<p>Since we are having such passionate discussion of illegal immigration…</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1630168,00.html[/url]”>http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1630168,00.html</a></p>
<p>This is a great article and hopefully I’m not repeating a previous link. I think it touches on the concerns of us all. I would sincerely appreciate those who are so vehemently opposed to illegal immigration reading it and telling us what you think.</p>
<p>I did read this and I disagree with some of it. Particularly the parts about social services and more illegal immigration. My feeling on illegal immigration (which I’ve said before so I apologize for repetition, but it is a new thread) is that I’m not interested in helping Mexico ethnically cleanse itself and that’s true. I also think that it would be almost impossible to do background checks on that many people or make sure that they are not afflicted with a communicable disease. I oppose illegal immigration in great principle, but I do understand that many aren’t going to return home, which is why I choose to help some in my community get a leg up on literacy. I think the Times article presents the issue the way that we’d all like it to be, hardworking, desperate, otherwise-honest people. But I respectfully don’t think that reflects the whole picture.</p>
<p>What I especially like about the article is the economic realities discussed there. It’s so hard to explain and accept the NET economic benefit we have reaped from illegal immigration when there is so much focus on just the negative side of the equation; but I think the article does dispels quite a few economic and social myths.</p>
<p>My last post of the day…lol! Laundry, gardening, errands are calling…</p>
<p>Even <em>if</em> there is currently, right now, a net economic benefit to illegal immigration (which I don’t buy, but I’ll indulge you), that does not address the <em>future</em> of immigration, both legal and illegal. Once again, this is a selective & limited view that is presented. It doesn’t account for increasing life spans, esp. in the First World. People are not dying off fast enough in this country to allow us to <em>continue</em> to absorb immigrants at the rate that is occurring (or, to let it happen & then think about it afterwards – such as what the gov’t is doing right now).</p>
<p>A thoughtful, NON-emotional, proactive plan has to take into account such things as natural resources, demographics, life span, health care costs, education, and many other things, not most of which are paid for by low-skilled workers with very limited literacy. Their upward mobility, based on even recent history, is not rapid enough to pay down these costs. A <em>rational</em> plan is needed, divorced from emotion, and with calculator in hand. Naturally, no plan is good if it is not adjusted based on different needs from time to time. Should the country find itself with an exceptionally low birth rate and a higher mortality rate for any reason, or a deficiency in particular categories of workers, adjustments should always be made.</p>
<p>Speaking of birth rates, Supposing a couple finds itself with a large family, perhaps larger than originally intended, and the family size is stretching the budget, to the point where some family members are significantly impacted. Are they going to “send out” the “extra” children (the most recent arrivals)? I doubt it. They’re going to love them all. (This is for any possible repliers who cannot separate yourselves from emotional terminology when discussing social, political, & economic POLICY issues, or who prefer to drop the word “hate” into the conversation now and then.) </p>
<p>But should the couple continue to reproduce, just because they happen to “love” children? Many people would describe that as irresponsible behavior, particularly if there’s no certain way to pay for those newly arriving children.</p>
<p>Depends on your definition of love, and who receives that love. Is love just for illegal immigrants? (Just a thought, because the right to be “loved” seems in some people’s minds to be reserved for undocumented workers, but not the existing family members.)</p>
<p>ldmom, nice post - but unfortunately, CC’s posters against amnesty are dead set in their opinions - no amount of data suggesting there’s no overall detriment/benefit of illegal immigration will convince them. It reminds me a bit of that old Soviet anecdote --a journalist asks Khrushchev what happens when facts clash with ideology, and Khrushchev shruggs and says “too bad for the facts.”</p>
<p>“ldmom, nice post - but unfortunately, CC’s posters against amnesty are dead set in their opinions - no amount of data suggesting there’s no overall detriment/benefit of illegal immigration will convince them. It reminds me a bit of that old Soviet anecdote --a journalist asks Khrushchev what happens when facts clash with ideology, and Khrushchev shruggs and says “too bad for the facts.””</p>
<p>There are facts on both sides of the issue, so the same could be said for you. If it were a simple issue, people wouldn’t struggle with it. There are plenty of people who actively choose to ignore the problems associated with illegal immigration.</p>
<p>Gosh…so much condescension in one little post epip…kudos for getting it all in there so efficiently. And thanks for ‘indulging’ me. Indulge me so more and explain how you would implement your “NONemotional”, “rational” plan…surely there something more to it than grabbing a calculator. </p>
<p>The nonemotional facts are this…the approx 20 million illegal immigrants currently in the US are not going to come forward and volunteer to go home. They are here and they aren’t going anywhere. So those who have a problem with the drain on social services perhaps should aspire to figure out a way to entice them to become legal, ‘taxpaying’ (as if most are not already) citizens.</p>
<p>Isn’t it funny…I think all those who scream the sky will fall if we do not address this so-called ‘emergency’ of illegal immigration are the emotional, non-rational ones…lol! </p>
<p>And the whole ‘love’ argument…I’m going to have re-read that one.</p>
<p>My stepfather is writing a book on the history of immigration in the US. He showed me articles bemoaning the ill-effects of immigration that used the exact same arguments used today – but were published 150 years ago. It was all the stuff you hear - they cost us money, they don’t speak english, they don’t assimilate, they’re brown (or catholic or jewish or asian)… on and on it goes.</p>
<p>150 years ago, there was no welfare state.</p>
<p>and you think there is one now??? I’ll tell ya – I’ve lived for years in a welfare state (two of them, in fact) and America ain’t no welfare state! The very idea gives a welfare state a bad name ;)</p>
<p>Yes there surely is one now. Feel free to come here. I’d be happy to take you to lunch!</p>
<p>so i assume your child goes to college for free? as befits a welfare state? i assume you have free universal health care and total job security and assured retirement with free healthcare and discounts to movies? </p>
<p>and just where do you live? so we all could move in?</p>
<p>Katlia, welcome to New York City! Union members actually have all those benefits on the backs of taxpayers, and we won’t even get into the entitlements. Obviously, we’re going to have to agree to disagree. Intelligent people of good will can do that. I don’t think today’s situation has much in common with 150 years ago, but you do and that’s fine.</p>
<p>Wow. This is the first time I’ve ever heard of New York City described as a welfare state. You guys sure keep that news well hidden from the rest of us. So hey, everybody, forget financial aid! Forget worring about saving for retirement. Zoos says we can have it all free in NYC!</p>
<p>I’m packin’ my U-Haul today.</p>
<p>"Wow. This is the first time I’ve ever heard of New York City described as a welfare state. "</p>
<p>I know you’re being facetious (I won’t say snarky), but you are joking, right? You’ve never heard of NYC described as a welfare state? I can’t imagine that that could be possible, I really can’t. Wow. Where are you from?</p>
<p>Colorado. Before that California. Before that 2 countries in Western Europe, 1 in Eastern Europe. But Out here, in the wild west, we actually have to pay for our children’s education. And for our health care. And our social security isn’t enough to live on, so we all have to save. Bummer, huh?</p>
<p>“Out here, in the wild west, we actually have to pay for our children’s education. And for our health care. And our social security isn’t enough to live on, so we all have to save. Bummer, huh?”</p>
<p>Those of us who actually hold jobs have to pay for those things too. It’s just that in NY that pool is shrinking. Rapidly. We are actually losing population. Bummer, huh?</p>
<p>So you should welcome all those illegals! SOMEBODY has to work in NYC to keep all that welfare state movin’ !</p>
<p>“So you should welcome all those illegals! SOMEBODY has to work in NYC to keep all that welfare state movin’ !” </p>
<p>But they’d have to pay NYS and NYC income tax to do so and I don’t think that’s much of an issue for many. Federal? Maybe. Local? Highly unlikely. Most work in restaurants where most of the money is “under the table” or in landscaping/odd jobs. The construction industry doesn’t come into play so much because of unions/mafia control. I’ve heard that illegal labor is very common in construction in other parts of the country but don’t know that for a fact.</p>
<p>I was being facetious, zoos. I didn’t for one minute think you’d want to welcome illegals. Why ruin a good thing – that marvelous NYC welfare state with free college & healthcare and such.</p>