Government finally admits: Immigration IS placing huge strain on Britain

[Universe Prince]

Legrain offered his opinion, but I think he also made a reasoned case. Will your op-eds do that?

They would, if you allowed the points being made thru and not blocked by the current open borders need for this country.

Why is someone else making a reasoned case be up to me? I'm not stopping anyone.

A larger labor force and tax base would be an increase in resources.

Not when many of those same workers are payed in cash, off the books, and with no deductions for taxes at all

And you know this would happen more with open borders because...?

Our current healthcare provisions are finite resources.  You can't just wish more ER's, more doctors, and more money to pay for services.

Of course. But then, what is stopping us from training more doctors and building more health care facilities? No, it won't happen overnight, but you talk as if there is no way to increase the amount of health care available.

Since so many simply use the ER for medical needs that aren't emergent (because they can not afford health insurance or know they can receive free care by simply going to the ER), and that the Fed mandates that everyone be treated, regardless of the ability to pay, more and more ER's & trauma centers across the country have had to close because of bankruptcy.

So your solution is to make sure we cut down on the number of people going to the ER. Seems to me that instead we need a private, decentralized network to help cover the costs of treating people without the money to pay, and to find ways to open up the market to reduce health insurance costs. Of course, if we relax restrictions on immigration, the black market in labor would shrink considerably, and many more folks would be able to get health insurance from their employers.

So, is that your goal, UHC as run by the Fed?  Or is that one of the repercussions (I was referring to) you're trying very hard to ignore?  Maybe it'll just go away, right?

I'm not ignoring anything. I'm not saying there won't be problems. I am saying that we will help solve many problems by getting out of the way of trade.

the increase in mass immigrants that would largely be payed with off the books takes AWAY tax revenue,

Why is this going to happen? If they are here legally, there will be not more but less reason to try to hide their employment.

Not to mention the many who use fraudulent social security numbers

Again, if they are here legally, they won't need fraudulent identification, so why would they do that?

And again with the false hope of a "larger tax base", as if THAT's the key to it all.

No, not the key to it all, but it would hardly be a false hope. More people here legally, employed legally, buying goods legally, paying for shelter legally, this really would increase our tax base.

The net deficit is caused by a low level of tax payments by immigrants, because they are disproportionately low-skilled and thus earn low wages, and a higher rate of consumption of government services, both because of their relative poverty and their higher fertility.

A problem that will not go away by keeping their labor in the black market. Reduce restrictions, open up the trade, and let capitalism work. We came out of the Great Depression when we stopped interfering with trade, and we still had massive immigration of people with low skill levels. We're not going to solve this problem through government control.

You realize that many of those illegal immigrants I'm referring to are being payed at or below minimum wage.  Add to that, that it is estimated that between 40 and 50% of wage-loss among low-skilled Americans is due to the immigration of low-skilled workers.

Many of those immigrants you're referring to make more than minimum wage. But again, this is not a problem we will solve with government control. This is a problem that needs the effects of capitalism. Open trade in goods and labor and the economic situation of Mexico, Central and South America will improve, reducing the need for people to immigrate here to make a better living. Sorry but there is no overnight quick-fix solution. But this will happen faster without intrusive government control than with it.

And one more time, I have NO PROBLEM with people wanting to come to America to make a better life for themselves, to pursue the American Dream.  Simply to do it legally, & get in line

Obviously there must be some problem you have with it or you would be not be opposed to reducing restrictions, allowing more people to legally immigrate here.

According to the Immigrants and Welfare, Research Perspectives on Migration' report released by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace -- International Migration Policy Project, approximately 1.4 million immigrants receive AFDC or SSI payments totaling $4.5 billion annually.  Their average monthly AFDC payment is $133; their average SSI payment is $407. Estimates using a more broadly defined package of benefits and counting benefits from state and local as well as federal sources indicate that immigrants receive approximately $25 billion annually in assistance benefits.  Meaning, the country as a whole, becomes poorer, not to mention financially/economically more fragile.  But as long as everyone is covered..oh wait....wrong well intentioned idea.....as long as everyone can come in when & how they want

As I have said before, this a problem with the government programs, not with immigration. Opposing open immigration because it will screw up our socialistic government programs is bass ackwards, imo.

No, since it's pretty transparent how you care so very little about American culture.  Sad is the best way to describe that

Why would you think I don't care about American culture? Of course I care. I just don't have unrealistic expectations that it should never change or fearful apprehensions that the change immigrants bring will be detrimental. And frankly, less restricted immigration was once a part of American culture, and I would like to have that back exactly because I do care about American culture.

Referenced in many places, but I'll use Leadership U for now, criminal immigrants account for more than 25% of all inmates in federal prisons and is the fastest growing segment of the prison population.  The federal prison population of non-citizens has increased by about 15% per year from the mid-1980s to the present. Upkeep for each prisoner costs the taxpayers $21,300 per year.  Taxpayers pay half-a-billion dollars per year incarcerating illegal alien criminals.

From a June, 2007, article at Reason Online:

Towns that pass measures against illegal immigrants portray the laws as a way to combat crime. In reality, the belief that this group is prone to felonious habits is largely unfounded. Crime rates plummeted in the 1990s even as illegal immigration surged, and Harvard sociologist Robert Sampson has documented that "living in a neighborhood of concentrated immigration is directly associated with lower violence."

http://www.reason.com/news/show/120759.html

And I have to wonder how much of the cost illegal immigrant incarceration would drop with open borders and getting rid of the "war on drugs"? In any case, from what I can determine, the actual percentage of population of immigrants in jail, legal or otherwise, is less than the percentage of natives in jail. So again, what we need is not more government intrusion but less.

Precisely, a problem we already have, which you seem to have no problem with it getting exponentially worse.  another repercussion, but *poof*, we'll snap our fingers, and the problem will be solved.  If it hasn't been solved at this point Prince, what the hell makes you think adding 10's of millions more people will make it more solvable??

I did not say millions more people would make it more solvable. The problem is solvable now, but no one wants to do it.

All the repercussions I've layed out, and there's many more, including the national security angle we didn't even touch, requires you to turn your head, snap your fingers, and all will be well.  I must retire for the evening now.

Again, I'm not ignoring anything. I never said all the problems of society would disappear. Much of what you complain about is ridiculous and much of it can be solved with time and with getting out of the way of the trade that the problems and the people need. No one is arguing that open borders is a panacea. But it would help in many ways that you, apparently, would prefer to ignore.

[sirs]

All the repercussions I've layed out, and there's many more, including the national security angle we didn't even touch, requires you to turn your head, snap your fingers, and all will be well.  I must retire for the evening now.

Again, I'm not ignoring anything. I never said all the problems of society would disappear. Much of what you complain about is ridiculous and much of it can be solved with time and with getting out of the way of the trade that the problems and the people need.

I never said you did, only that your rationalizations of this supposed increased tax base is somehow tied to fixing all these problems, when there's no where near ANY concensus that there will be ANY increase in the tax base at all, with many conclusions referencing precisely the opposite.  In essense, you're advocating a gamble, one that is well intentioned, but with arguably wreckless consequences to this country, if your gamble fails.  And with the scores and scores of reports, Q&A, and facts that reinforce just how bad things would get, be it to the economy, education, heatlhcare, poverty, crime & culture, I'm not taking that gamble.  Especially when it facilitates precisely the type of Federal Government control, that YOU yourself deplore, to come to the rescue, as it spirals out of control

Welcome to the viscious circle of open borders     

[Plane]

According to the Immigrants and Welfare, Research Perspectives on Migration' report released by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace -- International Migration Policy Project, approximately 1.4 million immigrants receive AFDC or SSI payments totaling $4.5 billion annually.  Their average monthly AFDC payment is $133; their average SSI payment is $407. Estimates using a more broadly defined package of benefits and counting benefits from state and local as well as federal sources indicate that immigrants receive approximately $25 billion annually in assistance benefits.  Meaning, the country as a whole, becomes poorer, not to mention financially/economically more fragile.  But as long as everyone is covered..oh wait....wrong well intentioned idea.....as long as everyone can come in when & how they want

As I have said before, this a problem with the government programs, not with immigration. Opposing open immigration because it will screw up our socialistic government programs is bass ackwards, imo.

   Is there much hope that there will be an overloading of entitlements leading to their collapse and reduction in Government responsibility and authority in our day to day lives?

[Universe Prince]

i am not interested in how the BNP would deal with illegal invaders because thats not the topic of the thread
however i do appreciate their rebuttal to the non-sense the pro-chaos crowd vomits out

Just out of curiosity, if the K.K.K. held an "Close the Border" rally, would you attend? Would you quote David Duke if he wrote an article against open immigration?

my points come right off the american people's lips
the same american people that want a fence built
the same american people that want the illegal invasion brought under control
the same american people that are mad as hell about the illegal invasion

The same American people who are so xenophobic that the refer to immigration as invasion? Anyway, not all Americans are in agreement on this and possibly not even a majority. So you really should not presume to speak for the American people.

you can pretend it's racism,

No one has to pretend. For many people it is racism, and if you're going to willingly ally yourself with such people, then you really should know ahead of time that someone might think you're racist too.

thats easy, just demonize and then you can have your little warm and fuzzy leftist "feel good"

Conversely, if you demonize the immigrants then you can feel all warm and fuzzy about wanting to keep them out and wrap yourself in rhetoric about protecting the country without having to put forth any rational arguments.

[Universe Prince]

Minus all the above rationalization efforts, I also do see a trend of proponents of open borders (I do appreciate Tee referencing this accurately as those opposing illegal immigration vs the inaccurate attempts of making this about opposing immigration in general) frequently omit/ignore the full picture as well, only tending to focus on the "humanity" angle, and the hope that there would be this "larger tax base" to deal with the problems that would be running rampant, when not only is that highly questionable, in the amount of increased social service expenses that would be brought in, but minus all the other negative repercussions brought about by such a policy

I'm a little curious as to why you put the word humanity in quotes. Anyway, the problem here is that you seem to keep assuming that people are ignoring part of the consequences of open borders. I do not believe that to be the case. No one is saying there won't be any problems. Many closed border arguments, however, do seem to make huge, frightening mountains of fear out of minor, certainly less frightening molehills.

Then again, such a policy facilitates exactly what the likes of Tee look forward to, that of a greater and greater Federal government footprint, with more and more services required, to the eventual point that the Fed will need to step in to "fix all the problems" stemming from those repercussions.

I'm not sure how to break this to you, but that is the situation we already have with the immigration restrictions that currently exist. And I'm watching people like you insist that we need more federal government involvement to fix the problems caused by the current level of immigration restrictions and federal involvement. More immigration control is not going to reduce the federal government footprint. More immigration control from the federal government will, in point of fact, increase the federal government footprint and give the federal government excuse to continue increasing it.

[Universe Prince]

and neither do the pro-border chaos proponets

The problem with your statement is that there are no border chaos proponents. Though your equating open borders with chaos is revealing. I think perhaps you are not as much in favor of less government as your handle would lead people to believe.

[Universe Prince]

You question is like asking an arena supervisor that has had thousands of
people sneek/con their way into a game and there are not enough seats for the people that
are at the event legally "well isn't this a problem with Madison Square Garden just not
providing more seats and it's not any of the fault of the people that are here without a ticket".

No, actually it isn't like that at all. The U.S. is not a stadium filled to capacity. We have plenty of room, and most of the immigrants are not sneaking in to take something that belongs to someone else. Most of them are attempting to do something they should be free to do in the first place and which infringes on no one else's rights or property. A better analogy might be that your position is like arguing to keep people out of a university because they're going to cause changes to the school's culture and make it harder for you to get a class when you want it.

Kind of like insurance fraud, by enforcing the law and procecuting the law we are making it more expensive.
Maybe we should just make insurance fraud ok and sanctioned by law, since we can't defeat it all.

The problem with that analogy is that fraud is an attempt to violate other people's rights by taking something under false pretenses. Immigration, on the other hand, does not violate your rights. Trying to prevent immigration, as you seem to desire, does violate other people's rights by interfering in their liberty to engage in fair and mutually beneficial trade.

Yeah it is right and you cant stand it
The American People want a fence built.
You can pretend I am some big racist, because you cant deal with the facts.
But are the American People racist because they want a wall built?
Do the American People have the right to say "ENOUGH" we dont want any more illegals.

You're speaking on behalf of the American people again, and once more, you really don't have the grounds to do so. And tell me, do the American people have a right to tell you where, how and for whom you can work? Do the American people have a right to tell you where to live? Do the American people have a right to limit how much money you can make?

[Universe Prince]

I never said you did, only that your rationalizations of this supposed increased tax base is somehow tied to fixing all these problems, when there's no where near ANY concensus that there will be ANY increase in the tax base at all, with many conclusions referencing precisely the opposite.

Whose conclusions? I'm unsure as to how more people here legally, employed legally, buying goods legally, paying for shelter legally, spending money legally, earning money legally, and all that is somehow going to shrink the tax base. Please explain how this 2+1=1 sort of event is going to happen. I know you said something before about immigrants being paid under the table and using false identification, but if they are here legally, they won't need to do that, and I have yet to see any evidence that suggests they would seek that out if they did not have to do so. Why would they bother paying for fraudulent identification if they don't need it? That's like saying if we lowered the drinking age to 18 more 18- and 19-year-olds are going to get fake IDs to sneak into bars. It simply doesn't make sense.

In essense, you're advocating a gamble, one that is well intentioned, but with arguably wreckless consequences to this country, if your gamble fails.

No. I'm not advocating anything that would be more of a gamble than California allowing people from other states to look for work in California. It works quite well for us here in the U.S. There is no reason to think it would not work with immigrants from other countries.

And with the scores and scores of reports, Q&A, and facts that reinforce just how bad things would get, be it to the economy, education, heatlhcare, poverty, crime & culture, I'm not taking that gamble.

I've seen lots of opinions, but no factual reports that suggest anything like what you're saying.

Especially when it facilitates precisely the type of Federal Government control, that YOU yourself deplore, to come to the rescue, as it spirals out of control

What you might be missing here is that we already have government control I don't like that is in part a result of the attempt to restrict immigration. Trying to interfere with trade and immigration more is only going to contribute to the problem, not make it better. All those government social programs you keep complaining about are not going to be made less necessary by interfering with the trade that would help all of us, immigrants and natives.

Welcome to the viscious circle of open borders

No, actually it is the viscous circle that is government control. Like any viscous circle, if you want to break it, you have to stop feeding it.

[Universe Prince]

Is there much hope that there will be an overloading of entitlements leading to their collapse and reduction in Government responsibility and authority in our day to day lives?

Probably not. But at the same time, there is not much hope that continuing to interfere with and stifle trade that could help all of us is going to slow down the agenda of increasing the size, scope and number of socialist programs. You're not going to stop the growth of government by demanding it do more.

[sirs]

Minus all the above rationalization efforts, I also do see a trend of proponents of open borders (I do appreciate Tee referencing this accurately as those opposing illegal immigration vs the inaccurate attempts of making this about opposing immigration in general) frequently omit/ignore the full picture as well, only tending to focus on the "humanity" angle, and the hope that there would be this "larger tax base" to deal with the problems that would be running rampant, when not only is that highly questionable, in the amount of increased social service expenses that would be brought in, but minus all the other negative repercussions brought about by such a policy

I'm a little curious as to why you put the word humanity in quotes.

Is that not one of the primary arguements used for open borders.....that it's more humane?

Anyway, the problem here is that you seem to keep assuming that people are ignoring part of the consequences of open borders. I do not believe that to be the case. No one is saying there won't be any problems. Many closed border arguments, however, do seem to make huge, frightening mountains of fear out of minor, certainly less frightening molehills.

And that is where we obviously disagree, especially since I'm intimate to one of those areas you keep casually dismissing as no real biggie, that of healthcare.  What you believe to be some "scare tactic" is actually a highlighting some of the many severe repercussions to what you would want to impose on this country

I never said you did, only that your rationalizations of this supposed increased tax base is somehow tied to fixing all these problems, when there's no where near ANY concensus that there will be ANY increase in the tax base at all, with many conclusions referencing precisely the opposite.

Whose conclusions?

Theirs
and
theirs
and
theirs
and
theirs
and
theirs
and
theirs
and
theirs
and........I could go on and on and on and on.  And this is simply 1 element, that of the negative impact on our economy, not the "rosy picture of a larger tax base" that you're gambling on

In essense, you're advocating a gamble, one that is well intentioned, but with arguably wreckless consequences to this country, if your gamble fails.

No. I'm not advocating anything that would be more of a gamble than California allowing people from other states to look for work in California.

California has already lost a ton of large company tax revenues, relocating to other states.  The difference being, THEY'RE ALREADY HERE LEGALLY.  That number is already built in to the country, from a population stand point.  We're talking the notion of opening the border to flood the country with 10s of millions more people.  Again Prince, NO ONE IS ADVOCATING THAT IMMIGRANTS CANT COME TO AMERICA.  Simply to get in line, and do it legally

And with the scores and scores of reports, Q&A, and facts that reinforce just how bad things would get, be it to the economy, education, heatlhcare, poverty, crime & culture, I'm not taking that gamble.

I've seen lots of opinions, but no factual reports that suggest anything like what you're saying.

Then obviously you're either not paying attention or purposely ignoring such.  And given your obvious position on this issue, I think I can guess which

Especially when it facilitates precisely the type of Federal Government control, that YOU yourself deplore, to come to the rescue, as it spirals out of control

What you might be missing here is that we already have government control I don't like that is in part a result of the attempt to restrict immigration.

See, a perfect example of what I'm referring to.  The mammoth negative repercussions to just the healthcare delivery system alone by which you advocate, would bring about precisely the type of "crisis" the Fed is so famous for trying to fix.  Welcome Federally mandated Healthcare.  Thanks alot, Prince

Welcome to the viscious circle of open borders

No, actually it is the viscous circle that is government control. Like any viscous circle, if you want to break it, you have to stop feeding it.

If only you'd follow your own advice     

[Universe Prince]

Is that not one of the primary arguements used for open borders.....that it's more humane?

That is an argument used, yes. Which still doesn't explain why you put the word in quotes.

What you believe to be some "scare tactic" is actually a highlighting some of the many severe repercussions to what you would want to impose on this country

It is exactly a scare tactic. The point is to scare people into not wanting open borders, is it not? Right or wrong, that is what you're doing, is it not? Anyway, I look again back to America coming out of the Great Depression. We had economic troubles and plenty of immigrants coming here, and somehow our health care system did not fall apart. Our economic situation is now much better, and we're trying to say our health care system cannot handle a flood of immigrants. I suggest we are suffering a problem of our own making. We've created a black market in labor when we don't need one, and essentially restricted many of those in the black market to using emergency care, and then we bitch and moan about how they're using up health care resources. We've government controlled ourselves into a corner, and we're calling for more government control. No, the problems we have created for ourselves won't go away overnight, but they won't go away at all if we don't stop contributing to it.

Theirs
and
theirs
and
theirs
and
theirs
and
theirs
and
theirs
and
theirs
and........I could go on and on and on and on.

I'm sure you could, but the problem is I don't see in those pages anything about the tax base not increasing. Yes, I see that they complain about social program benefits going to immigrants (a problem with the programs not the immigrants), but nothing there about more people paying taxes somehow shrinking the tax base. In point of fact, they seem to mostly overlook the increased tax base.

And this is simply 1 element, that of the negative impact on our economy, not the "rosy picture of a larger tax base" that you're gambling on

Again, not really gambling. And I don't recall saying anything would be rosy.

No. I'm not advocating anything that would be more of a gamble than California allowing people from other states to look for work in California.

California has already lost a ton of large company tax revenues, relocating to other states.

Yeah, so? Are you blaming the immigrants for that?

The difference being, THEY'RE ALREADY HERE LEGALLY.

And so would the immigrants if we stopped trying to interfere with immigration.

That number is already built in to the country, from a population stand point.  We're talking the notion of opening the border to flood the country with 10s of millions more people.  Again Prince, NO ONE IS ADVOCATING THAT IMMIGRANTS CANT COME TO AMERICA.  Simply to get in line, and do it legally

Are you or are you not the one complaining about a "flood" of "10s of millions"? You are arguing against allowing that to happen, are you not? Obviously you think we need to stop the vast majority of them. And obviously this isn't about them just getting in line and doing it legally, because I'm arguing for allowing more of them to immigrate legally, and you are objecting to that. Your own argument makes quite clear that you want to stop people from being able to come here. Yes, you are willing to allow some, but clearly not all or you wouldn't keep bringing up the numbers and complaining about a "flood" of them. So yes, you are basically advocating keeping people from immigrating to America.

I've seen lots of opinions, but no factual reports that suggest anything like what you're saying.

Then obviously you're either not paying attention or purposely ignoring such.  And given your obvious position on this issue, I think I can guess which

No, I don't think you can. You've been wrong so far.

The mammoth negative repercussions to just the healthcare delivery system alone by which you advocate, would bring about precisely the type of "crisis" the Fed is so famous for trying to fix.  Welcome Federally mandated Healthcare.  Thanks alot, Prince

Don't thank me. Pat yourself on the back. You're the one advocating the interruption of trade that is having a negative impact on our society. You're the one suggesting we need federal government intervention. You're the one blaming the wrong people for a problem we created. You're the one supporting a policy that has resulted in less trade and increased poverty. I have no intention of taking any of the credit you so richly deserve.

No, actually it is the viscous circle that is government control. Like any viscous circle, if you want to break it, you have to stop feeding it.

If only you'd follow your own advice

Heh. But you see, I am. I'm arguing for less government control. You're the one arguing for more of it.

[Plane]

The American Tax Base is the wealthy .

The uppermost 25% are paying more than 90% of the tax burden.

Taxes on the lower income levels can change a lot without makeing much diffrence.

If we doubble the number of people who are takeing entitlements we increase the cost of the entitlements by 2.

But if we doubble the number of people who pay taxes at the lower end of the tax rates we may increase the tax recipts by .2.

[Michael Tee]

<<But if we doubble the number of people who pay taxes at the lower end of the tax rates we may increase the tax recipts by .2.>>

I think what you're ignoring is the contribution that they make (as consumers) to the tax base of the ruling class.  These poor schmucks will spend their lives working at menial jobs for peanuts, pouring the entire output of their labour into rent, basic food, exorbitantly priced medical care and pharmaceuticals, cable TV, fines and penalties, etc., enriching the ruling class with their basic-level purchases and expenditures every fucking day of their lives with nothing to show for it at the end except for some miserable pittance which usually winds up in the hands of the owners of some chain of low-rent funeral parlours or their bankers.  Those who don't work but merely draw welfare, recycle the welfare money from the general tax revenues into the pockets of the ruling class via the route just described.  And those who choose or are forced to live by crime perform the same function with the proceeds of their crimes, recycled from the pockets of the crime victims through them to the pockets of the ruling class.

Every cell in their bodies is food for the rich.  More bodies, more food.  As long as you continue to believe that the ruling class pays more than its fair share of taxes, you have to believe that all this will only serve to increase the tax base.

[Plane]

<<But if we doubble the number of people who pay taxes at the lower end of the tax rates we may increase the tax recipts by .2.>>

I think what you're ignoring is the contribution that they make (as consumers) to the tax base of the ruling class.  These poor schmucks will spend their lives working at menial jobs for peanuts, pouring the entire output of their labour into rent, basic food, exorbitantly priced medical care and pharmaceuticals, cable TV, fines and penalties, etc., enriching the ruling class with their basic-level purchases and expenditures every fucking day of their lives with nothing to show for it at the end except for some miserable pittance which usually winds up in the hands of the owners of some chain of low-rent funeral parlours or their bankers.  Those who don't work but merely draw welfare, recycle the welfare money from the general tax revenues into the pockets of the ruling class via the route just described.  And those who choose or are forced to live by crime perform the same function with the proceeds of their crimes, recycled from the pockets of the crime victims through them to the pockets of the ruling class.

Every cell in their bodies is food for the rich.  More bodies, more food.  As long as you continue to believe that the ruling class pays more than its fair share of taxes, you have to believe that all this will only serve to increase the tax base.

Did I say that that fairness was a factor at all?
It isn't .

We first shoud determine whether a scheme will work or won't cause if it won't work it cant be fair anyway.

The Bodies of the poor do not need to be within the borders of the US to be cosumers , all the beneifts you imagined the "ruleing class" (ha) acrueing rom the poor can be had with no immagration.

[Universe Prince]

The American Tax Base is the wealthy .

Is it? All those other folks buying things, having their payroll taxes taken, all that doesn't contribute to the tax base? Do nonwealthy people not pay sales tax? Do they not have FICA taxes taken from their paychecks?

The uppermost 25% are paying more than 90% of the tax burden.

Taxes on the lower income levels can change a lot without makeing much diffrence.

If we doubble the number of people who are takeing entitlements we increase the cost of the entitlements by 2.

But if we doubble the number of people who pay taxes at the lower end of the tax rates we may increase the tax recipts by .2.

Or you may get more. So many people seem to assume all this trade is going to result in net losses. Apparently among the immigrants there no entrepreneurs and none ambitious enough to try to learn skills or make more money. They're all going to come here and they and their offspring will forever be simply a drain on government programs. Why this would be the case now when it has never been the case before in the whole 230 years of this country, I have no idea.

During that 230 years, there have always, always been complaints about immigrants coming here and ruining everything. The complaints are always the same. They don't speak English. They're poor. They're not skilled. They're going to change the culture. And yet, here in 2007, the U.S. is this superpower among nations and still people make the same complaints. They don't speak English. They're poor. They're not skilled. They're going to change the culture. The U.S. culture in which we live today was shaped in large part by all those immigrants who came here and didn't always learn English and had little to no money and were not skilled laborers. The U.S. is a wealthy nation in both economy and culture because of that immigration. And yet, here we are, facing the same complaints about immigrants. Does anyone pay attention at all?

And frankly, if the folks who are so adamant about closing the borders were as adamant about reducing or eliminating the government run entitlements programs, we wouldn't need to worry about immigrants using up all the tax dollars and the country would be much better off.