Here in Oklahoma, all we are hearing of late is immigration this, immigration that. I would really love to have people on both sides of the issue speak out and let me know what you think.
A law was, very recently, passed in Oklahoma, that makes it a felony to house an illegal immigrant, or even transport one in your vehicle. Ok, first off, are we supposed to ask anyone who looks, even remotely, Mexican, or Cuban, or African, or even Canadian for their Green Card? I don't know, I'm finding myself pretty tiffed over this whole deal. I have a hard time with the idea of any human counting as less than another because of something they have no control over, such as their heritage or where they were born.
Ok, I've heard the old, "They're taking our jobs." Frankly, I'm more worried about the numerous corporations setting up in different companies... we lose all the way there. At least if our companies are here, at home, the government receives the taxes. So, instead of running off all our companies, why not just tax everyone who works? Sounds a lot more fair to me... and I think that would be a compromise that most immigrants would, happily, accept. That way, those immigrants aren't on welfare... they're working legally, and rather than depleting taxes, by living on welfare, they are paying into the tax system.
I don't know... is there something I'm missing here?
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 60
I ended up going a different route and hiring a nurse who is retired. But anyway, I could not put myself and family at risk. There was a story about a nanny who did not speak english being hired in a city near me, the child got sick and she could not speak english to the paramedics. The paramedics ended up treating her badly becaise they jusdged her for being an immigrant and the child under her care died. I know I am going in anotherdirection, just that, they are trying all kinds of ways to crack down to give less incentive for them to come here, Glenn Beck just wrote a book about it and I saw his interview tonight, i agree with most of what he says. I do not believe they count as less, it is just a tactic to deter incentive.
were American citizens who spoke English.
Since the mid 90's I've seen nothing but non-English speaking illegal aliens who have taken away the jobs of those Americans by undercutting their wages. What about the protection for the little kids of those American janitors who lost their jobs ?
I shudder to think where they might be, or be doing now.
There's also a long list of harms that we, as Americans suffer because of illegal immigration. As for the outsourcing jobs out of the USA to get cheap labor overseas,
illegal immigration is actually part of that. It simply is the cheap, foreign labor to do the
jobs that can't be done outside the US (construction, landscaping, truck driving, etc.).
I call it domestic outsourcing.
Here in Nassau County, NY judge Thomas F. Liotti tossed out a case against Rafael Quiroga Puma for just this! Stating if Gov Spitzer had his way and all illegal were given DL then they could go out and buy insurance and Mr. Puma wouldn't be in his court.
Is this discrimination or racist?
I heard that the unemployment rate was calculating in the illegal alien jobs since it a rate for the country and not a race. AND that since an American Corp outsources jobs it still goes on the national statistics since it's an American employer?
If these claims were even partly true it would definitely put illegal migration in another very damaging position.
Jeff is right 1 illegal farm worker takes away 1 American job but 1 terrorist can take away 1,000's of lives. So how many is acceptable to our goverment?
Probably for some of the same reasons the English, Dutch, Scottish, German, Swedish, Spanish, French, etc. people who came to America chose to emigrate instead of creating better lives in their home countries three or four hundred years ago.
I don't think the legal immigrants of the past were remittance senders. My mother and her family never sent any to Denmark, nor did my grandparents send any down to Belize. They were all needing every penny they had (they didn't cram 20 of
them into one house, so they could send remittances). Denmark and Belize were not actively engaged in a deliberate, planned/maintained emigration process (invasion essentially) reaping their biggest source of income, in the process, as is Mexico.
You have a good day too, Duane, hope you feel better.
Unemployment is worst than advertised
Economy is in the toilet and going down
Inflation has been cooked to appear under control
There are more criminals in America now than ever before
There are more terrorist in America than ever before.
Jobs that are available are at minimum wage or less
We can't even trust the toys we buy our kids, OUR KIDS!
We have more food concerns than ever before
We have more health problems than ever before
If your making $30/hr in Ohio, you can survive, if your making $30/hr in Manhattan you homeless. To others coming here $8/hr seemed great but if you have to pay your FAIR share, all of a sudden it doesn't look so good.
Looks like the illegal aliens brought with them what they were trying to run away from.
Over burden any system and it will collapse and this is why there is a limit.
Yes, as a matter of fact I do know that. I also know that one of the reasons why the British needed a new place to dump their prisoners was because they no longer had control of their previous dumping ground, the American colonies.
"You still don't understand the difference between LEGAL and ILLEGAL immigration."
I understand it perfectly well. I didn't comment on the legality of those early immigrants' choices, but on their decision not to stay in their home countries in the first place.
"If you liked these conditions so well for us, why do you live in Australia?"
Because I like a lot of places.
"Another land colonized by the 'white culture' you seem to dislike so strongly."
What the hell is "white culture" and why do you think I strongly dislike it?
Some did, some didn't. What's that got to do with the fact that they didn't stay in their home countries and create better lives for themselves and for their children there?
Second not all illegals are Mexican...they are from all parts of the world....Latin America...Iraq Iran Saudi Arabia Afganistan. So if you are willing to accept the Mexicans then you must take the illegal Iraqis too.
Third true an illegals cant get welfare but their anchor babies can. Food stamps and FIP and Medicaid and WIC.
Fourth if you let them all in frankly it will bankrupt our country. The amount of extra taxes they would pay would never equal the benefits they would receive.
People who sympathise with the plight of illegal immigrants are usually the people who are not yet effected by them in a negative way. That said, refusing to address the mass exodus of people who aren't represented in a democratic country only allows thew corruption to continue in the Mexican Government. Reform is unneeded when the neglected just leave for greener pastures at our expense.
Once again Immigration is great and the fact that we need so many immigrants shows how strong our economy is. But the fact that most come from one single country and the rush to give them rights and a pathway to citizenship only opens the door to a block of non-integrated Americans who don't have our country's interests at heart.
These employers do Not have to pay illegals even minimum wage...who is going to tell on them? The dont have to pay work comp...they dont have to pay any taxes on the employees.
Back in the 50's when we didnt have all the illegals we do know people were still able to get their lawns mowed and their construction done...pigs and chickens in big farms didnt starve because there was noone there to feed them.
"Is this discrimination or racist?"
Tom, this is definetely discrimination! However, it's not based on 'race'. The illegals and their backers try to use the term 'racist' against American citizens who are opposed to their illegal presence here. Since Mexican is not a 'race', (it's a nationality), their use of the term against U.S. citizens is entirely erroneous.
Jeff...
"Tom always remember when you attach race to an issue you will be called the racist when you don't tow the politically correct line."
Jeff, considering my above statement, it's not politically incorrect to refer to someone from another country as citizens of that country, as in "Mexicans". However, when a person is not from Mexico and is a citizen of the U.S., referring to that person as a "Mexican" could cause problems.
Well said!
Also Well said!!
Keep on keepin' on!
You don't mean The Impact of Unauthorized Immigrants on the Budgets of State and Local Governments, do you? Because it didn't say that illegal immigrants are sucking up huge chunks of US taxes. In fact, it said:
"Although it is difficult to obtain precise estimates of the net impact of the unauthorized population on state and local budgets (see Box 1), the impact is most likely modest."
"The amount that state and local governments spend on services for unauthorized immigrants represents a small percentage of the total amount spent by those governments to provide such services to residents in their jurisdictions."
"Costs were concentrated in programs that make up a large percentage of total state spending—specifically, those associated with education, health care, and law enforcement. In most of the estimates that CBO examined, however, spending
for unauthorized immigrants accounted for less than 5 percent of total state and local spending for those services. Spending for unauthorized immigrants in certain jurisdictions in California was higher but still represented less than 10 percent of total spending for those services."
As the report says, the bulk of all spending associated with unauthorized immigrants involves education, health and law enforcement. That means educating around 2 million kids who are unauthorized immigrants, about 4% of the total number of kids in school.
It means providing medical care to people regardless of whether they can afford to pay for it, which includes up to 25% of "uncompensated health costs" in counties on the US/Mexico border, but which "account for a small percentage of spending by most state and local governments." The report also uses Oklahoma as an example, where "the
services provided to unauthorized immigrants have accounted for less than 1 percent of the total individuals served and cost less than 1 percent of the total dollars spent for Medicaid services."
It means that it costs state and local governments money to prosecute and incarcerate unauthorized immigrants just like it does to prosecute and incarcerate anybody else. For San Diego County, which apparently spends a lot more of its law enforcement budget on unauthorized immigrants than most places (including other counties on the US/Mexico border), that cost amounted to 9% of its law enforcement budget.
4 percent. 9 per cent. Less than 1 per cent. Those don't sound like "huge chunks" to me. And those numbers don't take into account the money unauthorized immigrants are putting into the system, or the money the federal government pays to state and local governments to help cover the costs associated with providing services to unauthorized immigrants. These are small, maybe even tiny bits of government spending, and they are used to educate children, to care for people who are sick, and to protect communities. I can think of worse ways to spend that money, that's for sure.
"I would just hate to imagine being in a situation where my children did not have rights or access to what they need."
This is exactly what laws like the one you referred to above is trying to prevent.
.......
"impact is most likely modest" does not conflict or conradict the statement
"illegal immigrants are sucking up huge chunks of US taxes". The statement that the negative impact is modest is based on the illusion that the spending is almost offset by taxes paid by the immigrants. With due respect to the author of this report, that conclusion is overlooking important points. These are that if the illegals were not here,
1. the spending would not be occuring in to so high a degree
2. the taxes input would be greater from the normal (higher) American wages.
3. tax money used up in the various immigration enforcement tasks, would be free
for other uses.
Taking this WHOLE picture into account, the impact is severe, not modest.
It was reported a few years ago by the GAO that illegal immigration was costing the
US $62 billion/year in human services, and $45 Billion/year lost from the economy in remittances. That overall >$100 Billion/year loss has increased since then, and there's not a darn thing "modest" about it. As for the 4%, 9%, whatever%s, you mention, even IF these were accurate, I wouldn't wouldn't like to be among the 4% or 9% who don't have a cop around when I need one. Wouldn't want my grandkids to be in a 4% or 9% group that is going without a textbook, or crammed into a trailer instead of a classroom. Wouldn't want to be in the 4 or 9% unable to get into a hospital room when I need it, occupied by an illegal alien, would you ????????
EXACTLY!
I wish you'd make up your mind, Robert. First you talk up this report like it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, and now you're saying it's based on an illusion, and going back to using numbers from some unidentified GAO report.
But if you want to switch to this GAO report, fine. Got a link? You claim it says that $62 billion worth of human services payments and assistance goes to illegal immigrants. How much is that when expressed as a percentage of the total human services budget?
You claim that it says that $45 billion leaves the US economy through remittances. How much is that expressed as a percentage of the total spending by the people who send the remittances? How much is it expressed as a percentage of the total amount of money spent in the US that, one way or another, ends up in another country?
These questions don't fascinate me too much. I'm left with the feeling to say "who cares about that" ? Not relevant. What I'm talking about, not in muddied up
water (like your questions seem), is American money leaving America and going into
other countries' pockets - a bad thing, harmful to us, our tax bases and our economy,
plain and simple. This ain't astrophysics, and I'm not not going to follow a course which
does nothing but complicate a simple, clear point.
As for a link, yeah, GAO.gov. Lot of good information in there. I'm not sure if anyone has answers to your "huh ?" questions, but I'll answer one of them - the % of
remittances of the total spending, if I understand your question right, is an extremely high percentage. It could be as much as 90% of illegal aliens' income. What might
indicate this is the common practice among illegal aliens to combine large #s of them into a single house. Also large #s pooled into a single vehicle (pick-up truck commonly). All this is part and parcel of the general idea/plan of making as much money, and (by limiting expenses to near zero) sending as much as possible back to the home country. That's it. If you don't have any documentation on it, neither do I, but then, as you must know by now, I, unlike you, don't place so high a value on formal (easily rigged) studies and reports. We don't have to have them. I place a lot of value on common sense and the statistics of our eyes and ears (not easily rigged).
student "upon what do you base that statement ?".
This, however, is a little different. The idea seems to be to force everyone to go into the corner to go do research and pull up facts and figures (which they know exist
and where they are), just to try to silence people, and make them go away for a while, and reduce their involvement. Then when you arrive with information, if it's from the well known anti-illegal immigration groups, it's derided as "unfounded", "biased", "subjective", etc. as if these groups could not produce true,
objective information. If it's from someone nuetral or unknown, then they are quickly tossed into the big bin of supposedly "unacceptable" sources along with FAIR, Lou Dobbs, Numbers USA, et al.
Fact is, for much of the discussion, WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE "evidence" any more than we need "evidence" that parrots eat plants, cats don't. The "evidence" is just there, all around us, and it's really the best evidence of all, untampered, unmanipulated
unlike many, high-faluting studies and polls which often derive an intended result from
how the question is asked.
How much of the money would or wouldn't end up in the U.S. if or if not the illegal immigrants were deported, or weren't deported or were deported after all.
And just in case the illegal immigrants were given amnesty or weren't given amnesty or were or not, would or wouldn't or not the money stay in the U.S. or wouldn't it or not? Or would it? Would the money stay in the U.S. or go to a foreign country or would it or wouldn't it stay in the U.S. or go to a foreign country if or if not the illegal immigrants were given amnesty or weren't, or are they not..or are they?
I really do appreciate all of the thoughtful insight you all have offered, and I'm still reading. I think my point in posting this was, not as Jeff claims, because I'm some kind of whiney supporter... it was because I am genuinely interested in learning the opinions of others on this issue, and why one feels so passionately. I feel that I am learning a lot here, and I appreciate that.
reduce down to zero, allowing these tens of billions to remain here and pump up OUR
economy instead of those of the burglar countries.
Yeah, I've noticed you like to say "who cares" any time you think the answers to questions might not fit into your nationalist agenda. Surprising behavior from a person who claims to have been a teacher. But in any case, there's nothing bad or harmful about money moving from one country to another. It's been happening as long as there have been countries, and will continue for as long as they exist. The US tried to close its economy once. It lasted for all of 2 years, and was generally a failure.
"It could be as much as 90% of illegal aliens' income."
So the real answer is that you have absolutely no idea. Thanks for clearing that up.
"We don't have to have them. I place a lot of value on common sense and the statistics of our eyes and ears (not easily rigged)."
LOL, sounds good to me, Robert. Throw around the statistics and cite the reports when you think it'll help your argument, but blow them off completely when you think they don't. Well the statistics of my eyes and ears tell me that I've never, in my entire life, ever personally known a person to lose their job, or a hospital bed, or a textbook because of illegal immigration. By your logic then, there must not be any "problem" at all.
Well the statistics of my eyes and ears tell me that I've never, in my entire life, ever personally known a person who was killed by a Tiger. By your logic then, the guy who was supposedy killed by a Siberian Tiger in San Francisco yesterday more than likely wasn't killed by the Tiger after all.
Rex..yes she does!!!
Not my logic. Robert is the one who says we don't need any evidence other than a little common sense and our own eyes and ears. For all we know, the whole San Francisco tiger story is just another lie told by the mainstream media. Trust no one, Tim. Not even Lou Doobie. He's part of the MSM conspiracy, too. LOL!
And you think they should've tossed those people out on the street and treated you because you think those people were illegal immigrants?
Or do you think they should be tossed out on the street regardless of whether they're illegal immigrants or not since they didn't speak English, had no medical insurance, and didn't know who those people were?
"By my logic, there's a huge problem."
For you maybe, but not for me. See, that's the problem with your Eyes and Ears Theory of Evidence. I haven't seen the evidence for your problem with my eyes and ears, so I have no reason to believe that your problem actually exists.
Hey, Robert is the one that says we should all rely on our own experiences, and not worry about any "evidence" that doesn't agree with our personal experiences, perceptions, and "common sense."
It doesn't look lost to me. I can see your profile, you articles, your comments, etc. If it was gone before, it's back now.
"I said nothing about "tossing people out in the street" you said that."
You said you had to wait for three hours to get into a hospital room because they were all filled with people you think were illegal aliens. If you don't think they should've been tossed out in the street so that you could be given a bed, what exactly did you want to happen?
You're right - it's back to me again. When I said it was lost, it was THEN. What I want to happen is what IS now happening - border security stiffening and enforcement in the workplace = self-mass deportation to prevent overcrowding in hospitals, schools, jails, roads & highways, etc.
Well, there ya go. "Mission accomplished", right? LOL!
Be sure and let us know how long you have to wait the next time you have to go to the hospital, Robert. If you're right, you won't even have time to check to see how many people speak English well enough and know enough about Britney Spears to be allowed to legally live, work, and get sick in the United States.
You may now live in the real world (books and the internet are good, but they don't trump real life experience - why do you think that cab drivers are the world's best sociologists ?).