Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In yet another presidential debate, this one out in Iowa. It was broadcast on ABC and moderated by liberal George Stephanopoulos.
Amazingly, in a ninety minute national debate there was not so much as one question about illegal immigration! Not one! Yet in every town hall meeting across the country the issue of illegal immigration dominates the discussion. But the big guys at ABC don’t think it’s worth so much as a mention?
Can the Washington media and political elite get any more out of touch with the American people? Or is it their agenda to simply ignore the growing movement in this country to stop the sell-out of our nation, in hopes that it will go away?
Or is it that they want a liberal GOP candidate running in 2008 like Giulliani or McCain???
I know that this will go over like a lead balloon, but I think we need illegal immigration to keep prices and wages down, which in turn has given us some of the best inflation rates in generations. I'm really not willing to pay a bunch more money for basic commodities. None of the anti-illegal immigrant people seem to address this point. They usually dance around it, or pretend that illegal immigration's positive externalities don't exist (which is economically ignorant).
Sure you save a buck on your burrito, but the tax payers are paying for the illegals' health care, their children's education, health care and welfare. If they end up in jail, we are paying for their incarceration too. Tax payers are paying for all these so some greedy, selfish and shallow people can save a buck on their burritos or hire an illegal nanny without paying taxes. Awesome deal, huh?
but the tax payers are paying for the illegals' health care, their children's education, health care an welfare.
I've read the various economic studies on this, and those costs are more than outweighed by the economic benefits. However, since the costs mostly fall on states and not on the federal government, the costs are "irregularly borne" - they aren't distributed efficiently compared to the distribution of the benefits of illegal immigration.
The solution would probably be to create a federal reimbursement fund, where local California/Arizona/Texas schools and hospitals get subsidized for those local costs.
Ideally, we'd have an effective guest worker program and border security. But politics have made that impossible, so, we've gotta go with what we got.
The illegal-alien haters have overwhelmingly endorsed the status quo by bringing sufficient political pressure to bear to scuttle the only reasonable approach to the situation to have come along in years. The matter will not now be dealt with again at the federal level (the only place where it can be effectively dealt with) for at least two more years. What would the point have been in debating something that simply isn't any longer on the agenda?
Amazingly, in a ninety minute national debate there was not so much as one question about illegal immigration! Not one! Yet in every town hall meeting across the country the issue of illegal immigration dominates the discussion.
Does it? I haven't heard anyone I know discuss it a single time.
I can think of a lot more pressing issues, like ending the Iraq war, repealing the PATRIOT Act, and slashing taxation and spending across the board.
We are paying nearly twice as much for fuel (from $1.50 to $3.00 per gallon) and food (American cheese from $3 to $6/pound) as we did at the start of the Bushistas disaster. Illegal immigrants do not hold down inflation they just add to profits and the cost of decent pay for decent work. When we limit the numbers of bodies the wages will climb to levels that will allow the working class to live well. Price increases will be covered by the increased pay (particularly if the progressive income tax is restored) and the increased competition between companies (because we have reinstituted fair instead of free trade) limiting prices and profits. This will be good for most of us but not so good for large investors.
This country needs to limit the imports of labor (skilled and unskilled) and goods created in slave labor conditions that allow the Chinese to selectively destroy American industry by dumping things like steel pipe onto our markets. Considering the lack of food safety standards and poisoned toys, I suggest a moratorium on any trade with China and Chinese surrogates. This will allow the US industries to become reestablished. The Chinese can sell their junk to themselves.
After all, China is a Communist country and a bastion of centrally controlled state capitalism. There is no market in China.
The illegal-alien haters have overwhelmingly endorsed the status quo by bringing sufficient political pressure to bear to scuttle the only reasonable approach to the situation to have come along in years. The matter will not now be dealt with again at the federal level (the only place where it can be effectively dealt with) for at least two more years. What would the point have been in debating something that simply isn't any longer on the agenda?
Here's the bottom line - I'm not subsidizing the cost of masses of illegal undereducated people with my tax dollars. It doesn't matter to me if they are from Mexico or if they are from France. Even if every single one of them pays their fair share of taxes they are never going to pay enough to equal what they cost and because they are undereducated and unskilled, they never will. That's why we supposedly have an immigration policy to control the flow of WHO (economically speaking) we let into this country and HOW MANY can come in at a time --- to protect the American taxpayer.
Making them legal isn't going to make it better for taxpayers. Continuing to open the store for them while they're "just visiting" isn't going to make it better for taxpayers.
In December 2005 they published a study on the cost of illegal immigration to Minnesota. In 2004, alone, illegal immigration cost the state between $118 million to $158 million just for K-12 public education. In 2005 alone, illegal immigration cost the state $17 million for public health assistance programs and $13 million for incarceration. They estimated that year they had 80,000 - 85,000 illegals of which 8,000 paid state income tax. And, we're talking Minnesota, whose illegal population (at that time) was only greater than 20 other states. Why don't we ask the US taxpaying citizens of Minnesota if there is something better the state could have done with $148 - 188 million dollars of their state tax money in 2005.
Maybe it is because it is only the #1 issue in your mind?? Just a thought.
I think most people are more concerned right now about the mess in Iraq, healthcare, the housing market and its implications for the economy. As sag pointed out, what is the point of discussing it if Rush and his ditto heads are going to rush out and scuttle any bill that has the potential to fix the problem. Look in the mirror if you worked to kill the immigration bill and are now looking for someone to blame about the illegal issue.
Even though this thread probably should be lumped up into the immigration forum with the other 300 threads talking about the same thing.
[quote=bily4;1234401] As sag pointed out, what is the point of discussing it if Rush and his ditto heads are going to rush out and scuttle any bill that has the potential to fix the problem. Look in the mirror if you worked to kill the immigration bill and are now looking for someone to blame about the illegal issue. [quote]
That bill was killed because 1. there was no reason to believe that it would actually be followed just like the current laws are not enforced by the government and 2. even if they wanted to follow it, it was unrealistic to think that the government would be able to follow up on everything proposed. We have a backlog right now of people applying for passports. It makes no sense to think we have the capacity to track everything proposed in that bill - it was unrealistic. The passage of a bill for the sake of having a bill means nothing if the bill isn't going to be effective.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
