| Migrants are more skilled and often more reliable and hardworking than British workers, and are fuelling the country's economic growth to the tune of ?6bn a year, according to the first official study of their impact published yesterday. The report for the government's Migration Impact Forum also concludes that migrants on average earn more and so pay more tax than UK workers. The joint Treasury, Home Office and Work and Pensions study says that the arrival of hundreds of thousands of Polish and other east European workers has had "no discernible" impact on unemployment and has led to only a "modest dampening of wage growth" for British workers at the bottom end of the earnings league. |
| Q: You argue that immigration is a good thing, under almost any circumstances. Why? Are there any circumstances in which it isn?t good? A: I think freedom of movement is one of the most basic human rights, as anyone who is denied it can confirm. It is abhorrent that the rich and the educated are allowed to circulate around the world more or less freely, while the poor are not ? causing, in effect, a form of global apartheid. So I think the burden of proof lies with supporters of immigration controls to justify why they think letting people move freely would have such catastrophic consequences. And, frankly, I don?t think they can. The economic case for open borders is as compelling as the moral one. No government, except perhaps North Korea?s, would dream of trying to ban the movement of goods and services across borders; trying to ban the movement of most people who produce goods and services is equally self-defeating. When it comes to the domestic economy, politicians and policymakers are forever urging people to be more mobile, and to move to where the jobs are. But if it is a good thing for people to move from Kentucky to California in search of a better job, why is it so terrible for people to move from Mexico to the U.S. to work? |
| From an ethical point of view, it seems hard to argue against a policy that would do so much to help people poorer than ourselves. A Rand study of recent immigrants to the U.S. finds that the typical immigrant ends up $20,000 per year better off. And it?s not just the migrants themselves who gain ? it?s their countries of origin, too. Already, migrants born in poor countries and working in rich ones send home much more ? some $200 billion a year officially, perhaps another $400 billion informally ? than the miserly $100 billion that Western governments give in aid. These remittances are not wasted on weapons or siphoned off into Swiss bank accounts; they go straight into the pockets of local people. They pay for food, clean water, and medicines. They enable children to stay in school, fund small businesses, and benefit the local economy. What?s more, when migrants return home, they bring with them new skills, new ideas, and the money to start new businesses that can provide a huge boost to the local economy. For example, Africa?s first Internet caf?s were started by migrants returning from Europe. |
| From a cultural perspective, immigration is a win-win for the U.S. America needs immigrants because they add something extra to the mix, enriching the economy, culture, and society. For a start, they tend to be enterprising and hard-working people, because it takes courage to uproot yourself in search of a better life. Those who come from countries that offer fewer opportunities than the U.S. are more willing to do the low-skilled jobs that America?s aging and increasingly wealthy citizens rely on, but are unwilling to do ? essential services that cannot readily be mechanized or imported, such as caring for the young and old, and cleaning homes, offices, and hospitals. Some immigrants bring exceptional skills that American companies need if they are to compete in a global marketplace. Also, immigrants? collective diversity and dynamism helps spur innovation and economic growth, because if people who think differently bounce ideas off each other, they can solve problems better and faster. Just look at Silicon Valley: Intel, Yahoo, Google, eBay, and others were all co-founded by immigrants who arrived in the U.S. not as highly-skilled graduates, but as children. |
gosh maybe if it's such a good thing maybe we should start flying round the clock flights of
uneducated poor into the united states then we'd be all that much better off
instead of ten million, lets bring in 50 million a year, wow just think how much better off we'd be
Nice, though not suprising, to see the "case for open immigration" being made by 1 who advocates such under pretty much all circumstances, as Mr Legrain seems to employ.
Damn with the repercussions of little to no border control.
It's just the "right thing to do" ::) Boy, why does this sound so much like a liberal feel good, well intentioned social program, that simply needs more money to make it work?
The 6 billion economic boost is also not as it seems. Western Union reports that many Polish workers send up to 60% of the money they earn in Britain back to their families in Poland so these earning don?t boost the British economy.
The Government is also vague as to who actually benefits from the 6 billion[/b], so I shall shed some light on this - it is greedy bosses who are increasing their profits by using cheap labour, and private landlords who are buying up the homes that should be going to British first time buyers and filling them with migrant workers.
And finally the Government claims we benefit because of the tax that migrant workers pay. That is nonsense. Most migrant workers end up not paying any tax at all because they work here for nine months, then go back home and claim their tax back through firms that specialise solely in securing tax rebates for migrant workers. They then return and do it all over again.
Let's just hope the British people see through the Government and media?s "6 billion boost spin" and realise the real cost to this country of allowing unrestricted immigration.
Nice, though not suprising, to see the "case for open immigration" being made by 1 who advocates such under pretty much all circumstances, as Mr Legrain seems to employ.
I've read that sentence five or six times now, and there must be something wrong with me because that sentence still doesn't make any sense at all.
Damn with the repercussions of little to no border control.
Repercussions like increased trade? Increased tax base? Why would we want to damn that? Sounds like a good thing to me.
It's just the "right thing to do" ::) Boy, why does this sound so much like a liberal feel good, well intentioned social program, that simply needs more money to make it work?
Because you're not really paying attention. Getting out of the way of immigration doesn't require any spending.
It merely requires getting out of the way.
Perhaps I can provide some Q&A op-eds on the serious negative effects of the type of open border advocation you and Mr Legrain seem to support. You'll accept those with just as much objective validity, correct?
No, more like decreased resources,
decreased health care services,
increased taxations,
the overcrowding of schools which become even that much more underfunded,
lowered wages,
increased poverty,
increased loss of a common language & culture,
an expectation of higher crime,
traffic congestion,
& voter fraud,
not to mention the increased being taken advantage of by those employers that would try to use them as just above slave labor.
I'm not talking about spending, I'm talking about mindset of advocating what one may feel good about and be "well intentioned", and damn the repercussions of it, if it ever came to fruition. Pushing open borders is right up there with pushing endless social spending programs. Both sound good, both have the sincerest of intentions, and both have fatal flaws to the economy & country
QuoteIt merely requires getting out of the way.
And that's a really scary thought
an expectation of higher crime,
| 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." |
you claim they are such a huge benefit
then if thats true
lets help them get here even faster so we can "reap all the wonderful benefits"
lets double, lets thriple the amount that are coming in
maybe 50 million a year would make it even better than it is on our schools, hospitals, jails, roads
maybe if we bring in enough 3rd world people we can make america just like a third world country
hey many parts of large american cities are already begining to resemble places like el salvador, lets speed up that pocess
The electors of Millwall did not back a Post-Modernist Rightist Party, but what they perceived to be a strong, disciplined organisation with the ability to back up its slogan 'Defend Rights for Whites' with well-directed boots and fists. When the crunch comes, power is the product of force and will, not of rational debate. - Nick Griffin
Mein Kampf is my bible. - John Tyndall
The sick minds who would have us believe that Jews were gassed at Auschwitz are completely twisted. - Tony Lecomber, number two in the BNP.
Oh, and it must have been a really COMPLEX matter to figure out this crucial measure. The GDP divided by the pre-immigration population compared to the GDP divided by the post-immigration population. Wow, a real brain-teaser.
yes, attack the messenger if all else fails
what like the kind your leftist invite to speak at Columbia and wined and dined to dinner in New York by the Liberal Press?
i certainly have not wined/dined and invited anyone from BNP to speak
i betcha your leftist hoodlums at columbia would not invite BNP, but will invite people involved in IED's killing americans
invite a man that is actually involved directly and/or indirectly in killing US soldiers every single day
how many IED's from the BNP are killing American soldiers on a daily basis?
where was your outrage js?
how horrible does the man have to be js before you are outraged?
ask Comumbia's and the liberal press.
well duh
you want to "control of my life", because you think you know better, it's called socialist disease
i don't like people that want to "control my life" and think they know whats best for me
oh so "it's crap" but you post an article that demeans the man using his father?
if it has nothing to do with it, then why is it in the body of your post?
if they point out fallacies in the arguments about how "great" chaotic immigration
is thats what I am interested in. what their views are on deportation is an entirely
different subject, but I know you would rather demonize the messenger than
deal with reality.
What article are you talking about? I really have no idea. Who did I demean for "using his father?"
But let's look at the party that Christians United for Less Government is using to attack immigration. It is a far right wing party run by Nick Griffin, a law graduate of Cambridge whose father was a Conservative Party local councillor.
Prince countered with an article from the Guardian, which is primarily read by Labour and Liberal Democrat voters. It is a broadsheet paper, infamously known as the "Gruaniad" for an historic misspelling of their own name once! It is a far more respected paper in terms of journalism (the right-wing equivalent would be The Telegraph).
I didn't see anything in the study to indicate that there was a net drain on the GDP caused by immigration, but I don't believe that the GDP would be the measure of the total effect of immigration anyway.
Perhaps I can provide some Q&A op-eds on the serious negative effects of the type of open border advocation you and Mr Legrain seem to support. You'll accept those with just as much objective validity, correct?
Legrain offered his opinion, but I think he also made a reasoned case. Will your op-eds do that?
No, more like decreased resources,
A larger labor force and tax base would be an increase in resources.
decreased health care services,
Why would that occur?
increased taxations,
Again, why would that occur? An increase in the tax base would boost tax revenue.
the overcrowding of schools which become even that much more underfunded,
I don't know about where you live, where I live (a state with possibly the worst public education system in the nation), the problem is not funding. The problem is misspent funding. We build the fanciest damn schools I've ever seen, decked out in a fashion that high end hotels would envy (okay that might be an exaggeration, but not by much), and then run out of money for books. (What kind of budgeting for education runs out of money for books? Who plans like that? That is the kind of thing that tempts me to slap the people responsible and ask them, "What the hell were you thinking?") You'd think someone would figure out that less expensive coat hooks (no seriously, you should see these things) would leave more money for books, but apparently not. Sorry, did I get off topic? Anyway, the larger tax base would help with the funding.
lowered wages,
We have minimum wage laws. I'm not sure whose wages are going to be lowered.
Yes, a larger labor force means employers won't have to pay as much, but that usually results in costs of living not going up. In any case, this would be a short term issue, imo. As I have said before, let capitalism work, and when the poorer countries are better off economically, then people won't have to come here for low-paying jobs.
increased poverty,
Increased poverty for whom?
increased loss of a common language & culture,
Do I really need to address that again?
an expectation of higher crime,
An expectation for which I have yet to see any substantive support.
traffic congestion,
A solvable problem, but one faced in many places already.
I'm not talking about spending, I'm talking about mindset of advocating what one may feel good about and be "well intentioned", and damn the repercussions of it, if it ever came to fruition. Pushing open borders is right up there with pushing endless social spending programs. Both sound good, both have the sincerest of intentions, and both have fatal flaws to the economy & country
I don't agree.
Apparently you and your Nationalist pals know what's better for the "foreigners" than they do.
yes i certainly do know what to do with illegal invaders of my country and i make no apologies for that
....I really don't know if, on balance, they are an economic plus or minus, but I do know that the oponents of illegal immigration do not usually present a full and balanced picture of the economic case against them, if there is one.
Most "invasions" involve armies of laborers coming across the border to...build, farm, or God forbid...go to school
California is considering paying other states to house the thousands of illegal immigrants
in its prisons, according to a statement from the governor's office.
More than 10 percent of California's prison population is in the United States illegally.
This costs California roughly more than $500 million annually.
LA County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich announced that a new report shows
illegal aliens and their families in Los Angeles County collected over $35 million in welfare
and food stamp allocations in July 2007 alone.
The Center for Medicaid Services at the Dept. of Health and Human Services reported that for FY 2001, the health care costs for illegal immigrants in California were over $648 million.
Fraudulent Social Security cards, driver's licenses and birth certificates are being bought by thousands of illegal immigrants each year. These false documents are used by individuals to get millions of dollars worth of welfare, public housing and Social Security benefits.
The total K-12 school expenditure for illegal immigrants costs the states $7.4 billion annually.
I will make sure that everyone else in this forum knows what those organizations are. I promise.
Yes and I will continue to expose your hypocrisy and phony outrage.
As for the Germans (something I know a little about),
oh brother
oh but i forgot you have all the degrees
are you going to announce that again?
the truth is that there is no great influx of Germans flying into the United States.
there does not have to be in an analogy
Your hypothetical is meaningless in the real world.
No it is a perfect example that destroys your typical leftist need to smear people that don't at all buy into your bigoted dogma
You want to pretend it's about racism so you can demonize, but when it's shown it's not, you call it "meaningless".
Again,whether it's Germans or Mexicans, the American people and I oppose tens of millions of illegal invaders.
When you use Nationalists to make your arguments, you cannot seriously expect that anyone takes the "but this has nothing to do with race" preface seriously.
You are right I normally expect leftist to smear and change the subject rather than deal with the facts.
Just like the Hillary thread about her possibly bombing Iran, was quickly changed to another topic.
Just like clapping for Ahmadinejad and booing/heckling/attacking Ann Coulter & the Minute Men off the stage.
Intolerance for those that disagree.
Ya know, throw a pie in her face, it easier than arguing with her facts.
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. Hillary (as well as Obama, Edwards, and company) has to be salivating at the prospect
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. Hillary (as well as Obama, Edwards, and company) has to be salivating at the prospect
That is laughable Sirs. How are you going to "beef up security" and construct a wall on the border with Mexico without "increasing the Government footprint?"
QuoteLegrain 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.
QuoteA 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
Our current healthcare provisions are finite resources. You can't just wish more ER's, more doctors, and more money to pay for services.
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, 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?
the increase in mass immigrants that would largely be payed with off the books takes AWAY tax revenue,
Not to mention the many who use fraudulent social security numbers
And again with the false hope of a "larger tax base", as if THAT's the key to it all.
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.
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.
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
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
No, since it's pretty transparent how you care so very little about American culture. Sad is the best way to describe that
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.
| 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." |
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??
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.
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.
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.
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
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
you can pretend it's racism,
thats easy, just demonize and then you can have your little warm and fuzzy leftist "feel good"
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
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.
and neither do the pro-border chaos proponets
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".
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Is that not one of the primary arguements used for open borders.....that it's more humane?
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
Theirs (http://www.10news.com/news/9620142/detail.html)
and
theirs (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03993.pdf)
and
theirs (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/SR9.cfm)
and
theirs (http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/ts_more.php?id=73835_0_10_0_M)
and
theirs (http://www.azconservative.org/Barton.htm)
and
theirs (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4442855.html)
and
theirs (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53613)
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
QuoteNo. 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
QuoteI'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
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
QuoteNo, 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
<<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.
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.
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.[/color]
"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."Amoung the leagal immagrants it is the usual case that they plan to make money , raise their children well and stay.
"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?"
QuoteAnd 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.
Where do you get that those of the former aren't also supportive of the latter??
And one more time, it's about "closing the borders" to ILEGAL IMMIGRATION, not to immigration itself
Amoung the leagal immagrants it is the usual case that they plan to make money , raise their children well and stay.
Illeagal immagrtion is diffrent in just this way.
It would help to have more immagrants who are wealthy or more immagrants who will become wealthy neither are found amoung the illleagal.
Amoung the leagal immagrants it is the usual case that they plan to make money , raise their children well and stay.
Illeagal immagrtion is diffrent in just this way.
Different in just what way? Are you suggesting all illegal immigrants want to remain dirt poor, to forget their children and to leave? Is that why the risk death and imprisonment to find work here? Your comment makes no sense.
It would help to have more immagrants who are wealthy or more immagrants who will become wealthy neither are found amoung the illleagal.
True enough that the poor illegal immigrants probably have some trouble scraping together the funds to pay for legal entry into the U.S., but I have no idea why you think that among the illegal immigrants there are none who would become wealthy. Do you think they are all unwilling or incapable? That seems to me like a completely unreasonable judgment. Upon what do you base this pronouncement of there being none among illegal immigrants who would become wealthy?
QuoteAnd 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.
Where do you get that those of the former aren't also supportive of the latter??
I didn't say supportive. I said as adamant about ending the programs as they are adamant about closing the borders. And no, the effort going into arguing and campaigning for closed, or highly restricted if you prefer, borders I don't see going into arguing and campaigning for the end of socialist entitlement programs. They remain essentially a third rail, considered politically off limits. .
I'll repeat what I said before to a similar comment from you: 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.
Most of the illeagal immagrants make what money they can , run terrible risk , are exploited and cheated , then they return to their homes wit the money they broke the law to earn.
This process is bad for everyone involved.
It would be better if they would fill out the forms as reqired and wait their turn , then when they came in leagally they would not fear the police , they would not have to accept skimming , they could apply for permanant resident or citizenship if they wanted . I don't think it good to have a lot of non citizens here that we depend on but don't treat well.
Why do they wait for us to use force on them to make us aware of how we need them?
If they could organise a strike it would require no more that all of them on the same day giveing themselves up to the immagration authority , we would be obliged to send them home and we would find that we could not.
Yet somehow you've concluded that those who aren't apparently as adamantly verbal in the one must somehow be inconsistent, if you perceive them to be adamantly verbal in the other.
How you can manage to take how "I support LEGAL immigration and for people to come to America to make a better life for themselves, simply they they get in line and do it legally" to "you are basically advocating keeping people from immigrating to America" is quite the (ir)rational linguistic somersault.
Yet somehow you've concluded that those who aren't apparently as adamantly verbal in the one must somehow be inconsistent, if you perceive them to be adamantly verbal in the other.
I don't believe I said inconsistent. I think I basically suggested they were obviously not as concerned about the one as they are the other.
How you can manage to take how "I support LEGAL immigration and for people to come to America to make a better life for themselves, simply they they get in line and do it legally" to "you are basically advocating keeping people from immigrating to America" is quite the (ir)rational linguistic somersault.
No, actually Sirs, I take more than that one sentence of yours and, with no somersaults involved, I used basic deductive reasoning to arrive at a conclusion. One which I notice you dismissed but did nothing to rebut.
The rational deduction here is that you want to stop not all but certainly many people from immigrating to the U.S. So as I said before, basically you advocate keeping people from immigrating to America.
What you've set up, is that unless someone doesn't support open borders, by design, they must be opposed to immigration. It's a ludicrous premise,
Supporting LEGAL immigration does not equate to not supporting immigration in general. It's a simple concept, yet I understand why this need to illogically build up this irrational wall of a premise
Actually the rational deduction is that I want to stop ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION to the U.S. which translates into SUPPORTING LEGAL IMMIGRATION to America. So as long as folks do it legally, I have no problem with how many come in, which happens to pretty much rebutt the flawed notion that I advocate "keeping people from immigration to America"
What you've set up, is that unless someone doesn't support open borders, by design, they must be opposed to immigration. It's a ludicrous premise,
That is indeed a ludicrous premise. Good thing I didn't say that then, isn't it?
Supporting LEGAL immigration does not equate to not supporting immigration in general. It's a simple concept, yet I understand why this need to illogically build up this irrational wall of a premise
You're the one doing all the building. I did not say supporting legal immigration was equal to not supporting immigration in general. I didn't say anything was equal to anything in general. I said rather specifically that your arguments indicated that you opposed allowing people to immigrate....
Well let's see.
I specifically reference how I support legal immigration --> which is supporting the idea of immigration to this country.
Prince specifically references how open borders are the best way to go, but since I don't support mass movement across the border, to which he advocates --> sirs must oppose immigration
QuoteI said rather specifically that your arguments indicated that you opposed allowing people to immigrate....
Now, let's finish that sentence for accuracy now; ....opposed to allowing people to immigrate ILLEGALLY There, that puts things in a more accurate portrayal of my position
I specifically reference how I support legal immigration --> which is supporting the idea of immigration to this country.
Prince specifically references how open borders are the best way to go, but since I don't support mass movement across the border, to which he advocates --> sirs must oppose immigration
You're oversimplifying both what I said and what you said. You're ignoring the details of my comments to distort what I said and to claim that I meant something I never said. And you're accusing me of being irrational?
Yes, Sirs, we all get that you are opposed to illegal immigration. I, Universe Prince, do hereby officially acknowledge (for the umpteen hundredth time) that Sirs is not opposed to legal immigration, only to illegal immigration.QuoteI said rather specifically that your arguments indicated that you opposed allowing people to immigrate....Now, let's finish that sentence for accuracy now; ....opposed to allowing people to immigrate ILLEGALLY There, that puts things in a more accurate portrayal of my position
Why do they wait for us to use force on them to make us aware of how we need them?
If they could organise a strike it would require no more that all of them on the same day giveing themselves up to the immagration authority , we would be obliged to send them home and we would find that we could not.
And they would make no money, as they would all end up in jail. Defeating the purpose of being here. And I believe they and others have attempted to make known to us how much we depend on their labor, but the problem is, no one seems to be paying attention. We're all too busy complaining about culture and taxes.
Actually, I'm making a perfectly reasoned deduction, based on YOUR comments. I don't ascribe to your open borders mass immigration mindset, ergo, I must be opposed to immigration. It's all pretty transparent
decreased resources, decreased health care services, increased taxations, the overcrowding of schools which become even that much more underfunded, lowered wages, increased poverty, increased loss of a common language & culture, an expectation of higher crime, traffic congestion, & voter fraud, not to mention the increased being taken advantage of by those employers that would try to use them as just above slave labor.
the increase in mass immigrants that would largely be payed with off the books takes AWAY tax revenue, while tax payers will be mugged with increased taxes to pay for the failing healthcare & education systems, especially as the Fed takes over to "fix the crisis". [...] According to fairus.org, the net annual cost of immigration has been estimated at between $67 and $87 billion a year. The National Academy of Sciences found that the net fiscal drain on American taxpayers is between $166 and $226 a year per native household. Even studies claiming some modest overall gain for the economy from immigration ($1 to $10 billion a year) have found that it is outweighed by the fiscal cost ($15 to $20 billion a year) to native taxpayers. 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. [...] 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.
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. I can't keep up with the number of stories in Los Angeles alone of drive by killings, rapes, and murders by gang members found to be illegal immigrants.
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
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
If they all tuned themselves in and waited co-operatively in the lobbys of the Immagration offices there would be no wa to accomadate them ,nor twenty percent of them.
Yes, Sirs, we all get that you are opposed to illegal immigration. I, Universe Prince, do hereby officially acknowledge that Sirs is not opposed to legal immigration, only to illegal immigration.QuoteI said rather specifically that your arguments indicated that you opposed allowing people to immigrate....Now, let's finish that sentence for accuracy now; ....opposed to allowing people to immigrate ILLEGALLY There, that puts things in a more accurate portrayal of my position
If they all tuned themselves in and waited co-operatively in the lobbys of the Immagration offices there would be no wa to accomadate them ,nor twenty percent of them.
Probably so. But I find hard to believe your notion that a strike of all illegal immigrants would somehow result in a massive change of policy and public opinion in favor of the immigrants.
Yes, Sirs, we all get that you are opposed to illegal immigration. I, Universe Prince, do hereby officially acknowledge that Sirs is not opposed to legal immigration, only to illegal immigration.QuoteI said rather specifically that your arguments indicated that you opposed allowing people to immigrate....Now, let's finish that sentence for accuracy now; ....opposed to allowing people to immigrate ILLEGALLY There, that puts things in a more accurate portrayal of my position
Thank you. We may now close the book, and return to our regularly scheduled program
QuoteBut I find hard to believe your notion that a strike of all illegal immigrants would somehow result in a massive change of policy and public opinion in favor of the immigrants.
If it wouldn't , then we don't reallly need the work they are doing .
Yes, Sirs, we all get that you are opposed to illegal immigration. I, Universe Prince, do hereby officially acknowledge that Sirs is not opposed to legal immigration, only to illegal immigration.
Thank you. We may now close the book, and return to our regularly scheduled program
So, you're not going to answer the questions. Okay. This makes me wonder why you do not answer then questions.
Because the point has been made and validated by Prince; sirs does support immigration to this country, just not to the mass unfettered amounts, in 1 fell swoop, that Prince does
Because the point has been made and validated by Prince; sirs does support immigration to this country, just not to the mass unfettered amounts, in 1 fell swoop, that Prince does
That was never in question and has almost nothing to do with the questions I asked. Yes, Sirs, you support immigration, immigration for the few,
immigration onerously restricted to the point that it harmfully interferes with trade and the economic health of both the U.S. and other countries,
immigration that is in fact restricted with the intent to keep most potential immigrants out of the country,
but yes, you do support immigration.
Quotebut yes, you do support immigration.
Thank you. I'm glad we do have that cleared up now.
JS,
Are you saying that a sovereign state does not have the moral right and obligation to manage the flow of immigrants into their country?
And as a sidebar, depicting those who have a differing viewpoint than you concerning immigration as racists, segregationists and or nazi's is really beneath you.
A moral right and obligation to use social justice and social equality to regulate immigration? Yes, perhaps. But I don't think you can claim that is what we do, BT.
QuoteA moral right and obligation to use social justice and social equality to regulate immigration? Yes, perhaps. But I don't think you can claim that is what we do, BT.
That wasn't the question.
Asked another way, is it morally defensible to manage the influx of legal immigrants into this country.
But in trying to understand, I asked questions anyway. Three times. And you've refused to answer apparently because you've claimed victory over something that was never in question.
I honestly doubt that Sirs understands the complexities and difficulties involved in people from certain countries becoming legal citizens of the United States. That people from some countries have a quicker process than people from other countries.
Yelling LEGAL IMMIGRATION! is just a way to hide and offer no solutions. Or if one truly understands it then it is something far more dubious.
The same people yelled LEGAL SEGREGATION! in the 50's or they winked right back when Barry Goldwater said that the Civil Rights Act was good, but not constitutional. Or it is the same people who yelled JEDEM DAS SEINE! in 1930's Germany. Both perfectly fine phrases for their time...for those who chose not to care about what they really meant.
Statement of Most Reverend William Skylstad
President, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops
On Comprehensive Immigration Reform
June 15, 2006
Link (http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2006/06-122.shtml)
The U.S. Catholic bishops acknowledge that immigration is an emotional and challenging issue which has engaged the American public, including members of the Catholic faithful. We have heard from Catholics and others of good will who both agree and disagree with us on how best to respond to the immigration crisis our nation faces today.
Each day in our parishes, social services programs, hospitals, and schools we witness the human consequences of an immigration system which is seriously flawed: families are divided, migrants are exploited and abused by smugglers and human traffickers, and, in some cases, men, women and children who attempt to come here in search of a better life perish in the American desert and on the seas.
Because of these realities, we believe that the status quo is morally unacceptable and must be changed. Since our nation?s immigration policy does impact the basic dignity and life of the human person, it needs to be reformed urgently to uphold human dignity and to protect human life.
On behalf of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), we will continue to work with Congress and the President to enact comprehensive immigration reform legislation consistent with these principles. In the end, our immigration laws should be just and humane and reflect the values?fairness, opportunity, and compassion?upon which our nation, a nation of immigrants, was built.
LOS ANGELES (June 14, 2006)? Legislative debates over how to restructure the nation?s immigration system should approach any policy change as a moral issue that protects the dignity of all immigrants, a panel of bishops said today at a press conference held during their national meeting.
Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles, CA; Bishop Gerald R. Barnes of San Bernardino, CA.; Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio of Brooklyn, NY; Bishop Gerald Kicanas of Tucson, AZ and Auxiliary Bishop Jaime Soto of Orange, CA. called on congressional leaders to enact comprehensive immigration reform that addresses the root causes of migration and creates an earned path to citizenship for undocumented workers.
Cardinal Mahony described the current immigration system as ?morally unacceptable because it accepts the labor and taxes of millions of workers without offering them the protection of the law.?
?At the same time, we scapegoat these newcomers for our social ills and use them as rhetorical targets for political purposes,? Cardinal Mahony said. ?While the immigration debate to date has focused on the economic, legal, and social/cultural aspects of the issue, it is ultimately a humanitarian, and moral, issue.?
Bishop Gerald R. Barnes, the Chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops? Committee on Migration, said the bishops have a ?long history of advocating for just and fair immigration laws,? and have concluded that the current immigration system is ?seriously flawed with respect to the treatment of immigrants and does not serve the common good of our nation.?
Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio, the Chairman of the Catholic Legal Immigration Network Board of Directors, highlighted several concerns the bishops have about recent congressional action on immigration that he hoped would be corrected in conference committee. ?For example, we understand the logic behind the three-tiered system included in the Senate bill, but believe it might be difficult to administer and that it unfairly leaves behind many who may be eligible,? Bishop DiMarzio said. ?For those persons who have been here two years or less, we are fearful that the requirement to return home and come back through a temporary worker program is unrealistic in that many would not participate and would remain in the shadows.?
Bishops are meeting in Los Angeles June 15-17 for the spring meeting of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Attached are the complete statements given by Cardinal Roger Mahony, Bishop Gerald R. Barnes and Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio.
Statement of His Eminence Roger Cardinal Mahony
I would like to thank Bishop Barnes for his kind invitation to join the Committee on Migration and the CLINIC board today for this important press conference.
As you have heard, the issue of immigration reform is an important one for the U.S. Catholic bishops as well as our nation. We have specific solutions to the immigration crisis we face in our nation.
However, some in the Catholic community and in the public square generally have asked why the issue is important and why the church is so involved and compelled to speak out on it. I would like to respond, respectfully, to those who question our involvement and who may disagree with our message.
Why are we involved? Fundamentally it is because it is our Gospel mandate, our instruction from our Savior to ?welcome the stranger.? In the Gospel of Matthew, Christ teaches us that salvation is gained by feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and welcoming the stranger, for ?what you have done to the least of my brothers, you have done unto me.? He teaches us in the parable of the Good Samaritan that we must help all of our fellow human beings, even though they may be different from us in many respects.
We also are involved because we see each day in our dioceses, parishes, social service programs, hospitals, and schools increased suffering because families are separated and persons are forced to live on the margins of society. In border states such as California, we see persons exploited by smugglers and men, women, and children dying in the desert. This suffering must end.
We also see an immigration system which is morally unacceptable because it accepts the labor and taxes of millions of workers without offering them the protection of the law. At the same time, we scapegoat these newcomers for our social ills and use them as rhetorical targets for political purposes.
While the immigration debate to date has focused on the economic, legal, and social/cultural aspects of the issue, it is ultimately a humanitarian, and moral, issue.
It is therefore incumbent upon our elected officials, including Catholics, to carefully scrutinize these laws so as to serve basic human dignity and protect human life. Laws and policies which infringe upon dignity and harm human life are wrong and, as a moral matter, should be rebuffed or repealed.
As Bishop Barnes stated, our nation has an opportunity to make history at this moment by reforming the system comprehensively in a humane manner. We should not let this moment pass. This must include a workable and viable path to citizenship for the undocumented, a temporary worker program which protects the rights of all workers, family reunification, and enforcement measures which are humane. I believe that the majority of Catholics, as well as the public, support this recipe.
Thank you.
Statement of Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio
Thank you, Bishop Barnes, for including me in this event.
I would like to point out for you some of our concerns we have about what Congress has done to date which we hope will be corrected in the conference committee.
As Bishop Barnes stated, we would like to see a program which allows the undocumented to earn citizenship to be both workable and viable. In other words, we do not want to see a formula which causes confusion, inefficiencies, and could lead to fraud. We also do not want to see a program which is not easily implemented.
For example, we understand the logic behind the three-tiered system included in the Senate bill, but believe it might be difficult to administer and that it unfairly leaves behind many who may be eligible. For those persons who have been here two years or less, we are fearful that the requirement to return home and come back through a temporary worker program is unrealistic, in that many would not participate and would remain in the shadows. For those here from 2-5 years, we would like to see more detail on the requirement to return and ?touch base,? as it has been described.
In short, we would like to see a path to citizenship which treats all in a similar way but allows those who have been here longer priority in the system, behind those already in line.
As for a temporary worker program, we feel strongly that a self-petitioning mechanism must be included in any program?in other words, persons should be allowed to apply for a green card on their own and not be dependent on an employer to do it for them. In addition, we would like to see worker protections strengthened in the bill.
In the enforcement area, we, of course, have concerns about the erection of hundreds of miles of fencing along our southern border. We do not believe it will deter migrants from attempting to enter and may lead them into more perilous routes. Legal avenues should help relieve the pressure on the border.
We also have concerns about how asylum seekers and refugees are treated in these bills. The expansion of expedited removal is of concern, as well as provisions which would criminalize asylum seekers for using false documents to enter the country.
In addition, due process protections are removed in many cases, for both legal immigrants and asylum seekers. Mandatory detention along our border could lead to the separation of families and to the incarceration of vulnerable groups, such as trafficking victims, victims of domestic violence, and children. The authorization of local law enforcement to enforce immigration law takes away from the ability of those local authorities to apprehend real criminals and destroy trust between local police and immigrant communities.
Finally, we urge House and Senate leaders, as well as the White House, to carefully consider the tools available for implementing this bill. US Citizenship and Immigration Services should be provided the necessary funding and personnel to implement this program efficiently. Community groups and nonprofit groups who interface with migrants and their families should be included in this implementation.
As has been stated, we believe this is an historic opportunity to correct our flawed immigration system. We must get it right and not make the mistakes of the past.
Thank you.
Statement of Bishop Barnes
I welcome you to this press event on behalf of the USCCB Committee on Migration and the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. I am joined by Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio, bishop of Brooklyn and chairman of CLINIC and members of both committees?Bishop Gerald Kicanas of Tucson and Bishop Jaime Soto of Orange. I would also welcome His Eminence Roger Cardinal Mahony, the host of the bishops? meeting this week and the archbishop of Los Angeles.
Our nation stands at a critical moment. Our congressional leaders and the president have the opportunity to enact historic immigration reform legislation before the end of the year. We urge them to seize this moment and enact legislation which is comprehensive and which provides an earned path to citizenship for the undocumented population in this country.
Over the past twelve years, our government has spent over $25 billion on enforcement of our border. During the same period, the number of undocumented in the nation has nearly doubled. Tragically, nearly 3000 migrants have perished in the deserts of the American Southwest at the same time.
It is clear that an enforcement-only approach to immigration reform has failed and that our country needs a more diversified approach. The House of Representatives passed a border security bill in December which helped start the legislative process and the Senate has recently passed a bill which more comprehensively addresses the immigration crisis. While the Senate bill contains some harmful provisions, we believe it contains the essential elements necessary to bring justice to immigrants, including a path to citizenship for the undocumented and changes to our employment and family-based immigration systems.
As both the House and Senate prepare to reconcile these two bills, we urge them to agree to a bill which improves upon what both chambers have done. Any bill reported by a conference committee should contain a path to citizenship, a temporary worker program, family-based immigration reform which reduces backlogs. It also should restore basic due process protections for immigrants and refrain from criminalizing immigrants and those who assist them with their basic needs.
As bishops, we understand that the immigration issue is an emotional one and that Catholics and others in the debate disagree with our proposed solution to the immigration crisis. We will continue to engage with those who disagree and dialogue with them. However, we strongly feel that only a comprehensive approach to this problem will not only serve the best interests of our nation but also protect the basic human dignity and human life of the migrant.
We call upon Congress to put aside partisan differences and enact a bill which repairs a seriously flawed immigration system before adjournment for the year.
May 15, 2006
Link (http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2006/06-099.shtml)
On behalf of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), I welcome tonight?s presidential address to the nation on the need to reform our immigration system. It is important that the president highlight this issue to the American people as one of urgent national priority. For several years now, the U.S. bishops have urged our elected officials to address our nation?s immigration crisis in a just, humane, and comprehensive manner.
The Catholic Church supports the right of a sovereign nation to control its border. As we have stated in the past, however, an enforcement-only approach to this crisis will not solve the problem of illegal immigration.
Over the past ten to twelve years, our nation has spent billions of dollars on border enforcement and has tripled the number of Border Patrol agents along the U.S.-Mexico border. Yet, our nation?s immigration system, including its legal channels for entering the country, remain woefully antiquated and ill-suited to address today?s migration phenomenon. Consequently, during the same period that border enforcement has grown, the number of undocumented in our nation has doubled and the number of deaths of migrants in the desert has risen sharply.
News reports indicate that President Bush will use the speech to announce the authorization of the use of National Guard troops along the U.S.-Mexico border. I am concerned about the introduction of military personnel because there has not been an adequate public discussion about its implications, especially for the treatment of migrants.
The U.S. Bishops have stated consistently that the real solution to the immigration crisis lies in a comprehensive approach to the problem. This approach must include a long-term strategy to address the root causes of flight, such as combating poverty in sending countries. It also must include comprehensive reform of our nation?s immigration laws which features an opportunity to earn citizenship for the undocumented in our country and the creation of legal avenues for migration for migrants to work and join families in a safe, orderly, and humane manner. We are hopeful that the president also will commit himself to these elements as part of a comprehensive immigration reform bill.
Our nation stands at a critical juncture in her history. As a nation of immigrants, we must look back at our history and recognize that America was founded and built by immigrants. Working together, we can find a humane solution to the immigration crisis which upholds our national values and preserves human life and human dignity.
And again, Js with the knee jerk I'm smarter than you response with how sirs just doesn't understand the complexities of the issue
And again, Js with the knee jerk I'm smarter than you response with how sirs just doesn't understand the complexities of the issue
Actually, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
And again, Js with the knee jerk I'm smarter than you response with how sirs just doesn't understand the complexities of the issue
Actually, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
Yea, implying I'm a dumb fascist racist is so much like giving me the benefit of the doubt. I'll have to remember that next time I need to give you the benefit of the doubt ::)
Yea, implying I'm a dumb fascist racist is so much like giving me the benefit of the doubt. I'll have to remember that next time I need to give you the benefit of the doubt ::)
If you take the victims card away for a minute and read what I said, you can see that the above interpretation is not what I wrote. Or wallow in self-pity.
Yea, implying I'm a dumb fascist racist is so much like giving me the benefit of the doubt. I'll have to remember that next time I need to give you the benefit of the doubt ::)
If you take the victims card away for a minute and read what I said, you can see that the above interpretation is not what I wrote. Or wallow in self-pity.
I took option A, and noted precisely the implication, thank you very much. But don't let it bother you, it's just disappointing to see you delve down into the levels of debate ususally limited to Tee & knute
Yea, implying I'm a dumb fascist racist is so much like giving me the benefit of the doubt. I'll have to remember that next time I need to give you the benefit of the doubt ::)
If you take the victims card away for a minute and read what I said, you can see that the above interpretation is not what I wrote. Or wallow in self-pity.
I took option A, and noted precisely the implication, thank you very much. But don't let it bother you, it's just disappointing to see you delve down into the levels of debate ususally limited to Tee & knute
I've seen some serious racism in this thread, and you certainly have not distanced yourself from it.
What part of current law do you find morally indefensible? Are quotas indefensible? How about restrictions on criminals? Or health requirements?
Any of those a problem?
Quotas, I think these are more economically indefensible than morally.
The massive waiting periods for citizenship, sometimes a dozen or more years depending upon the country is reprehensible. This includes splitting of families.
Why?
Let's focus on the US. Why are waiting periods indefensible?
They are not equal across nations. They are far too long for many nations. They split families.
Quotas assume that the government can predict the needs of the labor market. The proof that this is not true is rather obvious.
QuoteThey are not equal across nations. They are far too long for many nations. They split families.
What does tha have to do with US law?
Is immigration primarily driven by economics.
You are misunderstanding me. I mean that the waiting period is not equal across nations of origin, within US Law. In other words, some people will have a shorter waiting period based on their background, while others will have a long period.
"Why are waiting periods indefensible?"
it's because they can't run across the border and vote for hillary the next day so she can
give them stuff like education, medical care, child care, ect
according to hillary "she has a million ideas, but the country can't afford them all" ::)
well flood the country with enough poor uneducated people
and those handing out freebies will get elected
it takes a village ya know
QuoteYou are misunderstanding me. I mean that the waiting period is not equal across nations of origin, within US Law. In other words, some people will have a shorter waiting period based on their background, while others will have a long period.
Are you saying an Indian emigre with a sought after skill is fastracked and a laborer from Nicaragua is not?
Frankly i don't have a problem with that.
Keep preaching it BNP brother:
(http://www.ministryoftruth.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/bnp-hitler-jesus-preview.jpg)
What about a Canadian figure skater who can become a citizen in a matter of months to make the US olympic team, whereas other people wait years? That's fine in your book?
Now, do you wish to defend them as well? Do you agree with the BNP?
QuoteWhat about a Canadian figure skater who can become a citizen in a matter of months to make the US olympic team, whereas other people wait years? That's fine in your book?
I am unaware of that case. Was she sponsored by a government official?
If i recall Senators and maybe congressmen can introduce bills granting citizenship.
Now, do you wish to defend them as well? Do you agree with the BNP?
Personally, I have no idea what "BNP" stands for, is, or what. I'm simply pointing out a consistent trend, by yourself, in the supposed "criticism" of anyone who doesn't embrace open borders
Personally, I have no idea what "BNP" stands for, is, or what. I'm simply pointing out a consistent trend, by yourself, in the supposed "criticism" of anyone who doesn't embrace open borders
British National Party. I don't care about your alleged trends Sirs.
Why include yourself in with him, is beyond me. I'm not including you with that.
I'm just gonna sit back and watch each time the discussion is about open borders vs border enforcement, how often the nazi rascist card is played.
Tanith Jessica Belbin. I believe it was an act of Congress and signed by President Bush so that she and her American partner could compete in the 2006 Olympics.
Kind of devalues the citizenship status when other hard working immigrants must wait years.
On the contrary, the point about me supposedly not supporting immigration has been the cornerstone of your latest "agree with me rant". Because I don't support the Prince view, let any & everyone in, regardless, is tantamount to not wanting anyone in. sirs really, by way of what he advocates, doesn't want anyone to immigrate to to the U.S. Until you have figured the boil of a flaw to that thinking, I see no reason to entertain your questions
On the contrary, the point about me supposedly not supporting immigration has been the cornerstone of your latest "agree with me rant". Because I don't support the Prince view, let any & everyone in, regardless, is tantamount to not wanting anyone in. sirs really, by way of what he advocates, doesn't want anyone to immigrate to to the U.S. Until you have figured the boil of a flaw to that thinking, I see no reason to entertain your questions
The flaw to that thinking, which is to say your thinking, is that it's all false. It's not true. I don't know what part of "you are willing to allow some, but clearly not all" is difficult to understand,
QuoteI don't know what part of "you are willing to allow some, but clearly not all" is difficult to understand,
Because THAT'S false claim of my position. You again fail to add the pre-requisate qualifier, so let me fix it, yet again......"you are willing to allow as many legally, but clearly NONE ILLEGALLY". There, all better.
QuoteI don't know what part of "you are willing to allow some, but clearly not all" is difficult to understand,
Because THAT'S false claim of my position. You again fail to add the pre-requisate qualifier, so let me fix it, yet again......"you are willing to allow as many legally, but clearly NONE ILLEGALLY" . There, all better.
And so you move from making false statements back to making nonsensical statements.
At no point, as in never, did I or anyone else suggest there should be more illegal immigration. The position of open borders and/or reduced restrictions on immigration is to allow more people to immigrate LEGALLY.
No, I move from having to make the same point over and over again, since a certain poster keeps ommitting a critical qualifier to my actual position
While my position is that we already have a legal means to enter this country.
While my position is that we already have a legal means to enter this country. That's what I've been referring to THIS ENTIRE THREAD.
You want to change the law, fine, go for it. But you continuing to lie about what my position is supposed to be is getting borderline asanine.
Yes, I do NOT support open borders and unfettered entry into this country. I support structured and legal entry. Notice that doesn't mean I don't support immigration, or "just a little" immigration. I support LEGAL immigration, as the laws currently exist. I am willing to tweak it some to try and make things move a tad faster. ALL those that follow the legal guidelines for entering this country (did I mention ALL?) may enter
Yes, I do NOT support open borders and unfettered entry into this country. I support structured and legal entry. Notice that doesn't mean I don't support immigration, or "just a little" immigration. I support LEGAL immigration, as the laws currently exist. I am willing to tweak it some to try and make things move a tad faster. ALL those that follow the legal guidelines for entering this country (did I mention ALL?) may enter
Except that not all who follow the guidelines are actually allowed to enter by the legal system that currently exists.
And some of those who are allowed end up waiting for a decade or more to be allowed.
I'm starting to think you don't understand the nature of your own position.
While I'm completely coherent regarding my own position. I simply am obligated to keep bringing you back to what my position has always been, since the get go, all the while making every effort not to get angry for having to repeat it, adnaseum
While I'm completely coherent regarding my own position. I simply am obligated to keep bringing you back to what my position has always been, since the get go, all the while making every effort not to get angry for having to repeat it, adnaseum
You're having to make an effort not to get angry for having to repeat yourself?
That is funny.
I've repeated arguments questions, explanation over and over and over because you keep lying about what I said and not answering questions, and you're having to make an effort not to get angry?
Sorry Prince, the only one lying here is the one who keeps claiming I don't want/support/advocate immigration to this country.
Simply becasue I actually have considered the mindboggling consequences & catastrophic repercussions of the type of open border immigration policy you subscribe to, does not, in any way, equate with me not supporting immigration to this country.
That's your lie.
but if you're gonna play this game of what I must support based on what you support,
Sorry Prince, the only one lying here is the one who keeps claiming I don't want/support/advocate immigration to this country.
Just out of curiosity, who claimed that? I never did, so you must be talking about someone else.
That's your lie.
How can it be my lie when I've never said it?
but if you're gonna play this game of what I must support based on what you support,
Actually, it's not a game. It is deductive reasoning.
Nope, you (and I suppose Js) have been the ones in this thread laing the groundwork that since I don't support open borders, I by design support letting as few in as possible, perhaps even none.
"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." Your words, not mine
Well ok, you must obviously be one who is advocating complete anarchy and Federal control of all resources. I mean, what else can it be, since you don't seem to ascribe to my idea of legal & structured immigration policy. Simple "deductive reasoning", based on what you support vs what I support
Frellin amazing. "No I didn't say what you just demonstrated what I did say".
prince i am obviously not calling for you to apologize for your position on immigration
but do you not agree that the statement you made below was way over the line for civil discourse?
"You Sirs, are overflowing with adult male bovine excrement"