Although Hispanics cast just 6 percent of the votes in the 2004 elections,...

And some will always vote Republican - they are very religious Catholics and dead set against abortion and other issues like homosexual marriage. Many also support the toughening of the laws and enforcement, but you don't see them in the streets flying the American flag upside down and below the Mexican flag - they immigrated here legally and resent these lawbreakers more than native born Americans do.

birth rates promise an imminent explosion in the number of eligible voters.

So in about 18 years, we'll have something to worry about? But if they go back to Mexico, they won't be voting at all.

...and therefore lose on the issue in the long run.

Only if right and wrong mean nothing and if the statement, "we are a nation of laws" means nothing. Someone once said, "We must stand for something, or we will fall for anything." This is exactly personified by those who try to rationalize amnesty for illegal aliens whether they call it "a path to citizenship", "guest worker program", or the McCain-Kennedy (sound good together, no?) bill.

A nation of just laws.

Those statements you made, Michael, mean absolutely nothing if you don't back them up.

With a street protest of hundreds of thousands, of course:)

Revanchist Mexicans are enemies of the American folk. We are great partly because we made them small.

We need to stop thinking of "Hispanics" as a single ethnic and political group. Puerto Ricans are not Cubans who are not Mexicans. All these peoples do not have the same interests and concerns and it is demeaning to them and stultifying to ourselves to think of them so.

This is a very dangerous issue for our side. It is virtually a "lose-lose situation." Keep in mind that the Democrat toadies in the MSM are going to spin this in the worst way possible. The result will be that, whatever compromise is worked out, neither the wetback faction* nor the nativist faction will be pleased.

*Term of art, intentionally used in the Federalist Papers sense.

A nation of just laws

Nice sentiment. Does it mean anything? Are immigration laws unjust? How? Why hasn't anyone gotten them overturned on appeal? In this country, we obey laws and if we find one that needs to be changed, we change it, with other laws, or by rescinding it. That is what is meant by a nation of laws, not ignoring the ones you don't happen to agree with.

Brad:

Try your Carl Sagan impression, "Billions and Billions!!!"

This is a very dangerous issue for our side.

Only for the faint of heart. Those that support the flood of illegals are constantly quoting scare numbers that started out a few days ago at 11 million and have already grown to 12 million in 2 short days.

Truth is, less than 5 percent of the population are illegal alien workers and around 6 percent vote at all. More than half of them have traditionally voted Democrat for that's the party that panders to them. So we're talking about around 3 percent of the vote. We will gain much more than that from the 80 percent of legal Americans who support enforcing the immigration laws and oppose any kind of citizenship program for illegals. That 80 percent is roughly 160,000,000 people. This is win-win for the Republicans if they just listen to the people and grow a pair.

Michael,

Other than Tancredo and others of his ilk, where are the big masses against illegal immigration? I don't see pictures of them on my computer screen, nor do I see them on Fox News. I don't need to channel Carl Sagan to make this self-evident point.

Once again, have the Pro-Lifers not taught you anything?

Furthermore, should Congress do your bidding, Michael, what will YOU do to help keep that Congress properly elected? Will you speak in favor of them at every opportunity your blog affords? Will you donate to those politicians' campaigns? What, exactly, will you DO?

Citing polling numbers will not cut it. If the logical solution is at hand, getting that logical solution passed is a two-way street. Or is that beyond your "superior" position to get down with the rabble?

...where are the big masses against illegal immigration?

Every poll taken over the last 3 decades indicates 70 to 80 percent of Americans want their immigration laws enforced. Those people don't act like the rabble that you see (thanks to the supportive MSM) on your evening news, but they will be where it counts, in firehouses, churches and schools on the 2nd Tuesday in November.

The thing that the pro-illegal-alien crowd has done is make this an issue that people had mostly pushed aside, worrying about the Middle East. Now the masses are re-awakened and they will insist on action.

As far as what I will do, I will support my politicians who uphold the law and punish those that don't. Support will not only include praise on my blog, but financial aid, volunteering to help in campaigns, anything I can do. The first time I did that was when I went door-to-door taking surveys for the John F. Kennedy campaign when I was a high school sophomore in Memphis, TN. I have never shrunk from supporting politicians who do what is right and I am not afraid to challenge those fools who think the people do not have to be paid any attention while they pander to the mobs in the streets.

I worked hard on the Bush campaign, and will work hard again for any politician that does the right thing. Kyl from Arizona is one. Coburn from OK is another. There are many that will get my support. And those that pander to the illegals will not.

BTW: This issue is the one place that I totally disagree with President Bush. If that were the only issue, I would not support him.

Michael:

80% opposed letting in the Germans, Slavs, Irish, Jews, Chinese, Japanese, etc., etc., etc. Everyone opposes immigration all the time. Only the minority we hate changes.

Yes, immigration limits are unjust.

The issue shouldn't be immigration limits. The issue should be immigration filtering: we want to know who is here and we don't want those who have committed criminal acts and been deported returning. It could be sold as justice: "let us get that social security money back to you." In reality, it's a very simple national security issue.

Wanting to know about those coming into the country is not racist/ignorant/[insert OJ perjorative strawman here], it simply common sense. The Latino community is full of common sense, they will understand.

What's unjust are the policies of the Mexican government and the continuing corruption of their elites that are keeping the Mexican people poor. What is unjust is their encouragement of their citizens breaking US law and doing what it can to meddle in internal American affairs. The root cause is the Mexican government, but as long as it will export potential protestors, they'll never need to change.

Illegal immigrants produce real costs to the communities they inhabit even if their aggregate benefits to those far away make up for it collectively (a big if.) I don't think OJ's home is probably one of them, so he discounts the opinions of the people who live there.

After several decades, we finally need to tell the Mexican government that the solution to their problems can no longer be "Let the Americans handle it." We have been more than patient.

It's one thing to be magnanimous once border security is achieved. At that point we are dealing from a position of strength, and any concessions will not be interpreted with contempt. If we just roll over and give up, then there's no reason the rule of law will continue to apply on any other issue.

That regular citizens are now taking over the law enforcement function themselves (the minutemen project) from the government indicates that the problem is reaching a critical point. If the Federal government continues to ignore the will of the people, it risks losing its legitimacy if the eyes of the people. That will create an even worse crisis.

Chris:

Yes, and we've been producing them for five hundred years now. The nation is reeling...

Except that stiff penalties for employers and a fence on the Mexican border do nothing to stop terrorists from infiltrating the US (zip, zero, nada), while being transparently aimed at Mexicans.

Chris:

You think Dartmouth professors aren't hiring illegal nannies and maids? You think we cut our own meat and slaughter chickens?

On the whole, Ill hold my nose and vote pubbie in 06 because of 1 word - impeachment.

oj:

No matter what you say about who opposed German or Irish immigration, they still were allowed to immigrate. And they followed the law to do it.

Your moral-equivalence argument is invalid. We're not talking about people opposing immigration - those 80 percent oppose illegal immigration. I don't oppose Mexicans coming to this country, as long as they do it legally. If the quotas are too low, make a case for that and change the quotas. There is a world of difference between people who wait their turn, follow the laws and become Americans some day and those who violate the laws (not a great beginning), live secret, stealthy lives, don't pay their fair share of taxes, and demand social services and medical treatment paid for by American taxpayers. You should know that.

David: The penalties to employers are meant to stem the tide in illegal aliens - not to stop terrorists from entering the country. That is accomplished by closing the borders and only allowing crossings at controlled points. Two different things that need to be done - neither can be avoided or scrapped from the House Bill.

And you don't reward law breakers by granting them citizenship for breaking the law. You arrest them, give them a hearing in front of an immigration court and send them back to the place from which they came. Then, they can apply for admission like anyone else.

i guess the majority of legal immigrants that oppose illegal immigration are the worst nativists of all, eh ?

lets open the borders to mexican doctors and see how that goes down with any ama members who frequent this blog.

toe:

Of course, they're like the folks on the life raft trying to keep the ones in the water off. And, of course, it's always the second generation immigrants -- the Tancredos & Buchanans -- who are most anti-immigrant.

Orrin:

You have yet to explain why no one should be concerned that a significantly high number of illegal aliens are criminals, terrorists and welfare abusers.

oj:

A couple of statements from Tancredo's web site.

Immigration reform affirms the rights of every hardworking, law-abiding American. Americans who respect the rule of law should not be penalized by losing jobs, and competitive wages to illegal workers. The overwhelming majority of illegal workers in this country do not respect the jurisdiction of the United States government. Furthermore, illegals do not pay taxes, do not enlist for selective service, and their very illegal presence in this nation is an attack on our rule of law.

Restoring integrity to our nation’s borders is the re-establishment of respect for the law. We need to hold violators accountable. Immigration reform does not alter the way we treat those who lawfully enter this country. The United States is a nation built upon lawful immigration, and we will continue to value the contributions of those who come here to be educated and work in the United States, lawfully.

I don't get the sense that he is anti-immigrant. I do, however, get the sense he is anti-illegal alien. There is no such thing as an illegal immigrant, because immigrant come here using the immigration system - which is legal. Do you have any evidence (other than accusations from those who disagree with him) that is is what you say?

Michael:

So he supports making the illegals legal so that we can collect taxes and stuff?

Vince:

They aren't, but the concern is why they should be legalized and brought above ground.

So he supports making the illegals legal so that we can collect taxes and stuff?

I'm sure he does. After they get out of the country and apply for legal residency, wait their turn in line, and come in legally. No amnesty, no matter what you want to call it.

From Tancredo's bio:

Congressman Tom Tancredo was born and raised in Colorado. The grandson of an Italian immigrant grandfather, Tom Tancredo worked his way through college to become a school teacher, a legislator...

Looks third generation to me. Depends on how you count. But he is one of the millions whose ancestors followed the rules and therefore object to illegal aliens getting anything but a trip home. Seems reasonable to me.

Still waiting for some evidence that he is anti-immigrant. Should I stop expecting any?

Ah, it's the leave the country part that always gives you guys away...

I don't oppose Mexicans coming to this country, as long as they do it legally. If the quotas are too low, make a case for that and change the quotas.

Michael: That's not how it works. There are no "quotas" for Mexicans. There is a limit that no more than 7% of immigrants (other than the parents or minor children of American citizens, on whom there are no limits) can come from any one country. That works out to a limit of about 25,000 immigrants per country, applying equally to China and Lichtenstein.

Of the approximately 1 million legal immigrants each year, about 40% are immediate family members of citizens. About 20% are other family members of citizens or of Green Card holders. Another 15%, more or less (supposedly no more than 140,000 per year, but Congress plays with it) are employment-based immigrants and the rest are refugees, asylees, lottery winners and other miscellaneous immigrants.

There are about 500,000 illegal immigrants every year.

This is woefully inadequate. Also, given that immigration opponents put the costs of illegal immigrants at $10 billion per year -- or, in other words, nothing -- it's hard to imagine what all the fuss is about if it isn't about national security.

As a practical matter, how much will it take to find the illegals who are here now? If the number really is 11 million, then what will it take to identify them, arrest them, collect them, hold them, and deport them? Do we have the manpower, the buses, the planes, the cells, the tents, the food, the bug juice, the porta-potties, the doctors, the nurses, the medicine, the garbage cans, the fencing, the shotguns, the dogs, and the will to inter and transport 11 million people? Especially when many of the youngest are already citizens? And remember, probably only 60% of the illegals are Mexican. Don't forget Guatemala, El Salvador, Panama, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and the people from Eastern Europe.

You can lie about me and my motives all you want, OJ, but I know why I oppose ILLEGAL immigration, and nothing you can say can remove "ILLEGAL" from my thoughts and motives.

I am tired of being treated like a slave, bound to work to benefit those whom I do not choose, to give good feelings to people like YOU.

if you will not respect those who keep the law, and argue in favor of those who do not, do not be surprised if human nature reacts and gives you more of what you reward, and less of what you despise and discourage.

P:

Great, so let's all support legislation that makes them legal -- like that which Ronald Reagan passed -- and then there's nothing to argue over.

P: As I noted above, the net cost to taxpayers of illegal immigrants is put, by opponents, at $10 billion per year. Government spends about $5 trillion per year. So, you're bitterly complaining about one-five hundredth of government spending -- or the amount government spends by about 6:00 New Year's evening.

Funny strange how Oj the anti-libertarian argues for the one truely wacko libertarian concept of all time - open borders.

Perry:

No, the borders should be closed.

Ok, I misread the blue tagline on a latter post on this subject with its sarcastic point about a fence being just a convienient diversion.

Checking this question I posed to you you said:

So Oj, how many illegals are you willing to let in, you know, by looking the other way?

Do you have a number?
Posted by: Perry at March 29, 2006 08:57 PM

Perry:

"Zero. They should be legal."

This is just games with words and means you are for open borders, imho.

Perry:

No, I'd check every person who wants to come here to make sure they aren't a criminal, a homosexual, an atheist, a communist, an Islamicist, etc. As long as they genuinely believe in the principles of the Founding and want to come here we should register them, issue them a social security number and let them come.

Like if I was a thieving homosexual god hating commie who went to the local mosque I would tell the likes of you.

Your position is one of open borders, you should admit it.

Perry: We let in nobody at a cost of nothing. We're so far from letting in too many at too high a cost that it's really not a worry.

Perry:

If your point is that we don't check even the legal immigrants I don't have much trouble believing you. But that just weakens your case.

Oh, and in the Northeast our Spanish speaking immigrants are American citizens and can't be kept out.

Perry and Ptah,

As I've stated before, if up to 90% of the polled sample of Americans believes illegal immigration is a serious problem, then you need to start organizing demonstrations on your own. Surely, you can get a few hundred thousand trailer-trash white folks to march on a perfectly good Saturday afternoon. Hell, promise them free beer.

Dave,

So let us know when you think to many are coming in so we can CLOSE the open borders.

Oj,

My point is that your position is word play by changing the meaning of illegal. The fact is you don't care how many come, the more the better and you are willing to compromise everything you stand for to get them here.

We need a spigot with a piping system to control the water. Right now the water is just gushing in through the broken main head.

Perry:

No, by changing the legal standard. Yes, I don't care how many come, we have room and need. I'll worry when we have the kind of country where they don't want to come, the sort you desire.

Water finds its own level. Stop by your local strip mall and look at all the help wanted signs. Our local McDonalds has a billboard up advertyising that they hire 15 year olds. We desperately need these hard working people and they want to do the work. Let them come.

This is woefully inadequate.

So change it.

Oj,

Yes, water will find its own level even if your head is below that level.

We don't desperately need anything let alone reatil clerks and hamburger flippers and if we do we will open the spigot.

Also, we don't know enough yet about the loss of our manufacturing and service industry jobs to China and India to say we are short and will be short workers. Besides, working in reatil is better (more difficult) than working in some factories. Let's make ex autoworkers do these jobs and they will.

I donot think your motivation is worry for fast food industry. I think you think Mexicans make us more christian of a nation. They don't, they make us more socialist/liberal.

Perry: So your real objection is that it is Mexicans who are coming in. You don't contest that the numbers are small, or that the cost is minimal; it's just that you don't want Mexicans to immigrate.

Michael: I am. I'm supporting George Bush.

David,

I havn;t said whether I think the numbers are small, large or just right. I have argued we should have control of the process and that we use it in a coordinated way regarding economic policy.

I have nothing against Mexicans, if 8500 Canadians were coming in a day, I'd build the fence up there.

Perry: I'm not sure what you mean by "if 8500 Canadians were coming in a day, I'd build the fence up there." 8500 illegal immigrants per day would be 3 million a year, or about six times the best estimate.

Sorry, I have that number wrong.

I am not sure if 500,00/year is a good number in terms of match to our economy or in terms of social pressure due to demograhics. I can say for sure we need to be more selective (better filter) and that means getting control of illgal flood, enforcing work laws, and tracking path of immigrant once here.

500,00/year = 500,000/year

David,

To follow up just a bit. If we did get control of the immigration process and wanted to maintain current immigrant levels (combination of legal/illegal), I would almost certainly slash the number from Mexico. Hispanics are socialist at heart and can't be trusted polically and are to close to their home country to be properly assimilated. Also, this would force reform in Mexico.

I would start with Poland and other eastern european slavs. Hard workers and they can be trusted to vote conservative.

The coming labor shortage isn't a pro-immigration scare tactic, it's the entirely predictable result of a growing economy combined with an uneven population age distribution.

While there are some technological fixes that will be helpful, if expensive, the bottom line is that America could put twenty million new immigrants to productive work over the next twenty years.

The economic argument for increased immigration is quite strong.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at March 31, 2006 2:17 AM

Perry:

We all agree that in an nideal world we'd have greater control of the process. We just think it should be a process for processing and admitting most people who want to come and believe in our ideals.

Perry:

The need is why the spigot is open. Unfortunately, not wide enough to solve our employment crisis.

"This is woefully inadequate. Also, given that immigration opponents put the costs of illegal immigrants at $10 billion per year -- or, in other words, nothing -- it's hard to imagine what all the fuss is about if it isn't about national security."

I think the estimate put forth is $10 billion to $100 billion per year.

There is a solid difference between legal immigrants who pay into the system, and illegals who don't.

The coming labour shortage is unlikely to be remedied by illegals given that the retiring population generally have at least HS education unlike those from south of the border.

What's more the benefits of illegal immigration aren't evenly distributed. The whole country benefits from cheap California farm produce but it's border towns who face having their small budgets swallowed up by caring for illegals.

Blaming the Mexican governemt and saying it's all their fault is a little disingenuous. The illegals are here because America's the richest country on Earth, Mexico is not and successive American governments have turned a blind eye to illegal immigration in order to court Latino voters and placate business owners who want cheap labour.

And it's the sovereign responsibility of the Bush Administration to secure American borders, not Mexico's.

Ali: "Here"?

Perry: Eastern Europeans are good, too, but we'll have to compete with the EU, in which they have full travel privileges.

One of the funniest thing is that many of the illegals do pay their taxes. They're so integrated into the economy and there's so little danger of employers getting into trouble that larger employers just with hold their taxes.

Gaah. Meant "there".

"One of the funniest thing is that many of the illegals do pay their taxes. They're so integrated into the economy and there's so little danger of employers getting into trouble that larger employers just with hold their taxes."

How does that work? Here in the UK you withhold taxes from employees with National Insurance (Social Security) numbers. Do illegals get hold of fake SS numbers?

And what percentage of the illegal worker population does this? Is it 10%, 50%, 90%?

Ali:

I don't know how they do it, but I've worked three different jobs with numerous illegals and all had taxes with held.

From an anti-immigration site:

"[T]he average illegal household pays more than $4,200 a year in federal taxes, for a total of nearly $16 billion."

http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalrelease.html

From the same link:

[b]Although they create a net drain on the federal government[/b], the average illegal household pays more than $4,200 a year in federal taxes, for a total of nearly $16 billion.
#

However, they impose annual costs of more than $26.3 billion, or about $6,950 per illegal household.

If illegal aliens were legalized and began to pay taxes and use services like legal immigrants with the same education levels, the estimated annual fiscal deficit at the federal level would increase from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for a total federal deficit of $29 billion.

Ali:

Yes, it's an anti-immigration site that acknowledges that illegals pay their taxes.

Ali: CIS was my source for the $10 billion cost, which is the $26 billion expended net of the $16 billion taxes paid.

OJ,

You sure got certain people to show their cards on this one, didn't you?

Ali,

As far as those small border towns that are getting their budgets swallowed up by caring for illegals, have you ever considered that these same small towns and their school districts get federal funding for quite a few line items in their budgets, making this issue close to a wash? San Diego may have certain screwy budget issues, but they most certainly did not come from the illegal burden.

Ali,

If that CIS analysis is to be properly interpreted, it can only mean illegals are currently less of a drain on the treasuries of all levels of government than the currently naturalized. If we are already educating illegals' children, how can that be possible?

Brad:

Doesn't look like border counties are being reimbursed for their law enforcement costs according to how SCAAP is currently structured.

As for San Diego, wasn't there a fence built that choked off the number of illegals entering?

As for the drain on the Treasury, I assume naturalisation of poorer illegals will enable them to claim more state benefits than they currently do so.

The coming labor shortage will be concentrated in the services sector, where a high school diploma is largely irrelevant.

On-the-job training or vocational schooling will suffice.

There are two ways that illegals provide documentation for tax-witholding purposes: They get fake IDs, with made-up Social Security numbers, and just move on if the Social Security Administration gets around to asking the employer to verify the ID; or, they borrow or sometimes "rent" someone's real SS number. Then they don't have to worry about document checks, and the account holder gets credited with higher earnings.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at March 31, 2006 9:43 AM

Michael:

Isn't that skilled as opposed to unskilled service jobs?

There are more unskilled or semi-skilled service positions than skilled.

Also, the stereotype that only uneducated and unskilled Mexicans come to the U.S. is false.

While it won't be a perfect fit, there are and will be plenty of jobs that Mexican immigrants can do well at.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at March 31, 2006 1:34 PM

There are more unskilled and semi-skilled service positions than skilled.

The biggest areas of growth going forward will be what is essentially domestic help, and the restaurant industry. Not much skill needed there.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at March 31, 2006 1:38 PM

"trailer trash"

As distinct from people who make trash accusations based on total ignorance to make stupid points, stupidly angering and alienating people who know their motivations?

Lawyer cr*p talk.

Would you guys define your terms please.

Few of you have done domestic work or you wouldn't think it's unskilled, likewise working in a restaurant. Working in a nursing home or a hospital, taking care of elderly dementia patients, doing clean up detail, cooking, waiting on tables, busboys, etc. may not require a formal education or training, but doing them well requires a great deal of skill. Likewise landscape workers, snow plowers, painters, etc.

The best and most capable of these workers learn the ropes quickly and then go on to hire others, teach them the techniques that get the job done most efficiently and presto another capitalist is born.

Actually, erp, I have done many of those jobs, and while you're right that they need some skill, or at least some focus and attention, they can also be done well by someone after just a few days' training, including taking care of elderly dementia patients.
The last I know because I have a relative who does just that.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at April 1, 2006 5:10 PM

All of us do such work when we're young because it's unskilled.