Anti-Immigrant Hate Mail in my Box

Thanks to lou dobbs, my mail box has been bombarded with anti-immigration hate mail for the past 6 months. I can hardly believe some of the claims made by these usually religious / patriotic sounding authors.

I cannot even have electric service to my house without providing my social security number. How can it be possible that these normally very decent people are taking advantage of all these services?

A person cannot even collect unemployment if they are a farm laborer, and they could not do this without a social security number either.

I think the bulk of the "immigration issue" is nothing more than a political scam.

When in trouble, the government always seems to point to a different group upon which to vent frustration and hate. Homosexuals, Irish, Chineese, Women, and Blacks have all taken their turns, and now ...... it is the Hispanics !!

and it fucking sickens me to death. Especially when people who claim to be "Liberals" and "Progressives" fall for it. Unlike conservative who use fear for political gain, the left knows better!!!!!

Only those with something to gain by disagreeing disagree. The majority of both Repulicans and Democrats have much more to lose than gain by ignoring this issue. Not everything falls into convenient little left/right pigeon holes.

I gety it!!!

Scapegoating is something we should all engage in. It's good clean American fun!!!

We already go through with them Welfare Queens and Drug users. Let's now get them immigrants.

Oh wait!!!!

Maybe when they are done with them, you'll be next.

"We already go through with them Welfare Queens and Drug users.
How do we use welfare queens and drug users as scapegoats?

"Maybe when they are done with them, you'll be next.'
Oooh, I'm all terrified now.

It's obvious by your response.

Please explain what problems immigrants have created. I could attribute all your claims as synomous with those levied against welfare recipients, drug abusers and yes, minorities as well.

Let's see how good you are at identifying the sources of all these problem.

Many attacks seem to allege abuses of the social security system, the unemployment system, they suggest that the average mexican is entitled to health care benifits that white americans are somehow left out of, and so on.

How can the social security system be abused if you dont have an account? How can the tax system be abused by the immigrant if the employer refuses to pay the tax?

Sounds like bull shit to me.

Maybe you can point me in the right direction

"Many attacks seem to allege abuses of the social security system, the unemployment system, they suggest that the average mexican is entitled to health care benifits that white americans are somehow left out of, and so on."

Having worked as an RN in a border state for a few years, I can tell you that the Hispanics do disproportionately impact the healthcare system. I haven't actually met anyone who was willing to argue otherwise in quite some time. If you really feel a need to waste your time and mine with this pointless argument, than I guess we'll have to hash it out once more. I will say that it was very subtle but never-the-less, inaccurate to somehow paint this issue as a white versus brown issue. This is an American versus Mexican issue. What's more, there is no doubt that Mexicans are abusing the Social Security system as there is an abundance of evidence which supports the position that they are fraudulently using other people's SSNs. The unemployment system argument is not an argument that most people make these days. If I were to make an unemployment argument, I would argue that the increased competition created by the influx of millions of aliens into the labor force in conjunction with the outsourcing effects of free trade agreements such as NAFTA are responsible for increasing the number of indigenous Americans on the unemployment rolls (and indigenous doesn't mean white).
Back to the healthcare issue.
We live in a society that dictates that no person may be refused healthcare services in an emergency situation. As such, underinsured and uninsured persons who, in many areas, are disproportionately hispanic, utilize the emergency room physician as their primary care provider. This is problematic for many reasons. 1.) waiting until it's an emergency guarantees that the problem will be more expensive to treat. 2.) the Hispanic population is disproportionately affected by the diabetes which, in and of itself, is responsible for many many chronic complications that are, inevitably, more costly than a simple fracture or a case of pneumonia or pancreatitis. What's more, these diabetic complications (diabetic retinopathy, diabetic neuropathy, diabetic nephropathy, peripheral vascular disease, chronic diabetic ulcers, hypertension, hyperlipedemia, etc) guarantee many return visits to the ER which guarantees a disproportionate affect on the healthcare system asa whole. 3.) health care resources are not limitless. Every resource used for one person is a resource that is unavailable to another person. That means the overall level of care decreases for everyone, especially in areas of high alien density. This can only be offset by increasing the available resources which inevitably means increasing tax revenues which inevitably means making the middle class carry an even heavier tax burden than they already carry just so their employers can have a larger pool of prospective employers in order to decrease the bargaining power of the middle class. Incidentally, go rack up a hospital bill in Mexico and try to leave the coutry without paying your bill. See what happens.

"How can the social security system be abused if you dont have an account? How can the tax system be abused by the immigrant if the employer refuses to pay the tax?"

If you don't have an account, you aren't paying into it. because the SS fund is just the general fund, this means you are living and working tax free in America. More importantly, the employers who employ aliens under the table are avoiding paying the matching funds. Please don't think that I'm giving the employers of illegal aliens a free pass. If I had my way, their citizenship would be revoked and they too would be deported to Mexico.

To a human being?

That is repulsive.

When you're ready to debate the actual substance of my arguments, you know where to find me.

So it sure isn't a leap (or a strawman) to assume you don't think they should get medical care.

I don't think they should be here in the first place. as long as we have to care for them,however, I think we should be sending the unpaid medical bills to Mexico with the understanding that it will be paid or Mexico will be ceding some property as compensation.

"So it sure isn't a leap (or a strawman) to assume you don't think they should get medical care."
It is a strawman as it completely avoids every pertinent point made in my argument. Like I said, when you're ready to debate my points, let me know.

I am a nurse myself.

That is counterproductive to everything we are trying to achieve as a profession. The people who were forerunners in this profession politically would vomit at such a suggestion.

Unfortunatly there are some in this profession that have their heads screwed on backwards and are in it for the wrong reason. Everyone is entitled to healthcare.

"That is counterproductive to everything we are trying to achieve as a profession. The people who were forerunners in this profession politically would vomit at such a suggestion.'
None of this has one god-damned thing to do with the issue. You're drawing things into this argument that are completely irrelevant and I'm not gonna go for it. Go judge a dog show if you're so eager to judge someone but don't judge me.

"Unfortunatly there are some in this profession that have their heads screwed on backwards and are in it for the wrong reason. Everyone is entitled to healthcare."
Except when hospitals go out of buisness because of the overwhelming numbers of uninsured illegal aliens they are forced to contend with, nobody gets healthcare and we all lose. Universal healthcare would be great except it is inevitably going to be a tax payer funded thing and, as such, it would be an unsustaiable burden to lay upon an already dwindling working class. Why is it unsustianable? Because our tax base is dwindling and those who require tax payer funded benefits are increasing. I'm talking about all the millions and millions of baby boomers who are retiring and drawing on Social Security and Medicare. Their jobs have been outsourced now and, as such, their tax burden is shifted onto the shrinking middle class that yet struggles to exist in this country. That means Americans either pay more, get less, or borrow more. Which do you prefer? What purpose does it serve to now introduce into this, already lopsided equation, tens of millions of uninsured illegal aliens? Who, besides the multinational corporations operating in America and their international shareholders, is this good for? Where is the benefit to America, I ask you? Explain to me how this relentless fucking wave of illegal immigration is good for America and I will STFU. Good luck.

in border areas, the overall impact is minimal when taken into the context of the whole US economy. By virtue of where you live and work, this seems to be a problem but in reality it isn't. Border hospitals need to accept this fact and do things to reduce the negative effects. These are simply human beings trying to get services. Sure they are some that will abuse the system, but that is in all programs.

http://www.aila.org/Content/default.aspx?docid=19199

Even "white Americans" have been known to abuse these very same programs. That does not make the press unless they belong to that evil group known as "single mothers"

With this in mind, maybe it would make more sense to secure the programs instead of scapgoating an entire culture.

Thank you for the link

with any program, then the administrators can do what is within their means to change necessary policy to keep it from becoming a greater problem.

While your arguments are good and well reasoned, they seem to place ALL of the problems on the immigrant. Natural born citizens are abusing the same programs and services. Admit it.

I suppose your experience as a nurse afforded you access to all the data on which ethnic groups dont pay hospital bills. Or, are you simply convinced that this problem is all the Mexicans fault due to some "feeling" you have.

I would think that there would be more "natural born americans" who do not pay their medical bills simply because there are more of them than illegal immigrants.

Regardless of national origin, if non-payment of hospital bills is a real problem, then a change in policy would help balance the cause.

Your logic is flawed
Illegal Aliens = Cause of all social problems including non payment of hospital bills?

A does not necessarily = B Especialy when C,D,and E are all doing the same thing.

Is it a problem then?
Furthermore, it isn't just border states that feel the impact of this problem as tax dollars from all over the country are used to fund medicaid and other federal social services. What affects one affects us all in this union.
also, as far as your theory that the presence of illegal immigrants is a positive for the economy, I would just remind you that slavery was also great for the economy.

have a little perspective. It might affect you in your area more than others but in the whole scheme of things it is really not much of a problem in US unlike what reich-wing xenophobes would have you believe.

Thank you for taking the time to state your position so clearly. The only flaw I can see is that you seem to be arguing from the premise that only illegal aliens contribute to this problem.

I am beginning to believe that white people dont ever require medical attention, that all "americans" always pay their bills, and that no social problems are ever caused by anyone with the good sense to be born within our borders.

A larger view of this problem would distinguish your position from the typical "envy with a halo" look-what-they-get-that-we-don't argument.

And you, as a nurse, know their citizenship HOW?

"The Hispanics?" Says all I need to know...

"The Hispanics?" Says all I need to know..."
here we go with the sweeping generalizations again. I have said many times that if it were the Germans, the French, or the Irish or any other white European abusing our kindness, I and the others who think like me would be just as pissed off. It just so happens that our southern neighbors are Hispanics and that they are the ones walking all over us. That, unfortunately, makes race "an" issue; however, the issue of race is not "the" issue. The issue is economics and nobody has yet provided a shred of evidence that can support the position that this wave of illegal immigration results in a net positive economic effect for the average American.

"And you, as a nurse, know their citizenship HOW?"
When they don't speak a word of English, but are perfectly fluent in Spanish it's pretty safe to assume that they weren't born here, probably aren't citizens, and will be requiring federal and state tax dollars for their stay. if those dollars aren't available, the cost will be absorbed by the hospital who will either lower its standard of care for everyone else or go out of business. This bridge has already been crossed. The data is out there to support the position that illegal immigrants do disproportionately exert a negative impact on the health care system in areas where they exist in disproportionate numbers.

I noticed that you conveniently left out the part where U.S. corporate policies are responsible for displacing many Mexicans from their jobs and farm lands in Mexico forcing them to either try for a low paying factory job in the cities which are way too few, or to migrate to the U.S. and pick food for those who contributed to their plight.

You also conveniently left out the part where all those "fraudulently using other people's SSNs" are using them to get jobs with, and those jobs take out taxes. You also failed to mention that many Mexicans using someone else's SSN number to get a job don't file for tax returns meaning those people pay a much higher rate of taxes.

You also conveniently left out the part of how much money migrant Mexican workers save you and everyone else by their exploited "under the table tax free" labor here in the U.S.

My father, grandmother, aunts and uncles broke their backs working on their hands and knees out in the blazing sun for worse than slave wages picking your food and they were citizens! -- but they were Mexican American citizens and no other employers would hire them.

You also conveniently left out the part where citizens of Mexico have fought and died in many wars for the U.S. in the U.S. military and Iraq is no exception. Incidentally, when is the last time you knew of American citizens losing their lives for Mexico?

You have NO CLUE about what you're talking about and my above post only slightly touches upon the litany of exploitations of Mexicans and the degree upon which Mexicans benefit us. You only know the parts of the story that suites your hatred. And yes its hatred, and if you can't see that then double shame on you.

Immigrants are not stealing our social security numbers, they are not bringing diseases across the border and they are not robbing our health care system. This isn't about disagreeing; it's about correcting the lies.

You really need to get your news from someone other than Lou Dobbs :eyes:

He hosted the head of the "minuteman project" on his show and called him a "great American and a patriot". Funny that Dobbs never disclosed that This guy (Glichrist) ran for senate on a white nationalist ticket.

yet they carry guns and they shoot holes in plastic water jugs that human rights workers leave in the desert for those crossing the border.

They are racist, murdering scum, IMO.

beating on the border corssers. Public Eye has an expose on them. One of their organizers has been apprehended four time for the same.

Of the original minutemen in front of a swastika flag and sieg heiling the camera.

"yet they carry guns"
So do the coyotes, the drug runners, and other smugglers. The border is a dangerous place. The Border Patrol agents carry guns too for that matter. Does that make them "racist, murdering scum" too.

"and they shoot holes in plastic water jugs that human rights workers leave in the desert for those crossing the border."
I hadn't heard of that but I'm certainly not outraged if it's true. I think I'll send them some ammo in fact. LOL.

"They are racist, murdering scum, IMO."
Such hyperbole. Tell me, who have they murdered and how are they racist? I guarantee you, if our neighbors were German or French and were walking all over us like this, we who are botehred by this would be just as outraged. This is in no way a racial issue to anybody except maybe for those who hate white people.

The only race that concerns me is the HUMAN race. It is inhumane to cheer on death. The minutemen are cruel and inhuman for shooting holes in water jugs. If you can't see this as a despicably cruel act then I don't know what to say.

The minutemen claim to be nonviolent, yet they carry guns and several have been arrested for violent acts, as other posters have said in this thread. That makes them hypocrites. The border patrol don't claim to be nonviolent. Neither do the coyotes or drug smugglers.

"The only race that concerns me is the HUMAN race."
Universal moralism only works when everybody else plays along; otherwise, somebody gets taken advantage of as in the case of immigration.

"The minutemen are cruel and inhuman for shooting holes in water jugs. If you can't see this as a despicably cruel act then I don't know what to say."
It would only be cruel if they were forcing illegal aliens into the desert and then shooting holes in the water jugs. They aren't forcing anyone to walk into the desert.

"The minutemen claim to be nonviolent, yet they carry guns and several have been arrested for violent acts, as other posters have said in this thread. That makes them hypocrites."
If you want a perfect person, go look for Christ. The minute men are human and I'm perfectly willing to forgive what you perceive to be hypcricy in this instance. Furthermore, you missed my point. there are plenty of dangerous people trying to enter our country who wouldn't think twice about killing a minuteman in cold blood. This is America and they have a right to arm themselves against such dangers. They have a right to arm themselves period.

"The border patrol don't claim to be nonviolent."
Does the border patrol claim to be violent? No. They carry their weapons for the same reasons the minutemen carry weapons, because the border is a dangerous place and there are people crossing it who will kill you if you are defenseless and interfering in their business.

They can also CHOOSE to stay home. If they don't want to be in a dangerous situation with dangerous people, they can go home. But they go to the border and claim to be nonviolent. I call Bullshit on that claim. Sure they have a right to arm themselves but they absolutely do NOT have to put themselves in a dangerous situation at the border. No one is forcing them to be there.

All law enforcement personnel carry weapons. That is part of their J O B. The minutemen, however, are not on the J O B.

Taking life saving water away from a human being is cruel. If you are a nurse, then surely you realize how quickly a person dies in the desert without water. If you really are a nurse, I can't believe you would really condone taking water from a human being.

If you are really a nurse, I pray that I am never under your care.

I can't believe you would suggest that illegal aliens, Mexican drug runners, and coyotes have more of a right to be there than US citizens. I can't believe you're even an American. That's like suggesting that a neighborhood watch group doesn't have the right to go outside and protect their neighborhood from criminals but the criminals have a right to break into the houses in the neighborhood. What utter nonsense.

"All law enforcement personnel carry weapons. That is part of their J O B. The minutemen, however, are not on the J O B."

They're VOLUNTEERS just like neighborhood watch groups that police their own neighborhoods when it becomes clear that law enforcement is incapable of enforcing laws. There's no difference. the minute men have a right to be there and they have a right to carry firearms to defend themselves. The same does not hold true for the illiegal aliens, the drug runners, or the coyotes.


"If you really are a nurse, I can't believe you would really condone taking water from a human being."
Oh, because I'm a nurse, I'm not allowed to be anti-illegal immigration now. When did I relinquish my civil rights? Prior to becoming a nurse, I spent 8 years in the US Army infantry. Believe me, 'm quite capable of condoning more than shooting water jugs.

"If you are really a nurse, I pray that I am never under your care."
I assure you, the feeling is very much mutual.

"illegal aliens, Mexican drug runners, and coyotes have more of a right to be there than US citizens"

Talk about a strawman!

Check your history, Nurse. This country was started by immigrants. Immigrants who invaded Native American lands, killed them and enslaved the ones who didn't die. 150 years ago, this country stole Texas and much of the southwest from Mexico (in yet another illegal war). And we have spent the time since then demonizing the Mexicans for daring to cross the border that OUR aggression imposed upon THEM.

NAFTA has destroyed the economy in Central America. Did you know that Mexicans can no longer make money from corn? They showed us how to grow it and we stole that too.

What we have done to Mexico is no different than what we are doing to Iraq. It has just taken longer.

So US aggression, both political and economic, has destroyed the way of life for the Mexicans and other Central American countries yet we dare to tell them to stay away? How evil is it to turn away people who are starving? How much compassion does a person need to lack to say it is okay for human beings to die of thirst in the desert? And to hasten that death by shooting holes in the water jugs (and then enjoying watching the results) is just beyond inhumane.

You want to solve this immigration problem? Contact your congress critters and demand that corporations be penalized for hiring undocumented workers. Insist that the practice of taking buses across the border to import undocumented workers be stopped immediately. Make companies pay a living wage to ALL workers. When Tyson or Iowa Beef has to pay the same wage to an American citizen as they pay to an undocumented worker and when they know they will be fined and maybe even forced out of business for hiring undocumented workers, then those jobs will go to American citizens. The corporations that hire these people are the bad guys here, not the workers.

The progressive answer is not in being cruel or in cheering on the deaths in the desert of human beings.

"They can also CHOOSE to stay home."
You are suggesting that they stay home while the aforementioned illegal aliens, Mexican drug runners, and coyotes continue to move through their communities with impunity. That does, in fact, translate as the illegal aliens, Mexican drug runners, and coyotes have a greater right to be there than the minutemen.

"The progressive answer is not in being cruel or in cheering on the deaths in the desert of human beings."
The progressive answer is to allow the situation to continue as is because it leads to more "progressive" voters showing up at the voting booths. No thanks. The answer is mass deportation coupled with harsh penalties for those who have exploited their presence and who would continue to do so in the future. The answer is also punitive tariffs by all civilized countries on all goods produced in countries that exploit slave labor and child labor. That means, among others, China and Mexico.

"The corporations that hire these people are the bad guys here, not the workers."

The corporations are the bad guys here but that shouldn't preclude taking actions to deny the bad guys the tools by which they exist. That's like saying that terrorists are the bad guys in Iraq, not IEDs; therefore, we should go after terrorists but we need not concern ourselves with IEDs or, if you prefer, cocaine cartels are the problem, not cocaine; therefore, we should focus our energy on cocaine cartels but we should ignore the gentleman standing on our street with a big bag of coke in his pocket.

I never said any group was more important or had more rights to be there.

You are just being stubborn and hateful in spite of the numerous other posters here who have proven you are wrong.

You also lost me big time when you laughed at the idea of taking water from human beings. That is just too disgusting for any more conversation with you.

"I never said any group was more important or had more rights to be there."
Not explicitly but it was implied several times.

"You are just being stubborn and hateful in spite of the numerous other posters here who have proven you are wrong."
"Proven" me wrong? Hardly. And if I'm hateful, it's because I'm surrounded by people like you who think illegal immigrants have more of a right to be here than I do because of events that occurred centuries ago.

"You also lost me big time when you laughed at the idea of taking water from human beings."
You lost me and this argument as soon you suggested that the minute men were "racist murdering scum".

"That is just too disgusting for any more conversation with you."
I think I already made it clear that the feeling is 100% mutual. You know where the button is lib.

oh you're mindreader now, too.

The Minutemen are racists. The Southern Poverty Law Center says so. But you always know more than all the experts about everything, don't you?

"The Minutemen are racists. The Southern Poverty Law Center says so"
The SPLC says everybody is a racist. That's how they stay in business. To me, it seems pretty bigoted for them or for you to paint every minute man or every person who agrees with their position with that sweeping generalization. That's just as wrong as saying, for example, "all single black women are welfare queens living off of the federal teat." There's no difference.

"But you always know more than all the experts about everything, don't you?"
Even the "experts" rarely agree.

Who knew??? Thanks for setting us straight on their free enterprise exploitation of racism and bigotry.

You're right, it takes no ESP to interpret the meaning of your words.

It is highly hypocritical for them or for you to label the minutemen and their supporters as being bigots when it is, in fact, bigoted, to make sweeping generalizations in the first place. Their motives and yours are, thus, suspect.

and you just have no idea, apparently. Are you really trying to smear SPLC, and me by association, somehow?

On edit: Shouldn't you be reading that letter and all the references? You did demand that I post it, did you not?

As for your letter:


Dear President George W. Bush and All Members of Congress:

"People from around the world are drawn to America for its promise of freedom and opportunity. That promise has been fulfilled for the tens of millions of immigrants who came here in the twentieth century."

As I said, I have been talking about illegal immigrants for the entirety of this thread, not the legal immigrants that this letter refers to.

"Throughout our history as an immigrant nation, those who were already here have worried about the impact of newcomers. Yet, over time, immigrants have become part of a richer America, richer both economically and culturally. The current debate over immigration is a healthy part of a democratic society, but as economists and other social scientists we are concerned that some of the fundamental economics of immigration are too often obscured by misguided commentary. Overall, immigration has been a net gain for American citizens, though a modest one in proportion to the size of our 13 trillion-dollar economy."

There is no cited documentation to verify this economic gain qualitatively or quantitatively so I can not address it other than to say I’m not going to take their word for it and, once more, I’m talking about illegal immigrants, not legal immigrants. Furthermore, cultural enrichment doesn't put meat on the table so it is a non-issue as far as I'm concerend. What’s more, plenty of “experts” were convinced that NAFTA would be good for America too yet there has been this giant sucking sound in this country since its inception just as Ross Perot predicted. It enriched a few at the expense of the many just as this illegal immigration business does.

"Immigrants do not take American jobs. The American economy can create as many jobs as there are workers willing to work so long as labor markets remain free, flexible and open to all workers on an equal basis."

Ridiculous, immigrants do take American jobs. What, do you think they come here for, to stand around on the street corners and watch other people work? No. American jobs are the primary reason anyone immigrates to America in the first place. This statement is so absolutely, irrefutably, undeniably wrong that it exposes the entire letter as the utter tripe that it is.

"In recent decades, immigration of low-skilled workers may have lowered the wages of domestic low-skilled workers, but the effect is likely to have been small, with estimates of wage reductions for high-school dropouts ranging from eight percent to as little as zero percent."

There you go. They have plainly admitted that wages have decreased for Americans as a result of the immigration of low skilled workers. Enough said.

"While a small percentage of native-born Americans may be harmed by immigration, vastly more Americans benefit from the contributions that immigrants make to our economy, including lower consumer prices. As with trade in goods and services, the gains from immigration outweigh the losses. The effect of all immigration on low-skilled workers is very likely positive as many immigrants bring skills, capital and entrepreneurship to the American economy."

Lower consumer prices? I don’t think so. If you don’t believe it, just go to the U.S. Department Of Labor web page, look at the consumer price index, and do the math for yourself. In the 60 years between 1913 and 1973, the CPI increased, on average, $2.65 per year. The large influx of illegal immigration began between 1973 and today and during that period of time, the CPI has increased, on average, by $20.4 per year. During only 33 years of peak immigration, the cost of consumer goods increased annually at a rate approximately 10 times the rate prior to the immigration influx. Things have become more expensive, not cheaper during this period of increased immigration. The numbers speak for themselves. ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt

"Legitimate concerns about the impact of immigration on the poorest Americans should not be addressed by penalizing even poorer immigrants. Instead, we should promote policies, such as improving our education system, that enable Americans to be more productive with high-wage skills."

Right, we need to raise taxes to improve education for illegal immigrants so they can compete for the high wage jobs too. What a brilliant idea.

"We must not forget that the gains to immigrants coming to the United States are immense. Immigration is the greatest anti-poverty program ever devised. The American dream is a reality for many immigrants who not only increase their own living standards but who also send billions of dollars of their money back to their families in their home countries—a form of truly effective foreign aid."

Hooray for them but how is sending US dollars to family members in Mexico bettering America? Even I know that that is called capital flight and is a bad thing for everybody involved.

"America is a generous and open country and these qualities make America a beacon to the world. We should not let exaggerated fears dim that beacon."


America is hated and spit upon by the majority of the world or have you missed that? The world burns our flag, protests our involvement in the affairs of the world, and utters our very name with contempt and they were doing it long before George Bush came around. Regardless, stopping illegal immigration really shouldn’t have any dimming effect on this "beacon" that is apparently somehow important to our economic interests.

1. They are specifically NOT distinguishing between "legal" and "illegal." So that part of your response is a ridiculous strawman.

2. Your tying of the CPI to immigration is a neat trick, but not actually supported by your link. It's just something you are making up out of whole cloth. It's not remotely true or factual. Not at all surprising.

3. Yes of course, I knew you would seize on this sentence, without, of course, understanding it:

"In recent decades, immigration of low-skilled workers may have lowered the wages of domestic low-skilled workers, but the effect is likely to have been small, with estimates of wage reductions for high-school dropouts ranging from eight percent to as little as zero percent."

First, "the effect is likely to be small." Second, do you think "high school dropouts" have good employment prospects under any circumstances? Third, of course, is the crucial "ranging from eight percent to as little as zero percent." Zero percent. As in NO IMPACT.

4. Honestly, nobody gives a rat's ass if you don't accept their conclusions -- it's laughable. 500+ economists v. your BS opinions which are unsupported by anything except racist drivel and white supremacist hate sites -- who do you honestly think has more credibility in this debate? But the documentation was attached to the letter -- the extensive list of "References" at the bottom. That is how scholars document their sources. I am sorry you have difficulty reading and understanding scholarly publications as opposed to rightwing hate sites.

5. The rest of your post is some tiresome incoherent strawman of a rant about how the rest of the world hates the U.S., and has absolutely no bearing on the discussion. But it's very revealing, like so much of what you post.

Oh, and BTW, and for your future reference, vdare.com is a racist hate site. You know, it was one of your fantastic "links" that you deployed in a really embarrassing attempt to demonstrate your vast knowledge of this topc. Here's what Media Matters has to say about vdare.com:

"But as Media Matters for America noted, VDARE.com is more than an "immigration-focused Web magazine." Named for Virginia Dare, the first child of English descent born in the New World in the 16th century, the site publishes the work of "white nationalists," according to a statement by Peter Brimelow, who operates VDARE.com through his nonprofit organization, the Center for American Unity. In 2003, the Southern Poverty Law Center added VDARE.com to its list of hate websites. VDARE's FAQ page contains three links -- one that leads to an explanation of its name and two that offer instructions on how to report an illegal alien. A search for the word "white" on VDARE returns articles with headlines such as "Do White Men Need Their Own Political Party?," "Harvard Hates The White Race?," "White Americans: Second-Class Citizens," and "No Democracy For Whites In The New America."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200605020003

Do you want to smear Media Matters, now, too?

I'm sure you don't want to post white supremacist garbage here at DU. Hope this helps.

1. "They are specifically NOT distinguishing between "legal" and "illegal." So that part of your response is a ridiculous strawman."
Wrong. They include references that suggest they are specifically discussing legal immigrants several times throughout the text of the letter and; furthermore, by not specifically differentiating between legal and illegal immigrants, legal immigrants are assumed. As I have repeatedly said, my only issue is with people who break our laws to come here.

2. "Your tying of the CPI to immigration is a neat trick, but not actually supported by your link. It's just something you are making up out of whole cloth. It's not remotely true or factual. Not at all surprising."

Wrong again. The numbers are right there and they're 100% factual and; what's more, they undeniably dispel the notion that consumer goods have decreased in price as a result of immigration, legal or otherwise. The percentage of the US foreign born population began to increase dramatically around 1973 which is, coincidentally, almost exactly the same time the CPI began to increase drastically. Prior to this increase beginning around 1973, the CPI rose at a rate of about $2.65/year. Since 1973, the CPI has risen at a rate of about $20.40/year. That's a 10 fold increase in the inflation of consumer goods in America which positively correlates with a similarly dramatic increase in the population of foreign born residents in America along the same time line; hence, you can not make the argument that the cost of consumer goods has been decreased during the most recent period of increased immigration which makes it very difficult to support the notion that immigration has made things cheaper for Americans.

3. "Yes of course, I knew you would seize on this sentence, without, of course, understanding it... First,"the effect is likely to be small." Second, do you think "high school dropouts" have good employment prospects under any circumstances? Third, of course, is the crucial "ranging from eight percent to as little as zero percent." Zero percent. As in NO IMPACT"

A.)(First, "The effect is likely to be small")
It is still a negative effect and; therefore, supports the position that immigrants have, contrary to the argument being postulated, lowered wages for a sub-set of the indigenous American population (a sub-set whom you seem all too prepared to cast away for reasons that can only be known to you).

B.) (Second, do you think "high school dropouts" have good employment prospects under any circumstances?)
I am not as prepared to screw over America's indigenous working poor as you are; what's more, the reason their wages have been decreased is because the preponderance of the immigrants coming into America are competing directly against them for the low-no skilled positions. These low-no skilled immigrants, however, will produce children who will utilize federal and state financial aid programs to attend universities and will obtain the skills necessary to compete in the skilled labor and professional work force. At that time, skilled laborers and professionals will enjoy the same wage stagnation in the presence of massive inflation that has plagued the low skilled workers.

C.)( Third, of course, is the crucial "ranging from eight percent to as little as zero percent." Zero percent. As in NO IMPACT)
Most rational people would come to the conclusion that the truth lies somewhere in the median realm, not at either extreme. Only an extremist or a fool would believe either extreme was the truthful figure in this debate.


4. "Honestly, nobody gives a rat's ass if you don't accept their conclusions-- it's laughable. "
Actually, the support for your position is very much disproportionately represented here at DU. Your conclusions would garner much less support in the real world than they enjoy around here. Overall, the vast majority of Americans would basically agree with me and laugh at you. Here's a list of immigration related polls if you doubt it:
http://www.pollingreport.com/immigration.htm
http://www.npg.org/immpoll.html
http://www.cis.org/articles/2006/2006poll.html

"the extensive list of "References" at the bottom. That is how scholars document their sources."

Scholars cite Op Eds from the L.A. Times, The San Fransisco Times, the San Diego Tribune, the Washington Post, and the Atlanta Journal as a reference to support a position in support of immigration? I had no idea. What's more, your "extensive list of References" is not, as you have claimed, a list of source citation references as would be included in any professional journal using MLA or, more apprpriately, APA documentation format, it is a list of "useful references" that have nothing to do with authenticating the sources of the data contained within the letter in question. In all likelihood, it was added by the publisher of the web-page and was not included with the actual letter as the letter itself is not a formal scholarly article in a professional journal but, rather, is an informal letter sent to elected officials. I guess that obvious fact has escaped your intellectual scrutiny like so many others. It's quite humorous to me that you persist in portraying yourself as some kind of an intellectual superior when you don't even recognize a simple thing like this. :dunce:

You are just determined to expose your own ignorant folly. So be it:

"Wrong again. The numbers are right there and they're 100% factual and; what's more, they undeniably dispel the notion that consumer goods have decreased in price as a result of immigration, legal or otherwise. The percentage of the US foreign born population began to increase dramatically around 1973 which is, coincidentally, almost exactly the same time the CPI began to increase drastically."

Again, this is just some bizarre correlation YOU ARE MAKING UP OUT OF WHOLE CLOTH. It does not constitute evidence of any kind. It's like saying the number of cats and dogs in the USA began to increase in 1973 -- "the numbers are right there!" -- so, "coincidentally," the CPI also increased. It's asinine and without any foundation in science, logic or reason. You have absolutely no source to support this idiotic notion except your bizarre insistence that it is true. It's utterly laughable.

The References consist of a number of papers by the scholars who are signing the letter, and other sources. Those papers form part of the foundation on which the arguments made in the letter are based. For example:

Borjas, George J., and Lawrence F. Katz. 2006. Evolution of the Mexican-Born Workforce in the United States. NBER Working Paper No. 11281. Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research. (You remember Borjas, yes? You quoted him, even. Now you are saying this 66-page paper is not a scholarly source?.)

Card, David. 2005. Is the New Immigration Really So Bad? NBER Working Paper No. 11547. Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Card, David, and Ethan G. Lewis. 2005. The Diffusion of Mexican Immigrants During the 1990s: Explanations and Impacts. NBER Working Paper No. 11552. Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Couch, Jim F., Brett A. King, William H. Wells, and Peter M. Williams. June 2001. Nation of Origin Bias and the Enforcement of Immigration Laws by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Independent Institute Working Paper. Oakland, Calif.: The Independent Institute.

None of those are op-eds. And, if you were actually a scholar, you would know that an op-ed is a valid source of information if it contains data that can be verified. So that's an incredibly lame and weak argument. Per usual.

So again, we have you, the so-called soldier-turned-RN, and then we have 500+ economists. Hmmmm. Who is a sane and rational person going to believe? You really should stick to whatever it is you claim to know, and leave the scholarship to the grownups.

And we don't make our public policy based on polls -- for example, what do you think most white Americans said, when polled, about school desegregation in 1954? Take a wild guess.

Once again you skipped right over your rightwing hate sources -- why is that, I wonder? Rhetorically speaking, anyway. No wonder you are reduced to making up crazy ass economic theories of your own, because you don't have any credible sources left to cite.

that clearly contradicts the statements endorsed by the authors.


"Again, this is just some bizarre correlation YOU ARE MAKING UP OUT OF WHOLE CLOTH. It does not constitute evidence of any kind. It's like saying the number of cats and dogs in the USA began to increase in 1973 -- "the numbers are right there!" -- so, "coincidentally," the CPI also increased. It's asinine and without any foundation in science, logic or reason. You have absolutely no source to support this idiotic notion except your bizarre insistence that it is true. It's utterly laughable."

There's nothing bizarre about it. You are just too intractable to admit that you are wrong as the implications are plainly obvious. Let me spell it out for you with simple definitions so you might understand. The CPI "is a statistical time-series measure of a weighted average of prices of a specified set of goods and services purchased by consumers. It is a price index that tracks the prices of a specified basket of consumer goods and services, providing a measure of inflation. The CPI is a fixed quantity price index and considered a cost-of-living index." For sixty years, the CPI increased annually at a slow rate indicating that consumer goods were not really becoming more expensive right up until the mid 1970s when it all of a sudden started increasing at a rate 10x faster than it previously had indicating that Americans were, in fact, paying much more for their goods then previously. At about the same time, the number of immigrants in the workforce also began to increase just as dramatically as evidenced by the table I have provided. That brings us to this bullshit letter which makes the claim that: "...Americans benefit from the contributions that immigrants make to our economy, including lower consumer prices." This is clearly not true as we are not paying less for our consumer goods. We are paying more than we have ever paid for consumer goods and the price of consumer goods is increasing more rapidly than ever before right along with the immigrant population.



And here is the link to the CPI: ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt

The correlation is plainly obvious to anybody who takes the time to examine the numbers. You can not claim that the cost of consumer goods is lower because of contributions made by immigrants when the cost of consumer goods has drastically increased at basically the same rate as the immigrant population curve I'm currently plotting the data on an excel spreadsheet to quantify the relationship. I'll be sure to let you know how it turns out. Even without the spreadsheet, it is all too clear that you and they are wrong. I completely understand your inability to accept it however as throughout this entire debate, your only argument has been to hide behind those signatures that have endorsed statements that were plainly in error. Typical of your argumentive style, hiding behind hyperlinks and clinging to the ideas of other people. You really don't know what to do when those ideas are successfully challenged, do you?


"The References consist of a number of papers by the scholars who are signing the letter, and other sources. Those papers form part of the foundation on which the arguments made in the letter are based. For example:

Borjas, George J., and Lawrence F. Katz. 2006. Evolution of the Mexican-Born Workforce in the United States. NBER Working Paper No. 11281. Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research. (You remember Borjas, yes? You quoted him, even. Now you are saying this 66-page paper is not a scholarly source?.)

Card, David. 2005. Is the New Immigration Really So Bad? NBER Working Paper No. 11547. Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Card, David, and Ethan G. Lewis. 2005. The Diffusion of Mexican Immigrants During the 1990s: Explanations and Impacts. NBER Working Paper No. 11552. Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Couch, Jim F., Brett A. King, William H. Wells, and Peter M. Williams. June 2001. Nation of Origin Bias and the Enforcement of Immigration Laws by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Independent Institute Working Paper. Oakland, Calif.: The Independent Institute."

You really are struggling now, aren't you? Not one of the authors of the articles you cited signed the letter as you stated. You are blatantly wrong yet again MsClio. Oooh, That has to burn. Thank you for playing, you are the weakest link. :rofl:

you are taking two sets of data and deciding there is a correlation. That's just not how it works in the real world. Sorry. You can put up all the charts in the world, and maybe use Power Point and a laser pointer or just wave your hands around like a crazy person. Just because that's what you think those numbers mean, doesn't make it so. Let me know when your cutting edge research is published by a peer-reviewed journal, okay? Until then, it's laughable nonsense.

Your last few sentences, as usual, are just wacked. I did not, of course, cut and paste the entire list of references in my post. I took a representative sample -- the first four in the list, to demonstrate that they were not op-eds, as you falsely claimed.

Here is the entire list:

Borjas, George J., and Lawrence F. Katz. 2006. Evolution of the Mexican-Born Workforce in the United States. NBER Working Paper No. 11281. Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Card, David. 2005. Is the New Immigration Really So Bad? NBER Working Paper No. 11547. Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Card, David, and Ethan G. Lewis. 2005. The Diffusion of Mexican Immigrants During the 1990s: Explanations and Impacts. NBER Working Paper No. 11552. Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Couch, Jim F., Brett A. King, William H. Wells, and Peter M. Williams. June 2001. Nation of Origin Bias and the Enforcement of Immigration Laws by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Independent Institute Working Paper. Oakland, Calif.: The Independent Institute.

Cowen, Tyler, and Daniel Rothschild. May 15, 2006. Hey, Don't Bad-mouth Unskilled Immigrants: You Don't Have to Be a Computer Genius to Be Good for the U.S. Los Angeles Times.

__________. June 12, 2006. Blending In, Moving Up. Washington Post.

Friedberg, Rachel M. 2001. The Impact of Mass Migration on the Israeli Labor Market. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 116 (4): 1373-1408.

Friedberg, Rachel M., and Jennifer Hunt. 1995. The Impact of Immigrants on Host Country Wages, Employment and Growth, Journal of Economic Perspectives 9 (4): 23-44.

Gallaway, Lowell E., Stephen Moore, and Richard K. Vedder. 2000. The Immigration Problem: Then and Now. The Independent Review 4 (3): 347-364.

Gandal, Neil, Gordon H. Hanson, and Matthew J. Slaughter. 2000. Technology, Trade, and Adjustment to Immigration in Israel. NBER Working Paper No. 7962. Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Krueger, Alan B. April 6, 2006. Two Labor Economic Issues for the Immigration Debate. Washington, D.C.: Center for American Progress.

Ottaviano, Gianmarco I.P., and Giovanni Peri. 2006. Rethinking the Gains from Immigration: Theory and Evidence from the U.S. NBER Working Paper No. 11672. Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Powell, Benjamin. April 30, 2005. Immigration, Economic Growth, and the Welfare State. Oakland, Calif.: The Independent institute.

__________. May 18, 2005. Immigration Reform that Both Sides Can Support. San Francisco Business Times.

___________. April 4, 2006. How To Reform Immigration Laws. Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

___________. December 22, 2005. The Pseudo Economic Problems of Immigration. San Diego Union-Tribune.

Powell, Benjamin, and Peter Laufer. September 21, 2005. Immigration Wars: Open or Closed Borders for America? Transcript of Independent Policy Forum. Oakland, Calif.: The Independent Institute.

Simon, Julian. 1999. The Economic Consequences of Immigration, 2nd ed. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Press.

_______. 1990. Population Matters: People, Resources, Environment, and Immigration. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers.

Smith, James P., and Barry Edmonston. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

Tabarrok, Alexander. 2000. Economic and Moral Factors in Favor of Open Immigration. Oakland, Calif.: The Independent Institute.

Vedder, Richard K., and Lowell E. Gallaway. 1993. Out of Work: Unemployment and Government in Twentieth-Century America, rev. ed. New York: New York University Press for The Independent Institute.


Of those, some signed the letter, and some didn't. I'm not going to go hunting down names, and it's completely immaterial to the point. It is not necessary to agree with any or all of a person's conclusions about their data to find that data useful and incorporate it into one's own research. Again, it's a process you clearly know nothing about.

And Benjamin Powell, for one, is on the list of references and signed the letter. So this statement:

"Not one of the authors of the articles you cited signed the letter as you stated."

Is, of course, as you yourself describe, "blatantly wrong" and deserving of naught but the very weakest link status.

Thanks for playing, duckie. Run along now.

It is too obvious that the signers of the letter were wrong as evidenced by the fact that the cost of consumer goods has risen in lock step right along with the number of immigrants in the US. The blue line is the time line from 1913 to present; the yellow dots represent the US immigrant population according to the US census bureau in ten year increments; and the purple line represents the annual increase in the cost of consumer goods. If immigrants kept the price of consumer goods lower, than as the numbers of immigrants increased, the rate of inflation should decrease or, at the very least, not increase at a rate ten times faster than before the immigration wave began. This is easy enough to understand. If you're so fucking smart MsClio, tell me, why hasn't it decreased? Spare me your typical ad hominem BS and answer the fucking question.

Wrong. They include references that suggest they are specifically discussing legal immigrants several times throughout the text of the letter and; furthermore, by not specifically differentiating between legal and illegal immigrants, legal immigrants are assumed. As I have repeatedly said, my only issue is with people who break our laws to come here.

Apparently you don't understand that the entire purpose of the letter was to offer their opinion on the House bill that targeted "illegal" or undocumented migrants.

For example, one of the references cited is the following, written by one of the signers of the letter:

How To Reform Immigration Laws
April 4, 2006
Benjamin Powell
Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Cincinnati Enquirer

A punitive immigration bill passed by the House of Representatives last December has sparked protests in recent days around the country. In response, the Senate Judiciary committee passed a bi-partisan measure that would allow current illegals to stay in the U.S. and would open the way for more to migrate as guest-workers. Unfortunately, none of the proposed reforms will completely fix our illegal immigration problems and the House bill would actually make the problems worse.
There are already 10 to 11 million illegal migrants in the U.S. who perform crucial jobs in our economy. The Pew Hispanic Research Center estimates that 24% of all farm jobs, 17% of cleaning jobs, and 27% of butchery jobs are performed by illegal migrants. Any reform that forces these workers to leave the United States, permanently or temporarily, will disrupt our economy. U.S. employers and consumers would suffer as well as the migrants who are deported. Reforms that deport illegal migrants are unwise: for economic as well as humanitarian and pragmatic reasons.


http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1696

CLEARLY HE IS ADDRESSING "ILLEGAL" IMMIGRATION. To deny that would be folly. But I would not, seriously, be surprised.

The Southern Poverty Law Center was founded in 1971 as a small civil rights law firm. Today, the Center is internationally known for its tolerance education programs, its legal victories against white supremacists and its tracking of hate groups.

Located in Montgomery, Alabama – the birthplace of the Civil Rights Movement – the Center was founded by Morris Dees and Joe Levin, two local lawyers who shared a commitment to racial equality. Its first president was civil rights activist Julian Bond.

Throughout its history, the Center has worked to make the nation's Constitutional ideals a reality. The Center's legal department fights all forms of discrimination and works to protect society's most vulnerable members, handling innovative cases that few lawyers are willing to take. Over three decades, it has achieved significant legal victories, including landmark Supreme Court decisions and crushing jury verdicts against hate groups.

www.splcenter.org/

But someone who comes out & blames our problems on "Hispanics"--then begins quibbling about their immigration status--certainly won't agree with SPLC's goals. You've also said "those people" don't pay taxes. Texas has no state income tax, so sales taxes & property taxes are high. Everyone pays sales tax; and landlords pass in property tax increases to renters.

How are things in Ohio?

and quotes vdare.com.

:eyes:

We shouldn't be condoning and enouraging border running.

Why can't people just follow our immigration laws, both immigrant and employer.

I don't get how it's "liberal" to defend people coming over illegally, getting lost in the system and getting exploited by greedy employers.

They changed dramatically in the 80s. It is nearly impossible to immigrate from Central America legally. Yet we allow Europeans to come without jumping through a jillion hoops. Do you see something wrong in this picture?

I work with the children of Hispanic immigrants. It takes them 18 months just to get in to see the immigration office to get the paperwork started for a green card. In their native countries, it can take as long as 5 years.

A woman I work with immigrated from The Czech Republic 4 years ago. She waited 30 days for a green card and became a US citizen last year.

Now put yourself in the place of one of these Hispanic immigrants. You have a family to feed and there is no work in your town. You have an opportunity to come to the US where you can make more money in an hour than you could make in a day where you live (if there was a job available). Would you turn down the chance to come here and make that money? Would you allow your kids to starve or would you break the law to feed them?

Yes, it is very liberal to advocate treating human beings with respect and offering what you can to help someone who needs it, regardless of where they were born.

:applause:

Otherwise known as the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, deemed an "esteemed medical journal";not, apparently, understanding what the term "peer review" signifies.

http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2005/medicine.html

Conservative Medicine

By Terry Krepel
Posted 4/29/2005

WorldNetDaily made a big deal in a March 13 story on a report in something called the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons claiming that "the increasing number of illegal aliens coming into the United States is forcing the closure of hospitals, spreading previously vanquished diseases and threatening to destroy America's prized health-care system."

The report suggested several Draconian remedies for this alleged problem, none of which have a thing to do with medicine, as one might expect from a journal that has "physicians and surgeons" in its name. Among them: "Closing America's borders with fences, high-tech security devices and troops" and "Punishing the aiding and abetting of illegal aliens as a crime."

It makes one wonder what kind of medical journal this is. The answer to that appears to be: Not much of one.

The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons seems to be little more than a conservative publication gussied up with a medical spin. A look at the references in the illegal-alien report, written by Madeleine Pelner Cosman -- a "medical lawyer" whose previous claim to fame appears to be a book on medieval cooking but who has also written an article for a group called Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership -- is chock full of hardline conservative cites, including books by Michelle Malkin and former WND writer (and Slantie winner) Jon Dougherty and articles by Phyllis Schlafly and Tom DeWeese.

It is so easy to say "wrong!". Prove it with real documented evidence please.

I watch Olbermann for my news.

I work with immigrants. 90% of what Dobbs tells you is an outright lie.

It doesn't take anything more than a common sense understanding of supply and demand to see the negative effects that illegal immigration has had, is having, and will continue to have in our country.

and demonizing people who are just trying to survive.

It would be nice to have an honest debate about the problem. But I have yet to see that.

You threw out the race card and then laughed about immigrants dying. That is far from an honest debate.

You threw out the race card btw. Shall i show you? I shall.
Post #13:
"They are racist, murdering scum, IMO."
proud2Blib

He has followed the electronic voting issues with the same energy that he follows immigration. He was all over the proposed sale of our infrastructure to foreign countries. he was all over the imminent domain decision. He's a great American and he And Pat Buchanan very often says things which Democrats would be hard pressed to disagree with. Not everything fits into the left/right pigeon holes that we like to squeeze everything into.

by having guests like the minutemen guy and by misrepresenting the facts. How do we know what he is saying about election fraud is not also a lie? No we don't all fit into a left or right pigeon hole but the truth still matters.

I have a lot more respect for Pat Buchanan than I do for Lou Dobbs and I disagree on just about every issue with Buchanan. But he is honest.

It is refreshing to see the other side of the story. I will be using the "reply to all" button in my mail, and including this link.

Thanks again

I am bookmarking.

Perhaps the most comprehensive analysis of the available data was published in the Harvard Latino Law Review this past spring. The report titled "The Taxation of Undocumented Immigrants:Separate, Unequal, and Without Representation" by Francine J. Lipman of the Chapman University - School of Law in Orange Calf., analyzed most of the available studies and data and found that although "Many Americans believe that undocumented immigrants are exploiting the United States' economy (and) that illegal aliens cost more in government services than they contribute to the economy. This belief is undeniably false. very empirical study of illegals' economic impact demonstrates the opposite . . .: undocumenteds actually contribute more to public coffers in taxes than they cost in social services."

:hi:

My Holy Linkeths of Truth

http://www.nascocorridor.com/
http://www.scl.cc/home.php
http://www.theamericanresistance.com/articles/art2005mar23.html

Illegals are not the issue.
Immigration is not the issue.
Global corpo-fascism is the issue.

Do you have any insights into their relationship?

Your logic is fallacious. Global corpo-fascism is an issue but that doesn't make illegal aliens and immigration non-issues. That's like saying that bombs aren't the issue in Iraq, terrorists are the issue so bombs aren't an issue.

Is the point that if there were no terrorists around to use the bombs, then the bombs would sit idle in the warehouse?

I am sketchy as to how exactly the illegal aliens fit into the global corpo-fascist scheme. I can kind of see it playing both ways.

"Is the point that if there were no terrorists around to use the bombs, then the bombs would sit idle in the warehouse?"
The point is is that your logic is based on the false premise that because C is true, A and B must be true. The reality that "Global corpo-fascism is the issue" does not mean that illegal immigrants are not an issue. I will concede that Global corpo-fascism is an issue but I disagree that because it is an issue it is the sole issue.

than was intended to be there. Besides your logic is flawed. There are many circumstances where it is necessary for A and B to be true in order to allow C to become a reality. I am not sure that this is the case with "Global Fascism and Immigration"

If there were no factories, would there be no factory workers? Oh wait, it is impossible for one thing to be dependant upon another so it must not be true.

I do follow your arguments, and you make some good points. The broad brush is getting a bit heavy though.

For years now the government of the United States has ALLOWED Mexicans to simply walk across the border completely undeterred. Why? Because the collection of factories sitting right across the border prevents the US government from pissing off the Mexican government. Why? Because Mexico if angered could just "nationalize" all these new factories, built by American companies.
They never intended to "secure our borders" and this announcement of forming a North American Union consisting of Canada, Mexico and the US is proof positive. Now if the US government has shown that their interests are not our interests is it not plausible that they are behind the "terrorist" meme also. Our CIA operates covert operations worldwide. The Taliban was in fact created by the CIA to fight the Russians when they were in Afghanistan. See, the Russians wanted to build the oil pipeline too!

... you allude to the need for Social Security numbers. There is a thriving trade in illicit SS numbers. Do immigrants use disproportionate services? I don't know, and economists disagree on this point... but that's not the primary reason to be concerned about it. In my area illegal immigrants are not farm labor, they tend to work in construction and in the timber industry. They have displaced jobs previously held by citizens and legal immigrants. Immigration (legal and illegal) is exceeding our economy's capacity for absorbing new workers.

I agree that there's a shrill, xenophobic tone behind much of the rhetoric, but unregulated immigration is a nontrivial problem.

I don't believe you feel, for example, that "legal residents" commit no identity theft, or insurance fraud crimes.

The impact on employment you refer to is the natural biproduct of our capital based society. Everyone shops for a sale unless urgency will not permit it.

It is a real situation that only the employers / service consumers can change, and they are not likely to.

The real situation can only be changed by vigorously enforcing the laws on employers. Consumers, either of products or of labor, have no motivation to enforce labor laws. It is economically irrational to pay more.

A legal resident doesn't need to steal an identity to earn a living. An illegal immigrant does.

Memo to LA Times: Immigration Reduces the Deficit
By Shawn Fremstad

There is really no debate any more among serious economists and social scientists on both the left and the right about the basic fact that immigration has been and continues to be good for the American economy and Americans in general. In June 2006, more than 500 economists of varying political perspectives, including five Nobel Prize winners, signed a letter to President Bush and Members of Congress declaring as a consensus among economists that immigrants are a positive force in America. Even George Borjas, the leading economist who is still a critic of immigration, admits that the net benefits are around $7 billion a year.

http://warrenreports.tpmcafe.com/blog/shawn_fremstad/2006/aug/03/memo_to_la_times_immigration_reduces_the_deficit

especially when taken in contesxt with the effects of trade aggrements that have facillitated the rapid outsourcing of jobs to mexcio and other foreign countries. Even a child can understand this simple supply and demand relationship.

"There is really no debate any more among serious economists and social scientists on both the left and the right about the basic fact that immigration has been and continues to be good for the American economy and Americans in general."

Immigration is good for Americans if you happen to be an American CEO or an American shareholder in one of the corporations that profits from the increased supply of workers. It's basicaslly a non-issue to those in the white collar world because we aren't having to compete against the immigrants so much. We'll have to compete against their children. And a house that used to cost $300,000 to build can now be built for around $150-000-$200,000 thanks to the willingness of recent immigrant Mexicans to work for less than half the price of what an indigenous construction worker was used to earning prior to being displaced. That's great for Americans if you are an American who owns the construction company or who can afford to buy a brand new $200,000 house because immigrants are competing for your job. It's not so good for America if you're that displaced indigenous American construction worker or a member of his/her immediate family. Claiming that immigration, legal or otherwise, is good for Americans is 100% equivalent to saying that the scabs who cross a picket line are good for Americans. I can't imagine that any good Democrat would ever say that and, as such, it baffles me to hear Democrats claiming that this immigration business is good for America. It's obviously good for a very small number of Americans (Republicans) but for everyone else, it's a kick in the crotch.
Another infrequently discussed FACT about all of this immigration is the effect that it has on property tax derived social services such as public education. Immigrants do not tend to own property, in fact, they tend to exist in larger than typical numbers, in low income renatl units and, as such, they avoid property taxes. There may be 2-3 or possibly 10 children per household attending public school yet they pay not a dime into the property taxes that fund public school. Meanwhile, they absorb even more school resources by forcing schools to adapt to the needs of English as a second language students. In a society that already has major education problems, these extra problems are not needed.

Also infrequently discussed: A full 29 percent of our prison population or 630,000 prisoners are illegals. They cost us $1.6 billion annually to keep them in three squares a day, exercise rooms, food and TV. In California, the number is closer to 50%.

also, the aforementioned impact on the healthcatre system.
"That’s why, in the past year alone, six emergency rooms have been forced to close in Los Angeles. In the past decade, California lost 65 emergency rooms to the overwhelming burden of caring for illegal immigrants...Illegal immigration threatens America's health in other ways, as well. Tuberculosis was virtually wiped out in the United States by 1983. It is on the rise again because of unfettered illegal immigration. One individual in central California, an illegal immigrant from Mexico, was responsible for infecting at least 56 other people before he was incarcerated for forced treatment earlier this year. In 1996, the John Hopkins Center for Tuberculosis Research estimated it cost $13,000 to treat each case of TB. That means it cost U.S. taxpayers $741,000 in 1996 dollars to stem the epidemic caused by a single illegal immigrant."
Congressman Elton Gallegly (R-CA24)
http://www.house.gov/gallegly/press2005/col02-0305immigration.htm




"Even George Borjas, the leading economist who is still a critic of immigration, admits that the net benefits are around $7 billion a year"
He also says this:

"By increasing the supply of labor between 1980 and 2000, immigration reduced the average annual
earnings of native-born men by an estimated $1,700 or roughly 4 percent.
• Among natives without a high school education, who roughly correspond to the poorest tenth of the
workforce, the estimated impact was even larger, reducing their wages by 7.4 percent.
• The 10 million native-born workers without a high school degree face the most competition from
immigrants, as do the eight million younger natives with only a high school education and 12 million
younger college graduates.
• The negative effect on native-born black and Hispanic workers is significantly larger than on whites
because a much larger share of minorities are in direct competition with immigrants.
• The reduction in earnings occurs regardless of whether the immigrants are legal or illegal, permanent
or temporary. It is the presence of additional workers that reduces wages, not their legal status."
George J. Borjas
Dr. Borjas is the Robert W. Scrivner Professor of Economics and Social Policy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~GBorjas/Papers/cis504.pdf



I can't think of one good thing that immigration does for the avergae American and I don't think you can either. You can claim that it isn't as bad as everone claims and you might be able to support it with a link or two but it's impossible to claim that it results in a net gain for the average American without seriously manipulating some facts and figures.

know more than 500 economists, including the guy you yourself quote: "Even George Borjas, the leading economist who is still a critic of immigration, admits that the net benefits are around $7 billion a year."

And do you really think quoting some rightwing California RepubliCON truly improves your position on this issue? Good lord, talking about boxes stuffed full of idiot hammers.

Those are your only 2 links. About as persuasive as JAPANDS.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I didn't post an "unverified link." If you think that TPM is somehow lying about the letter, prove it.

And hilarious! It's already been established that JAPANDS, i.e., the Cosman in your second link, is a lying wingnut lawyer with no medical degree. It's not a credible source, yet still you keep trying to use it. NOT CREDIBLE.

TB has been a growing problem for decades because of its resistance to antibiotics. If you believe that immigrants are responsible for that fact, then you are not an RN with any experience in the treatment of the disease at all. Your use of this source is highly cherry-picked and selective. NOT CREDIBLE.

Your third link -- another anti-immigrant hate site. NOT CREDIBLE.

You don't understand peer review, sources, or credibility.

I didn't post an "unverified link."

Yes, you did. The letter which you refer to and quote from is not available for scrutiny and, therefore can not be verified.

"If you think that TPM is somehow lying about the letter, prove it."

You are the one who provided the web site as evidence to support your position. It is, therefore, incumbent upon you and not I, to prove its veracity by providing a link to the letter itself.

"TB has been a growing problem for decades because of its resistance to antibiotics. If you believe that immigrants are responsible for that fact, then you are not an RN with any experience in the treatment of the disease at all. Your use of this source is highly cherry-picked and selective. NOT CREDIBLE."

Give me a fucking break. I linked to the United States Center for Disease Control and you're going to question the credibility of the findings all the while claiming that some obscure web site with a dead link to the letter that it bases its assertions from and that has not even one source citation is credible. You're unbelievable.

"You don't understand peer review, sources, or credibility."

Where is the peer review, source citation, and credibility of your one and only link? It isn't there. My links have source citations and the credibility of the CDC can hardly be
questioned. You have lost this argument.

This is almost too easy, really. You could have googled it yourself, if you were truly interested in its contents.

A link to the June letter: http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1727

I noticed you hastily skipped right over my debunking of your rightwing sources.

Now, please, explain why you know more than all those people who signed that letter?

Here's what the SPLC has to say about their founder.

Keeping America White
At a meeting of 'paleoconservatives,' former Forbes editor Peter Brimelow and others sound the alarm on non-white immigration
By Heidi Beirich and Mark Potok

NEW ORLEANS -- They came from near and far, gathering inside the ritzy St. Louis Hotel for their 14th annual meeting.
There was Srdja Trifkovic, who says he is a "Byzantine man," not a Renaissance man, and who thinks that total economic collapse would be a good thing for white people. Former bank CEO David Hartman came to say that Social Security and Medicare should be halted so that whites will have more children to take care of them in their old age....

Brimelow's political evolution might have been predicted. Although his Alien Nation was well reviewed in many places, it included strong veins of racism and xenophobia.

He described the role of race as "elemental, absolute, fundamental." He said that white Americans should demand that U.S. immigration quotas be changed to allow in mostly whites. He argued that spending tax dollars on anything related to multiculturalism was "subversive." He called foreign immigrants "weird aliens with dubious habits."

He worried repeatedly that his son, with his "blue eyes" and "blond hair," would grow up in an America in which whites had lost the majority.

www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=285

You've also cited the Center for Immigration Studies--a slightly more respectable face of the same group.

Using racist & xenophobic sources shows exactly what you believe.

Fewer illegal immigrants would be a mighty blow to the oligarchs' "exploit the workers" strategy.

Sometimes, in our rush to be all things to all people, we liberals overlook important factors such as that. We're so busy showing the world we love all colors of people that we do not see that this stance is feeding the gaping maw of the oligarchs.

Additionally, as long as the people of any country and just flee crappy conditions in their own, well the conditions in their home country will never, ever improve.


Julie

devastating native agriculture. How are the conditions in their countries supposed to improve when they are not responsible for them?

from place to place, conceding to the oligarchs, soon there will be no place left. Then what?

Julie

Ultimately some type of global effort will be required, IMO.

Oops, you left off the "ILLEGAL." Senator Gallegly is your source here.

"New Ideas Come With New Blood...I want to get the career politicians out of Washington and make them go home and live under the laws they've passed."
-- Congressional Candidate Elton Gallegly (1986) (Now serving his 17th year in office...).

We agree!! Elected under the guise of 'reducing government in our lives,' our 'career representative' has consistently voted to support his Special Interest groups since he arrived in the halls of Congress in 1986, leaving the rest of us at their mercy. This site tracks what our congressman has done / is doing in our alleged interest.

http://www.galleglywatch.org/

Of course, this is an opinion site. Feel free to list the Republican's good points!

but you'll have to be just a mite less cryptic.

have fun while it lasts.

do please provide some credible link to explain and support your assertion -- that is how it is done, here. As opposed to your usual seedy hangouts.

that is what this thread is all about. Can't you read yourself?

I asked for some type of credible source to support your assertion -- haven't got one, have you?

Feh.

thanks for providing the link!

then they are paying IN to the social security system but they can't get any out because of the fake number. wouldn't this HELP our fund the system. i don't see how they are a drain on it.

I personally know people who are dying from cancer and cannot recieve the social security benifits that they have paid for their entire lives.

It is stupid beyond reason to believe that someone without a valid social security number could ever recieve those benifits just because they are "an illegal immigrant"

The bulk of thier arguments seem to be emotional.

Hardly a drain to the system, more like a boon to it.

Tim, just curious, why do you say "thanks to lou dobbs..." you're getting all this hate mail? I don't get the link, am I missing something?

Julie

Hi Julie

As you know, Lou dobbs has championed the immigration issue. Without all his free publicity on CNN, it is doubtful all these chain letters on the topic would be out there and ciruclating into my mail box.

Havent you gotten any? They are really offensive. Most wave the flag, cite their belief in God, the "fact" that god wants believers to be prosperous, and the mexicans are fucking up gawds plan .... bla bla bla.

I think all the hype has created a larger issue than is real. While it may be true that some mexicans are improperly using the system, it is also true that many genuine and bonified americans are doing the same thing. anndd ..... well gawd forbid..... white people are also getting sick, not paying their hospital bills,fucking the government with their taxes, and filing bogus insurance claims.

Lou Dobbs popularized the viewpoint. That is why I credit him.

Tim

I don't catch his show often but I know he's been doing his best to really stir things up on the immigration issue. It's an obsession with him, which would be a main reason I don't catch his show.

The only hate-mail I've gotten has been via snail-mail. It's been directed to me as a Cong. Dist. chair (my title's alsways included by my name), but being listed inteh state party directory, that's not so shocking. The letter (I've gotten it twice, always two copies of letter included) is all about how the Jews are running the world. It's front and back of page, lots and lots of text.

Lots o' hate goin' on out there. Sick shit.

Cheers,
Julie

corporations are exploiting illegal immigrants for their own personal gain. But how is Lou Dobbs responsible for the religious and other RW talking points?