Weighing In on the Immigration Matter

Written By: Talk of the Sound News

Weighing In on the Immigration Matter
Sorry I am passionate about the Immigration debate. All 4 of my grandparents came to America via Ellis Island, so I am on board for legal immigration, and the controls that allow our country to absorb our new Americans in a manner that is healthy for all Americans even the new ones.
I even understand amnesty for those who have come here illegally ( Bad Word) and now are here with children, families and lives. Hard to close up the Pandora’s Box, once it has been opened. Frankly it has been opened too many times in the past and we never dealt with the problem correctly. I am not great for rewarding those who have cut the line and broken our laws as others have been on line waiting. Those who have just cut the line have caused issues in the schools with classroom overcrowding, hospitals doling out un billable care and in general are taking while not participating in taxation as they live in the cash economy. Most do work hard so I am appreciative of that and I do understand the cheap labor issues ect.
My main concern is having a sovereign nation when we are done with whatever we are going to do in the Senate and within our Congress.
This means we must have borders that are strong, non porous and do not allow future circumvention. American was built by a strong group of Immigrants but we must not kick the can again and wind up in the same place with 15 million more poking their heads out of the Pandora’s Box again and again.
If you can’t get it right then don’t bother.
I get that FDR opened up the gates to bring in California’s crops during WWII but nobody ever closed it. Marco Rubio is betting on the amnesty giving him a strong level of support in the next Presidential Election I get that. Somebody should give us a write off because we citizens are picking up the tab. Just wait for Obamacare to kick fully in.
The Democrats are willing to sign on the dotted line for more huddled masses, its self preservation. The Republicans too are pandering for votes but we are going nowhere if we can stop the flood below the sink before we start putting in the Shiny New Faucet.
Some will try and paint this as racist as it is a means of trying to stop all discussion and thought.
There is no racism here this subject is for all our borders inclusive of our Airports we must fight off those who will point this out as anti Hispanic.
Send us your huddled masses but we expect there to be a line, we want to know who is coming what they can offer and how they will support themselves until they become part of the American Dream.

17 thoughts on “Weighing In on the Immigration Matter”

  1. What is the right amount of immigration?
    As someone who worked in the financial markets for many years and has a degree in economics from the Univ. of Chicago, here is how I look at this issue.

    Note, that I am setting aside UNDEVELOPED nations as their wealth, if they have any, is driven by natural resources (fossil fuels, minerals, etc.).

    I am discussing DEVELOPED nations.

    The wealth of a DEVELOPED country, measured by such statistics as GDP Growth and driven by a variety of macro and micro factors, is, OVER THE LONG TERM, a function of population — growth/decrease and average age.

    This data is measure by two sets of statistics: immigration/emigration and births/death.

    Immigrants/Emigrants tend to be younger so the more immigration a country has the “younger” the population is getting; the converse is true so that net emigration countries are getting “older”.

    Likewise, when their are more births than deaths in a country, the younger the country gets with the opposite being true.

    In short, countries that have a shrinking population and an increasing average age experience a negative effect on wealth. Countries that have a growing/younger population have increasing wealth. Again, this is over the long-term, not based on quarterly GDP data, we are talking over decades not months.

    Wikipedia says…

    The illegal immigrant population of the United States in 2008 was estimated by the Center for Immigration Studies to be about 11 million people, down from 12.5 million people in 2007. Other estimates range from 7 to 20 million.

    According to a Pew Hispanic Center report, in 2005, 56% of illegal immigrants were from Mexico; 22% were from other Latin American countries, primarily from Central America; 13% were from Asia; 6% were from Europe and Canada; and 3% were from Africa and the rest of the world.

    The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that 6–7 million illegal immigrants came to the United States via illegal entry, accounting for probably a little over half of the total population. There are an estimated half million illegal entries into the United States each year.

    According to Pew, between 4 and 5.5 million illegal immigrants entered the United States with a legal visa, accounting for between 33–50% of the total population.

    Let’s take that data as accurate and use the figure of 11 illegal immigrants (illegal entry, overstayed visas).]

    The last time we had immigration reform was 1986:

    The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), Pub.L. 99–603, 100 Stat. 3359, enacted November 6, 1986, also Simpson-Mazzoli Act, is an Act of Congress which reformed United States immigration law.

    In brief the act:

    – required employers to attest to their employees’ immigration status.
    – made it illegal to knowingly hire or recruit unauthorized immigrants.
    – legalized certain seasonal agricultural illegal immigrants.
    – legalized illegal immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and had resided there continuously with the penalty of a fine, back taxes due, and admission of guilt. About three million illegal immigrants were granted legal status.

    From this, I consider that the 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States today all came to this country after January 1, 1982.

    That was 31 years ago.

    11 million divided by 31 is about 355,000 people a year.

    The U.S. population is 1980 was 227,224,681

    The U.S. population in 2010 was 308,282,053

    The population grew by about 81 million.

    81 million divided by 33 is about 2,456,000 people a year.

    Put another way, illegal immigration accounts for about 14.5% of total population growth — a small fraction of total population growth.

    That’s about the only conclusion I can draw from the data.

    What I cannot tell from the data is what the ideal level of immigration for the United State should have been over that period of time.

    Immigration is capped by law.

    Was the cap too low or too high?

    Since I do not know I could just easily argue that the ideal level of immigration should have been much higher over the past 30 years and that had we raised the cap to say 1 million immigrants a year we would be talking about a DEFICIT and the need to attract MORE immigrants.

    My point is that, the amount of actual illegal immigration is not a guide to whether we have too much immigration since we do not know what the ideal amount of immigration should be.

    For you mathematicians, we have the numerator but no denominator so I cannot resolve the equation.

    The data also tells us that about 40-50% of illegal immigrants are here because they overstayed their visas.

    That tells me that building a wall along the Mexican border will not eliminate illegal immigration. If a wall was 100% perfect in keeping people from crossing into the US there would still be about 5.5 million illegal immigrants in the US, and possibly higher as some of those who crossed in from Mexico would have obtained visas and overstayed them.

    With all that said, what sort of “perfect” immigration reform would I support?

    1. Build a “wall” that is 100% effective using actual walls and fences as well as technology such as sensors and drones and place that along the Mexican and Canadian border.

    We want to know who is going in and out of our country and why for a variety of reasons and not simply xenophobia — prevent illicit activities, disease control, finance/taxes, counter-terrorism, etc. All countries have a legitimate interest in border control and border security and the USA is no different.

    2. Build a system that works to prevent people from overstaying their visas.

    I have no idea how this would work but it is the exact same issue as the “wall” so without one there is no point in doing the other.

    3. Allow an amnesty program similar to what was done in 1986.

    4. Develop a more realistic amount of LEGAL immigration and speed up the process to take away the incentive to immigrate illegally.

    I would support doing that all at once but as a practical matter it is a lot easier to give the amnesty and set new immigration levels now and build the border “wall” and the visa “wall” later. And there’s the rub, right?

    There is a long history of the government failing to roll out the sort of technology that would clean up the visa issue. The “wall” on the borders strikes me as something that is do-able if there is a will to do it — we put a man on the moon, right?

    So, I would settle for this…

    1. new immigration levels set

    2. border control (real and tech walls)

    3. amnesty once walls are certified complete or some similar milestone

    4. complete visa control system

    With all this said, until someone can tell me the “right” amount of immigration we should have in the USA I cannot say we have too much immigration but we can say the current system is not serving American interests.

  2. Mojado and Proud
    I am convinced U.S. immigration policy is a disaster desperately in need of fixing. What we have now in the Senate bill is not perfect, but it will do. Some argue that they will not support it because the issue of bad immigration policies will come again and we will be voting on another “amnesty” bill a generation from now. Is that correct? We will probably be having the same discussion, but that is the global picture we live in now. The many Republicans, who seemingly are against women, gay and immigrant rights, and more and more behaving like the Taliban. They have no answer to the disastrous immigration policies, proceeding, rules and overall system in the United States. They think that the United States has the financial and infrastructural means of deporting all of the 11 or 12 o13 million undocumented immigrants. Can all of you imagine living in a USA that undertakes this massive forced exodus? Certain to be Biblical or at least a reminder of a forced march! Immigrants by and large are good for America. Read the Congressional Budget Office report (please don’t quote the moronic Heritage Foundation fictional piece).

    Ask Martin Sanchez, who came to the U.S. from Peru as a child, overstayed his visa and has been a productive, working member of his community for 43 years, has a wife and two college-age children, yet when he walks in to a community meeting in a t-shirt and jeans, is often asked if he needs translation services; is stopped on the West End because he has an old car (yet nothing is ever wrong). He went on to get a BA, MA and Law degree and was elected a School Board member in New Rochelle. He has voted for individuals who happened to have been Democrats, Republicans and Independents all his life. Ask farmers in Alabama,upstate New York and Washington State who no longer have pickers for their harvest due to punitive state anti-immigration laws.

    The proposed senate immigration bill (Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act 2013) is not perfect, but a start in the right direction. Its proposal to legalize the nation’s 11 million. Undocumented is not “amnesty.” To become registered provisional immigrants, they need to pay back taxes, a $500 fee, proof of residency before Dec. 31, 2011 and non-felony status. Then they can work and travel legally, but not receive any federal benefits. After 10 years, if they pay back taxes, prove knowledge of English and civics and pay $1000, they may apply to become lawful permanent residents in competition with others seeking a green card. Three years later they may apply to become citizens.

    Read a summary of the bill. Our New York State senatorial delegation supports comprehensive immigration reform that protects our borders, keeps families together and offers a path to citizenship. Now the House will take it’s time. They may come up with something different, less inclusive, more punitive, but in the end, their delay will reveal who they really are. It is, as James Baldwin once said, “a conspiracy to revive the auction block”.

    Martin Sanchez

    1. Who the hell cares what James Baldwin once said?
      This Senate “amnesty first” approach for a Comprehensive Immigration bill is dead in the water in the House chamber.

      Where’s the phased in mandatory E-verify? Where’s the regulated, enforced guest worker program? Where’s the secured, enforced border, like other countries absolutely insist on? (Cross the border illegally from Central America into southern Mexico, and you are going to prison. Period.)

      We have thousands of military returning from Afghanistan. Thousands of U.S. military deployed around the world. Thirty thousand troops in South Korea protecting THAT countries border, every year, since 1953.

      We can’t deploy some of our own military to secure the sovereign southern border of the United States?

      Promising billions of dollars sometime in the future for border security at the discretion of Janet Napolitano’s Department of Homeland Security is laughable.

      There is no political pressure whatsoever for this Immigration bill. The polls all say the American people do not care about this issue, it’s not even in their top ten concerns, but it does have the potential to be an unmitigated disaster for the Republican Party.

      Legalizing tens of millions of new voters who will vote 60-70% Democrat, is exactly the endgame for this Democrat Party, including The New York Senatorial Delegation.

      Sen. Chuck Schumer has predicted “mass demonstrations in the streets of America” if this bill is tabled and stalled this summer in the House of Representatives.

      Wanna’ bet?

      Most Americans agree to a “border security first” approach to immigration reform, however it would be my fondest wish to see Chuckie leading the demonstrations all over America this August.

      The Senate Gang of 8’s Amnesty bill is a flawed monstrosity that has no chance of getting a majority of House Republicans on board, and the Speaker has pledged to abide by the Hastert Rule (must have a majority of caucus support to come to the floor for a vote) for this bill, or anything that comes out of the conference committees.

      That is, if he wants to keep his job.

      All of the current House bills (which have been completely unreported by the media) have to do with enforcement, such as allowing the states to enforce Federal border and immigration laws if the Feds fail to do so.

      The Congress did an amnesty bill in 1986, when the estimate was 3 million illegals in America. A promised secured border was the trade-off for it.

      They got their amnesty and the border got bupkis.

      Anyone can be dumb once, sometimes even twice. Stupid lasts forever.

      1. Yup. “Guest Workers”.. That’s just perfect.
        21 million Americans can’t find full time employment today, but The Gang of 8 Schumerite’s, including Marco Rubio, who yesterday received his congratulatory phone call from Obama (and consequently just kissed his 2016 Republican-nominee-for-president hopes goodbye) want to add four times as many guest workers to our economy, than were proposed in the 2007 Senate Immigration bill that failed.

        In case anyone has been asleep in their cabin in the Catskills for the last five years, we have a much higher unemployment rate today than in 2007. You could argue that we had full employment back then.

        Our GDP today is barely able to support 1.4% growth, and that figure will never produce new jobs in America. And I don’t even have a degree in Economics.

        Just take a look around. Drive by the empty storefronts all over Westchester. Ask a recent college grad what his or her job plans are. Chances are repainting their bedrooms at home, and not much else, is the answer. And who could blame them?

        And yet this genius Schumer and his band propose to bring in millions of new guest workers as part of “reformed immigration”? Oh, right. That’ll do it.

        What kind of weed is Chuck smoking, cause I’d like to get my hands on some of that stuff.

      2. We had full employment under
        We had full employment under Bill Clinton.

        Then the Supreme Court appointed GW Bush President, and he immediately proceeded to wage two unnecessary and expensive wars, create extremely large national deficits, and greately damage the economies of the USA and of the World, for years to come.

        GW Bush’s presidency was one of the greatest disasters to occur in the USA, since James Buchanan permitted to the CSA to attempt to secede from the USA.

        Don’t go blaming GW Bush’s successors for his own extreme incompetence. They are doing a fine job trying to clean up his disgraceful mess.

        That you don’t have a degree in economics is obvious, but thanks for the admission. I suggest you begin reading Paul Krugman, who has a Phd in Economics, is a professor of economics at Princeton, and who has a regular column in the NY Times. He will fill in the holes in your vague knowledge of economics, with meaningful, factual and realistic explanations of how our economy works.

      3. I hope you have the facts to
        I hope you have the facts to backup your assertion claiming we had full employment under Bill Clinton. Granted, the economy did appear to be doing better under Clinton, but that was only because he eased lending restrictions so that anyone could get a loan regardless of their ability to pay it back. That in turn, led to the meltdown of the banking industry which ultimately left us with the worst recession since the Great Depression.

        Bush was no bargain. But there was no way he could have foreseen 9/11. Nonetheless, the Irag war was a mistake and cost this country dearly.

        As far as Obama goes, if he gave his handouts back to the American people rather that to the banks and the automakers, people could have paid their mortgages and we wouldn’t be in this mess.

      4. For you to blame this
        For you to blame this country’s economic mess solely on George Bush is an example of both your ignorance and total lack of facts. Even Obama has publicly stated that the problems in this country have been 40 years in the making. If you read a book, if began with Reaganomics and went downhill from there. It’s a combination of shortsighted policies which included deregulation, the global economy, the stimulus bills, the Iraq war, and now Agenda 21. All had and are having an enormous and negative effect on the American middle class. As a result, they are merely getting by and have little or anything to contribute to the economy. The solutions involve bringing back jobs to this country that pay a living wage and getting the cost of both energy and housing under control.

      5. Most Economic Blame Due To GW Bush’s & Reagan’s Incompetence
        Reagan was the second worst president to serve, in my 62 years, and he did much to damage our economy.

        His successor, Bill Clinton, despite his own flaws, had a great economy with the fullest employment, and is the only President since at least the 1920’s, other than Ike, to achieve a balanced budget.

        Under Bill Clinton, “Besides the record-high surpluses and the record-low poverty rates, the economy could boast the longest economic expansion in history; the lowest unemployment since the early 1970s; and the lowest poverty rates for single mothers, black Americans, and the aged”.

        Under Bill Clinton, “Overall unemployment dropped to the lowest level in more than 30 years, down from 6.9% in 1993 to just 4.0% in January 2001. The unemployment rate was below 5% for 40 consecutive months. Unemployment for African Americans fell from 14.2% in 1992 to 7.3% in 2000, the lowest rate on record. Unemployment for Hispanics fell from 11.8% in October 1992 to 5.0% in 2000, also the lowest rate on record”.

        Under Bill Clinton, “Inflation dropped to its lowest rate since the Kennedy Administration, averaging 2.5%, and fell from 4.7% during the previous administration”.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Bill_Clinton

        Clinton’s successor, GW Bush was clearly the second worst President in the history of the USA, other than James Buchanan who permitted the CSA to attempt to secede from the USA. GW Bush’s damage to the American and World economies is the direct source of the current financial woes of the USA. Barack Obama is trying to clean up GW Bush’s financial mess, as well as getting us out of the quagmire of two, fruitless, unnecessary and expensive wars created by GW Bush and his mentor, war criminal Dick Cheney.

        All criticism I have read, about ‘Agenda 21’ is pure paranoia and xenophobia, akin to fears of body probes by space aliens. Beyond pointing that our, it is a waste of time trying to argue against your irrational fears of ‘Agenda 21’.

        You are totally in Wonderland, when you state that “But there was no way he [GW Bush] could have foreseen 9/11”, as Condi Rice testified to Congress that she had warned GW Bush of that on 2001-08-06, over a month in advance, in a CIA report she gave Bush, entitled “Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US”. Please try to stick to facts, and to avoid fictions that support your fantasies.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US

        GW Bush was certainly incompetent and disgraced, by allowing the Pentagon to be attacked on 2001-09-11, 45 minutes after the WTC was hit by a plane. If GW Bush was even minimally competent the attack on the Pentagon would never have occurred.

        President Obama would have liked to have put more money into our economy, but the Republicans in majority in the House of Representative have continually sabotaged any efforts to revive our economy or to benefit our country. Likewise the Republicans in the minority of the Senate have repeatedly used the filibuster to sabotaged any efforts to revive our economy or to benefit our country.

        The solution to our mortgage problem, is to permit inflation of 5% or so per year, to devalue the mortgage debts, making payments more affordable, but the Federal Reserve has refused to put enough money into the economy to accomplish that. The Federal Reserve is run mostly to benefit Wall Street and the banks, which themselves tend to be more supportive of Republican causes than of Democratic causes.

      6. Admitting a problem is the 1st Step
        Normally, Brian, I like to leave recalcitrant left-wingers like you alone, just poke a stick through the bars of your doughy mental cage every now and then and leave it at that.

        But you seem so resistant to anything resembling the truth, that I’ll have to jump in here (with only a third of James Baldwin’s brain tied behind my back) and forcefully push your mug right up against reality, till you get your belly full.

        Nowhere in any part of the August 6 PDB, did Condi Rice “warn President Bush” of anything, as you state in this silly post full of lies about President George W. Bush. Dr. Condi Rice was the National Security Advisor for the President. The Presidential Daily Briefing was prepared by this rather well known Intelligence Agency you might have heard of called “The CIA”.

        Do you know the difference between the NSA and the CIA, Brian?

        Read the August 6th PDB. It’s an assessment of Al Qaeda’s history going back to 1997 and 1998. I would encourage you to go find it and read it. Slowly. It might aid you in your effort to understand reality. Nowhere in that brief does it say, “Bin Laden plans to launch suicide attack against N.Y.C. and D. C., using domestic airliners” or any other specific plan to attack in any specific way, in any specific spot in the USA.

        It said he “WAS DETERMINED TO ATTACK INSIDE THE USA”… Duh.

        Now, I quite understand that you are one of the many sad people who suffer, right up to this present day, with B.D.S. Yes. Bush Derangement Syndrome can be a lingering malady, even five years after the last infectious contact. But with help (and as we all know, facing up to the truth of your problem is the first step towards recovery) even you might be healed. Lets hope my little chat with you tonight is a 1st Step towards recovery for you Brian.

        The help is out there. Don’t be afraid. You can do it.

      7. GW Bush – One of the worst or the worst ?
        Skipping past your denials, and reading what’s left of your statement, you have now reversed your position, and admitted that GW Bush had been informed over a month before 2001-09-11, that Osama bin Laden planned to attack the USA, and yet GW Bush did nothing to prepare for it, nor was there even established a no-fly zone over the Pentagon.

        Regarding the likelihood of the WTC being attacked by Islamists, I guess you have forgotten they had already made a serious attempt at doing so, causing a lot of damage in 1993.

        President Clinton tried killing Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan on 1998-08-20, with cruise missiles.

        President GW Bush ignored bin Laden despite the known risks and warnings, and instead spent August 2001 clearing brush on his so-called ranch in Texas. On 2001-09-11 in the midst of the attack, GW Bush continued reading ‘My Pet Goat’ to first graders.

        Regarding your childish tendency of throwing personal insults at other Posters, out of desperation when facts do not support you, it reduces the validity of any point you are trying to make, and makes you appear very unattractive to those reading your comments.

      8. The solution to our mortgage
        The solution to our mortgage problem is to bring back good paying jobs to the US while at the same time getting housing and energy prices under control.

      9. Benefits of Inflation, Renewable Energy & Immigration
        Although I totally agree with your solution as part of the answer to solving our economy’s problems, it is not a solution to our mortgage problems.

        The two main solutions to our mortgage problems, are to devalue the debts through inflation, and to increase demand for real estate by increasing our population by encouraging immigration.

        Regarding getting energy prices under control, that is best achieved by the government regulating prices of carbon-based fuels, reducing the usage of carbon-based fuels, and encouraging the use of renewable energy sources. Doing so will also reduce the global warming and slow the rising of sea levels.

        The best way for the USA to expand its base of well-paying jobs, is to improve the quality of public education nation-wide.

      10. USA is not as repressive as you would like
        In answer to your question “Where’s the phased in mandatory E-verify? Where’s the regulated, enforced guest worker program? Where’s the secured, enforced border, like other countries absolutely insist on?”, the answer is, that your stated fond desires exist in disgusting, repressive, liberty-hating countries around the world.

        But even horrible repressive countries, where civil rights are scoffed at, are capable of improving themselves, hopefully to the higher moral standard of the USA.

      11. James Baldwin vs. Mike Scully
        Your meaningless, partisan rant defeats your purpose, which I presume is to cheerlead an ill-conceived, xenophobic lost cause.

        Bob Cox’s well-thought argument stands in stark contrast to yours. Please read what he wrote.

        But I must repond to your question “Who the hell cares what James Baldwin once said?”. Most educated people in the USA do care about what James Baldwin said. But other than a few conservative readers of TOTS, who cares what Mike Scully ever said? Think about that, before deriding great intellects like James Baldwin.

      12. You, Me, and James Baldwin
        Brian-

        Drop the Thesaurus and step back from the keyboard. Really.

        You need to get out more.

  3. A Balanced Immigration Policy
    Ken,

    You started off great, in support of immigration reform.

    Unfortunately, you then switched off to xenophobic when you stated “My main concern is having a sovereign nation”, something I feel you honestly believe. But, you don’t have to worry about the USA remaining a sovereign nation, as that question was answered with the successes of the USA beating the UK in the American Revolution, the defeat of the CSA in the American Civil War, and the USA and its allies beating the Axis in WWII. There hasn’t been the slightest risk of the USA losing its sovereign since 1945, although there was great risk of the annihilation of civilization during the ‘Cold War’.

    There is absolutely no risk of loss of sovereignty from immigration, but an overwrought strictness on border control does risk loss of our civil rights. Frankly, our sovereignty is meaningless without our constitutionally guaranteed civil rights.

    There is a serious contradiction in your statement “American was built by a strong group of Immigrants but we must not kick the can again and wind up in the same place with 15 million more poking their heads out of the Pandora’s Box again and again”. As you admit America was built by immigrants, it would seem any Pandora’s Box was created by xenophobes who wish to restrict immigration. It’s anti-immigration policies and other bigotry that are harmful to the USA. I am not calling you bigoted, as you do accept immigration. I think your concerns are well-meaning although your fears are misplaced.

    Your wording also seems to indicate that you don’t mind immigration from Europe, presumably the origin of your family, but that you are less desirous of Hispanic immigration. I say that because you describe FDR as allowing Mexicans to cross the border to farm our crops during WWII, leading to a permanent policy.

    FDR did do so, but it was not for permanent immigration, but rather as a temporary, necessary measure, because all of our male citizens were being drafted to fight in WWII and were themselves unavailable for farming. I think you indicated that too.

    In reality there was very little immigration in the USA from 1920 thru 1945, due to small-minded, bigoted xenophobes, of both political parties, in Congress. Many Jews and their progeny would have avoided the Holocaust if FDR had allowed them to immigrate from Europe in the 1930’s.

    What I find confusing about your Post, is that while you state that immigration was great in the past, you give no plausible reason for reducing immigration in the future. The reasons you do state are actually an attack on President Obama, Democrats and Obamacare, and you seem to use immigration as an attempt to gain partisan points. Do you fear that Hispanic immigrants might tend to vote Democrats, who it seems, you believe are trying to destroy American sovereignty? Somehow, that seems your veiled concern, since you did rail against FDR, Obama and Obamacare. Then again, you were critical of Mark Rubio, who while Republican is also Hispanic.

    A more progressive immigration policy will tend to be less expensive than a stricter immigration policy. Strict enforcement is very expensive, but a more permissive immigration will bring more tax revenues to our nation. So what you fear or desire, will have the exact opposite effects you expect.

    Your Post indicates your ambivalence and concerns on this issue, which I respect.

    I believe you agree with me, that those ‘illegal’ immigrants here, and especially those who are parents of American citizens born here, should be given a means of obtaining permanent status and ultimately of citizenship. Am I correct in understanding that to be your belief?

    And I agree with you, that there needs to be a better means of legal immigration, whether are borders are walked, driven, flown or boated to.

    However, I do think we should have a more open immigration policy, by enlarging the quotas for the various nations and regions of the world. This is highly practical, as the best way to reduce illegal immigration is to expand legal immigration. What is your perspective on that?

    1. BrianI will try to explain
      Brian
      I will try to explain in a manner that is without emotion.
      My point is America was built on the backs of immigrants. Infrastructure, Railways, ports, roads and agriculture help the USA advance.
      When Illegals come here, have anchor babies, take free heath care and education for their children they drain resources.
      Those same illegal immigrants take services away and jobs from legal immigrants who have green cards.
      When you group illegal immigration with legal immigration you blur reality.
      You have ignored the previous amnesties that have allow others who have come illegal to become legal which creates the environment whereby more illegals looking to circumvent the system. The system needs to plan, the systems need to nurture. We cannot have open borders allowing anyone to remain and drain services and then in time become legal. If we have an amnesty it must be the last amnesty ever.
      Yes they were Europeans in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s but in there are many more than Europeans. The key word was the gates were opened by the USA for all of our benefit.
      Civil Rites erosion speaks to Arizona. Arizona was overrun by illegal immigrants due to southern border proximity. They have every right to be concerned as they are footing the bills. Had our borders not been not been a sieve they would have no reason to erode anyone’s rights. They forced the Federal Government to stop looking the other way and address the problem. The Federal Govt wants to give amnesty without tightening up the borders which is the crux. Illegal, porous and overburdened are the key words.
      Again I have no issue with planned legal immigration. I laud what immigrants have done for our country. I am even willing to accept we can not depot 15 million illegals and work out a means for future legality. However I want none of it without the borders being closed to those who will come after looking for their amnesty cause we did not bother to do this correctly.
      I realize you too my use of sovereignty literally. What separates The USA from the rest of the world is how we have been able to blend many people. We are maybe not the melting pot we once were but no matter the culture those here who function become Americans. This is our sovereignty it is more that just the literal it is blending cultures into our culture. Those who blur Legal from Illegal want open borders those who want to control our borders are no xenophobes as you say we are Americans with rights and civil rights and we are entitled to share our American Dream with those who come legally but maybe not share with those who chose to come and take the American dream without following any rules. To me that is more of an erosion of civil rights than what went on in Arizona.

Comments are closed.