August 26, 2004

WE'VE LOTS MORE MONEY, SEND MORE FOLKS:

Study Says Illegal Immigrants Cost U.S. $10 Billion a Year; Analysis Is Disputed (Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, August 26, 2004, LA Times)

Illegal immigrants cost the federal government more than $10 billion a year, and a program to legalize them would nearly triple the figure, a study released Wednesday said.

The analysis by the Center for Immigration Studies, which opposes efforts to legalize the estimated 8 million to 12 million undocumented immigrants in the United States, comes as Republicans are bracing for a fight over immigration at their convention next week in New York.


So bringing in the 12 million ambitious folks who do our scut work only costs us about as much as a bookkeeping error in the federal budget, even when the estimate is coming from a bunch of nativists? And folks wonder why we're the world's only hyperpower.

Posted by Orrin Judd at August 26, 2004 9:52 AM
Comments

We'll be lucky if the new dark age ushered in
by this mass immigration lasts only 1000 years.

Anything good about our current culture is pure
reflected glory.

Posted by: J.H. at August 26, 2004 11:00 AM

J.H.

Despite all those darkies we imported during the glory years?

Posted by: oj at August 26, 2004 11:09 AM

This massive immimigration (especially, and probably only the ones doing the scut work) will have a negative influence on our politics. Moving from any remnant of conservatism towards socialism. In the long run it will snuff entrepenurial capitalism. Yes you are correct that there will be short term economic benefit, but under presently existing law this will be turn to a burden in the future. (of course if voting patterns remain consistent, future laws will probably make it even a larger burden)

Language issues will cause further damage to our common culture.

Sure OJ, pretend that there is going to be some theologic benefit, but it's not going to happen in that area either.

Posted by: h-man at August 26, 2004 11:16 AM

1. Require English literacy and property for voting.

2. Abolish ESL education.

3. Use VAT and Excises instead of an Income tax.

4. More Mexicans, fewer Arabs.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at August 26, 2004 11:21 AM

h:

Yes, we tried stopping your family from coming for the same reason. Every generation thinks that its immigrants are a unique drain, while their own family was a unique benefit to the nation.

Posted by: oj at August 26, 2004 11:22 AM

O.J.,

We still have not really
resolved the matter of the ex-slaves
have we? It's a thorn in our side that
we haven't been able to remove.

This group cannot assimilate, despite what
neo-cons think.

Posted by: J.H. at August 26, 2004 11:32 AM

Hey, you have to bring my family into this?

Unfortunately, my family was also a mixed blessing, they dutifully slaughtered the presently existing natives, (which was what good? maybe)

Then they were more than willing to enslave others for their economic benefit (which was bad, certainly)

I'll take credit for the good and bad they did if you insist, but the country you live in now is what they helped create and you have on occasion suggested you like it. (okay, even that sounds too grandiose, but let's assume they had some effect)

You seem to be asserting that the American Indian has benefitted from immigration in some fashion.
Perhaps you might explain that to me.

Posted by: h-man at August 26, 2004 11:47 AM

J.H.:

Really? They seem pretty well assimilated despite the best efforts of racists to prevent it for the first hundred years after slavery. Likewise, Jews are well assimilated and Catholics despite some early discrimination. Heck, the Germans fit in despite Ben Franklin's antics. Even the Indians, who we did our best to wipe out, have caught the capitalist fever. Sure, you could delay the assimilation of Latinos a little bit for a little while if you let the nativists impose Jim Crow, but not for long.

Posted by: oj at August 26, 2004 11:47 AM

h:

Indians had life expectancies in the 30s, hadn't figured out the wheel, and worshipped animals. No one has benefitted more from immigration.

http://www.brothersjudd.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/reviews.detail/book_id/22

Posted by: oj at August 26, 2004 11:57 AM

Wouldn't those Mexicans coming into the country
be largely composed of ethnic stock that
"hadn't figured out the wheel"???

Yes a culture must be able to tansmit itself from
generation to generation and to some extent to
assimilate smaller groups, but there must be some
balance in order to ensure that the more creative
group is not diluted.

Creation of culture and transmission are not
one and the same thing.

Posted by: J.H. at August 26, 2004 12:03 PM

They're coming in trucks.

Posted by: oj at August 26, 2004 12:10 PM

Again, proof that The Bros Judd are nowhere near Southern California.

Here in SoCal, we're at Ground Zero for border-jumpers. The big fear here is not so much the immigration itself; it's the volume and that it's coming primarily from one country (Mexico).

America in the past has assimilated its immigrants and made them American in a three-generation process. With the volume coming over the Mexican border, the fear is we're not assimilating them, they're assimilating us by sheer numbers -- like Muslims in France. Instead of them becoming American, the fear is that we're going to slide down into just another Third World state of jefes, peons, y La Mordida.

LA talk radio already refers to California as "The Northernmost Province of MEHHHHEEEEECO!" and quotes Mexican officials shooting off their mouths about "La Reconquista de California." To paraphrase your own smug little tag line, we don't want "the world's only hyperpower" to become "the world's biggest Third World hyperpower", and that's what Anglo Californians see as The Future.

Posted by: Ken at August 26, 2004 12:14 PM

Might that be because the culture of Southern California tends to suck?

Just askin'.

Posted by: Timothy at August 26, 2004 12:18 PM

Ken: Thanks from all of us for assuming this burden.

Posted by: David Cohen at August 26, 2004 12:23 PM

As Timothy points out, CA was headed into the crapper until the Latinos, who tend to be more conservative than their Anglo counterparts, got there in number and started voting. Note they just deposed a Democrat and elected a Republican governor.


http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/003248.html

Posted by: oj at August 26, 2004 12:24 PM

I think Indians are capable of deciding for themselves, if they have benefited from immigration and they may have a different view than yours.

However using your same criteria for African-Americans that you use for American Indians would lead to the result of White Americans not only justifying than forcible importation and enslavement of Africans, but also demanding a repayment of the debt they owe us.

The larger issue is not the relative economic benefit to American Indians or African Americans, but the loss of the culture, which they, even in their primitiveness, could feel pride in.

Posted by: h-man at August 26, 2004 12:26 PM

Blacks obviously benefitted from slavery.

http://www.brothersjudd.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/reviews.detail/book_id/1003/

The culture of Africans, Indians, etc. was crap--the benefit was assimilating them into ours.

Posted by: oj at August 26, 2004 12:31 PM

D*mn, you type fast. If you could combine that with rational thought you could hit the blogworld Hall of Fame. .

PS. Why not take in Chinese, Koreans, South Asian Indians, instead of such huge numbers of Mestizo's. And do it legally (which seems important to you when the issue is Martha Stewart)

Posted by: h-man at August 26, 2004 12:42 PM

Instead?

Posted by: oj at August 26, 2004 12:47 PM

Instead, because they haven't shown a predilection towards striking the pose of victim nor making claims to entitlements from the government. Make immigration contingent on attainment of education etc, which would speed the assimilation into the general population.

Side benefit, in the case of Koreans, would be that they would barbeque and eat stray animals, thus alleviating the need to run Humane Shelters.

You must have inadvertantly missed my point about enforcing the law, but to be explicit, presently the government in my opinion is not making an effort to enforce our immigration laws against specifically Mexicans.

Posted by: h-man at August 26, 2004 1:37 PM

Then either we should change the laws, or we should enforce them. As OJ has pointed out, we won't stand for a true enforcement of them, so we really ought to change them.

Posted by: Timothy at August 26, 2004 2:08 PM

h:

When they're caught they're sent back. Then they come later. Pretty hard to stop someone who dreams of freedom and a better life and obvious why we don't try.

Posted by: oj at August 26, 2004 3:04 PM

Timothy

"As OJ has pointed out, we won't stand for a true enforcement of them, so we really ought to change them."

Yes we will "stand for a true enforcement"

OJ

"Pretty hard to stop someone who dreams of freedom and a better life and obvious why we don't try"

Martha Stewart had dreams of a "better Life" also and it also is "pretty hard" to stop her (or her ilk), but we do try.

It's the "not trying" part that is also damaging to our culture. Mexicans are assimilating therefore into a culture that is communicating by it's inaction that the culture is not worth the effort. Yet simultaneously you wag your finger that nativist need to work harder to demand more of their citizens. Why not demand more of immigrants, such as, 1) they enter the country legally, 2) any requirement we desire to assure that they do not become a burden.

If you interject that they will not become a burden, then that means you don't have any objection to them being required to enter the country under those strictures we choose.

Posted by: h-man at August 26, 2004 3:51 PM

h:

We don't enforce those laws because in the first instance they're unjust, in the second it would cost more than we're willing to pay, and in the third we want the work done and don't much care if it's done by illegals.

We assimilate them into a culture of all immigrants that thinks immigration a key to our greatness and you wonder why one of the messages we send is that immigration is good?

Posted by: oj at August 26, 2004 4:04 PM

H-man, do you really think that Americans would sit back and watch happily as 8 million or whatever illegal immigrants are rounded up and forcibly removed from the United States? Because anything less than that isn't "true enforcement."

Posted by: Timothy at August 26, 2004 4:08 PM

Timothy:

And have taxes go as high as they'd have to in order to close the borders and effectively patrol workplaces. And pay the prices you'd have to if natives picked your fruit, slaughtered your beef, and cleaned your office.

Posted by: oj at August 26, 2004 4:15 PM

Timothy and OJ
Please give me a break! 8 to 10 million since 1990, many going back and forth in the interim.

They would be going "home" and in the case of Southern California and Texas, not much further than a taxi ride. This is not the cruel or unusual OK! Secondly identification and aprehension would be minimal since if employer sanctions were enforced, the lack of jobs would stop the immigration and cause a natural return to Mexico anyway.

OJ
"We assimilate them into a culture of all immigrants that thinks immigration a key to our greatness and you wonder why one of the messages we send is that immigration is good"

Fine, have that reflected in the laws we pass. No problemo. Since that is not the inclination of a majority, such laws haven't been passed. Thanks for making my point

Your second point

"And have taxes go as high as they'd have to in order to close the borders and effectively patrol workplaces. And pay the prices you'd have to if natives picked your fruit, slaughtered your beef, and cleaned your office."

Okay allow "some" legal immigration, and charge those immigrants, the legal ones, a tax surcharge to cover any expenses to prevent an influx of illegal immigrants. (By the way with less Mexican illegal immigration, we could allow more skilled immigration from those countries I named and tax revenue would be much greater on their higher earnings) Why your emphasis on picking fruit?. They know how to grow and harvest fruit in Mexico.

Posted by: h-man at August 26, 2004 5:23 PM

Discount prescription Fioricet online

Posted by: fiorcet at November 17, 2004 12:11 AM
« SECOND FIDDLING WHILE ROME BURNS: | Main | IT'S NOT THE LYING, IT'S THE SEARING: »