustratingly hard to defend their arrogant plans by their preferred tactic of slandering those who disagree with them as racist, nativist and xenophobic.

When the slandered ones include not only The Washington Post and the New York Times, but about 70 percent of the public, it is not only bad manners, but bad politics.

The public demand to protect our borders will triumph sooner or later. And, the more brazen the opposing politicians, the sooner will come the triumph.

So legislate on, you proud and foolish senators — and hasten your political demise.

[Glocksman]

Yeah, they're depressing wages by taking all those toilet-scrubbing jobs I had my heart set on when I was a kid.

Not everyone can work for Microsoft or be a lawyer.
Someone has to do the 'dirty jobs', and why shouldn't such jobs pay more than the pittance illegals have driven the wage levels down to?
Or are you indeed in favor of repealing minimum wage?

[theski]

Yeah, they're depressing wages by taking all those toilet-scrubbing jobs I had my heart set on when I was a kid.

Not everyone can work for Microsoft or be a lawyer.
Someone has to do the 'dirty jobs', and why shouldn't such jobs pay more than the pittance illegals have driven the wage levels down to?
Or are you indeed in favor of repealing minimum wage?

No./. He is in favor of a "Living Wage" which I think the new Meme from Leftys are us is $10.25per hr