Good News For Illegal Immigration Apologists: more facts to ignore and rationalize

[ralph124c]

The fact is, the USA allows LEGAL immigration. The other fact is, the illegals have no respect for the law. They have broken the law, and decided that is does not apply to them. Now, I am a big proponent of either throwing out laws that don’t work, or changing the law to accomodate realities. But, if you accept illegal immigration, then you also have to accept the social problems that it brings with it-like
-higher school taxes
-higher healthcare costs
-higher auto insurance rates 9the illegals don’t bother to get licenses or insure the cars they drive)
So, enjoy your low-cost maid or garden service-but be aware that there are costs to be paid, and you will (eventually) have to pay them.

[Bridget_Burke]

@eleanorigby

I mentioned a story on NPR re the lousy schools in Mexico. I also mentioned the high dropout rates of Hispanic youth here-no matter their immigrant status, also from NPR. I trust NPR as a source of factual information over your posts.

Question (that you never answered): if things are so great south of the border now, with extreme poverty down to 17% and all, per your post–why no reduction in the flow of illegals over that border? Methinks that things are not that great down there, still.

So–how do you plan to get rid of all the Hispanics “no matter their immigrant status”?

[Carol_the_Impaler]

@ralph124c

ThThey have broken the law, and decided that is does not apply to them.

Well, that might be your assessment of their ethics, but everyone I’ve ever known who has crossed or has desired to cross knows they’re breaking the law. They didn’t decide “it does not apply to them”. But in the face of the alternative, they accept that reality. They’d much rather cross legally and work legally, they just don’t feel they have another option.

And before you say they have the option to stay home, well, if that’s the way you feel then you don’t understand the push/pull factors that cause them to come here.

@ralph124c

-higher auto insurance rates 9the illegals don’t bother to get licenses or insure the cars they drive)

Untrue. Undocumented immigrants are barred from getting driver’s licenses in many juridictions. And can’t get insurance if they don’t have a driver’s license.

[CBEscapee]

@ralph124c

The fact is, the USA allows LEGAL immigration. The other fact is, the illegals have no respect for the law. They have broken the law, and decided that is does not apply to them. Now, I am a big proponent of either throwing out laws that don’t work, or changing the law to accomodate realities. But, if you accept illegal immigration, then you also have to accept the social problems that it brings with it-like
-higher school taxes
-higher healthcare costs
-higher auto insurance rates 9the illegals don’t bother to get licenses or insure the cars they drive)
So, enjoy your low-cost maid or garden service-but be aware that there are costs to be paid, and you will (eventually) have to pay them.

With an estimated 12 million undocumented workers in the USA that means there hundreds of thousands of American employers also breaking the law. Except the law is written to give them a way to avoid prosecution. The workers therefore are the villians in most people’s minds. It is hard to argue with that kind of hypocrisy.

[magellan01]

@CBEscapee

The following is from this site which belongs to a Republican Congressman from Utah (a state famous for its liberal slant) Chris Cannon and originally published in The Wall Street Journal:

Sadly, not all conservatives are guided by conservative ideals. Turning a blind eye to millions of illegals breaking U.S. law and sneaking into the country is not a conservative ideal. Cannon has become enamored with cheap, illegal labor. There are many Republicans who are more interested in keeping a steady stream of cheap labor available to American businesses than they are with anything else. When they do this they turn their backs on both conservatism and the country who’s laws they swore to uphold. And do you think that Cannon just decided to supply this information for the hell of it? Maybe. Or maybe he was trying to discredit them for something. Something like:

During the current 2004 election cycle, an organization called the Coalition for the Future American Worker has run anti-immigration ads in various districts across the country. This includes thousands of dollars spent on radio ads in Utah’s Third Congressional District attacking Congressman Chris Cannon.

<snip>

(Salt Lake Tribune, Immigration reform drives sharp wedge in Cannon race, March 29, 2004)

<snip>

The spat between Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, and ProjectUSA, the Washington-based group pushing for strict curbs on immigration, is getting nastier. ProjectUSA started the round by erecting five billboards in Cannon’s district saying that Cannon “Wants Amnesty for Illegal Aliens.”

Now The Wall Street Journal. This is a fine paper, but its cause is not conservatism, but capitalism. It’s about business, big business. And big business would love to have a steady stream of cheap labor. The cheaper and the more endless the stream, the better. There is no doubt that illegal immigration (cheap labor) is a wonderful thing for companies’ bottom lines. That is where they’re come from. But it is not the only consideration.

As far as the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), here’s what they say they do:

Who We Are
The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent, non-partisan, non-profit research organization founded in 1985. It is the nation’s only think tank devoted exclusively to research and policy analysis of the economic, social, demographic, fiscal, and other impacts of immigration on the United States.

Our Mission
It is the Center’s mission to expand the base of public knowledge and understanding of the need for an immigration policy that gives first concern to the broad national interest. The Center is animated by a pro-immigrant, low-immigration vision which seeks fewer immigrants but a warmer welcome for those admitted.

Are they lying? Well maybe Wikipedia would provide some light:

The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) is a nonpartisan immigration reduction-oriented, non-profit research organization and was founded in 1985. Its director is Mark Krikorian. As a 501(c)(3) organization, the CIS is not permitted to advocate for any political position on the question of immigration.

Its mission statement states:

It is the Center’s mission to expand the base of public knowledge and understanding of the need for an immigration policy that gives first concern to the broad national interest. The Center is animated by a pro-immigrant, low-immigration vision which seeks fewer immigrants but a warmer welcome for those admitted.[1]

The CIS publishes books, reports, and white papers on immigration policy. These analyses address issues such as immigrant voting and electoral redistricting, impacts on low-wage and high-skilled workers, and the environmental consequences of immigration.

The Southern Poverty Law Center claims the CIS was founded and funded by John Tanton as an offshoot of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) [2][3].

Now why does CIS keep popping up? Because they seem to have done the most research in the area. The people most interested in doing research will usually be groups strongly pro or con a particular issue. I accept reasearch and that fact that it come from an organization. I evaluate it on it’s merits. If something seems off I am willing to question it. If you’d like to provide research offered by pro-amnesty or another type of group that would be trying to build an argument to keep more open borders, including the SPLC (below), I’d be happy to evaluate it. I think the Wall Street Journal’s research is often good in this regard, but I think they give way too much weight on some things and not nearly enough in others.

And since it mentions a group that is often brought up in these debates, let’s look at what Wikipedia says about the Southern Poverty Law Center:

Controversy

The SPLC has attracted controversy surrounding its politics, “hate group” identification and monitoring methods, and financial practices. It has been described by Thomas Edsall of the Washington Post as a “a controversial, liberal organization that tracks conservative militia and ‘patriot’ organizations” that has uncovered much information on extremist groups.[2]

Misinformation claim
In 1996 USA Today stated “… in a recent report on arsons at black churches in the South, his Klanwatch newsletter included five 1990 fires in Kentucky. The article doesn’t mention they were set by a black man.”[1] The article reported Stephen Bright of the “Southern Center for Human Rights” stated that Dees “is a fraud who has milked a lot of very wonderful well-intentioned people. If it’s got headlines, Morris is there.”[1]

Montgomery Advertiser investigation
In 1994 The Montgomery Advertiser published an 9-part investigative series alleging financial mismanagement, poor management practices, misleading fundraising, and institutionalized racism at the Center. The newspaper summarized its investigation as producing evidence of “a complex portrait of a wealthy civil rights organization essentially controlled by one man: Morris Dees.” (Montgomery Avertisor, Feb. 13-14 1994) Findings from the Advertiser investigation included the following:
12 of 13 African-American former employees of the SPLC who were contacted by the newspaper reported experiencing or observing racial discrimination during their employment. Black former employees were quoted stating that the Center was “like a plantation” run by white supervisors.

The SPLC’s legal department is composed primarily of whites and had only employed two African American attorneys on staff over 23 years of operation (as of 1994).
From 1984 to 1994 the SPLC received almost $62 million in contributions but spent only $20.8 million on its anti-poverty and anti-discrimination programs.

An SPLC fundraising letter that raised several million dollars for the organization claims the Center’s legal team secured a $7 million victim’s settlement against the Ku Klux Klan for the lynching of Michael McDonald, however McDonald’s mother and heir Beulah Mae received only $51,874.70 from the settlement.

A random sampling of donors to the SPLC, defined as “people who receive a steady stream of fund-raising letters and newsletters”, i
ndicated “they had no idea the Law Center was so wealthy” when interviewed.
The Advertiser also interviewed several former SPLC affiliates who alleged financial improprieties on the part of the Center. Pamela Summers, formerly a legal fellow with the Center, told the newspaper that the Center’s legal department operates “as though the sole, overriding goal is to make money.” Summers accused Dees of avoiding “go(ing) to court” on discrimination cases and instead relying upon financial contributions to obtain money.

The Center threatened legal action against the newspaper during the publication of the series, and lobbied against its consideration for journalism awards. Nonetheless, the investigative series was a finalist for a 1995 Pulitzer Prize.[13]

The Center states that “During its last fiscal year, the Center spent approximately 65% of its total expenses on program services. The Center also placed a portion of its income into a special, board-designated endowment fund to support the Center’s future work. At the end of the fiscal year, the endowment stood at $120.6 million.” [14]

Fundraising criticism
In November 2000, Harper’s Magazine published an article critical of the SPLC.[3] In “The Church of Morris Dees,” Ken Silverstein wrote “Morris Dees doesn’t need your financial support” because “the SPLC is already the wealthiest ‘civil rights’ group in America.” Furthermore, Silverstein claimed “Back in 1978, when the Center had less than $10 million,” but then it sought 50 million dollars and again “upped the bar to $100 million” to allow the Center “to cease the costly and often unreliable task of fund raising.” However, in 2000 “the SPLC’s treasury bulges with $120 million, and it spends twice as much on fund-raising — $5.76 million last year — as it does on legal services for victims of civil rights abuses.” In fact, Silverstein cited the American Institute of Philanthropy who gave “the center one of the worst ratings of any group it monitors, estimating that the SPLC could operate for 4.6 years without making another tax-exempt nickel from its investments or raising another tax-deductible cent from well-meaning ‘people like you’.”

Silverstein adds that most alleged “hate” groups on the SPLC’s list are non-violent and reports that 95 percent of hate crimes are committed by “lone wolves.” Further, he says that the SPLC’s “‘other important work for justice’ consists mainly on spying on private citizens… a practice that, however seemingly justified, should give civil libertarians pause.”

A former partner of Dees, renowned anti-death penalty lawyer Millard Farmer, was quoted by Silverstein as remarking that Dees “is the Jim and Tammy Faye Baker of the civil rights movement…though I don’t mean to malign Jim and Tammy Faye”.[4]
The charity evaluation organization Charity Navigator reports the SPLC spends 66.4% of funds on its programs and 33.6% on administrative and fundraising expenses, and gives it an “efficiency rating” of one out of four stars.[15] Charity Navigator gives the SPLC’s “organizational capacity” (“how well a charity can [financially] sustain its efforts over time”[5]) four out of four stars.

David Horowitz
Conservative columnist David Horowitz [16] and Myles Kantor of the conservative Front Page Magazine[17] have both accused the SPLC of exaggerating the threat of racism in order to increase fund-raising revenue and of wrongfully applying the term “hate group” to legitimate organizations.
The Southern Poverty Law Center and Morris Dees have engaged in a dispute with Horowitz over material written by Chip Berlet related to Horowitz’s campaign against slavery reparations, which the SPLC claims constitutes “hate speech”. Horowitz writes:
The effect is to multiply the number of racial hate groups, to scare well-meaning citizens into the belief that mainstream civil rights organizations like the Center for the Study of Popular Culture are really fever swamps of hate that deserve to be lumped alongside the Ku Klux Klan. The purpose of this fear-mongering is transparent. It is to fill the already wealthy coffers of your organization by exploiting unsuspecting donors into helping you promote leftwing agendas under the guise of civil rights.[18]

The SPLC’s Mark Potok responded to Horowitz by stating “we believe Mr. Berlet’s article is backed up by the evidence, and we stand by the article as it was published.” Potok also forwarded a reply from Berlet in which the latter alleged that Horowitz’s Center for the Study of Popular Culture uses “inflammatory, mean-spirited, and divisive language that dismisses the idea that there are serious unresolved issues concerning racism and white supremacy in the United States.” [19] Horowitz subsequently replied in a letter to Dees, asserting that Berlet’s attack on the CSPC “applies mutatis mutandis to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which exacerbates societal tensions by exaggerating the number of hate groups in America and by proposing that they come in only one color and one political disposition. It does this by labeling legitimate political differences as racism and bigotry.” [20] Horowitz further alleges that the SPLC targets people who disagree with them while they ignore other racial supremacy groups.

Now, Wikipedia is certainly not the last word on anything, so we always have to take it with a grain of salt. But it’s far from a rightwing site.

Now that leaves the evil Mr. John Tanton. He was an environmentlist in the '60s and '70s. During that time the coming population explosion (and global cooling) were two big issues. You may want to find some literature of the day to get an idea of the tenor. Immigration was a natural extension of the issue of population control.

Now I have no idea what is in Mr. Tanton’s heart. But while the SPLC takes great issue with him, as far as I could tell they do NOT list either FAIR or CIS as one of their 171 Hate Groups. I would not agree with their assessment if they did, but it is striking that a group that is so quick to label an organization a hate group—for the same reason you wish to categorize them as racists—has not done so.

I will just close with a request for your you to offer some support from your side of the debate. You’ve done a good job of attempting to discredit what I have offered, and on much of it we will simply disagree. So, can you provide a coherent argument FOR open borders? Or why the U.S should not seek to enforce its immigration laws?

Or is your strongest suit merely a steady but weak stream of piss?

[magellan01]

@CBEscapee

With an estimated 12 million undocumented workers in the USA that means there hundreds of thousands of American employers also breaking the law. Except the law is written to give them a way to avoid prosecution. The workers therefore are the villians in most people’s minds. It is hard to argue with that kind of hypocrisy.

I think this is a perfectly valid point. We agree. Which is why I’ve steadily advocated for the law on both sides of the equation to be upheld. I think that we should immediately and simultaneously concentrate on two things: 1) control the border to stem the tide of illegals and 2) strongly enforce the laws on the books against employers, including significant fines and jail time for the more egregious cases (of which I would guess there are thousands).

[Bridget_Burke]

After reading Wikipedia’s articles about CIS & the SPLC, read the Discussions. I like Wikipedia, but these articles aren’t really definitive.

Anyone who thinks the Scaife Foundations is good for America will love CIS. www.mediatransparency.org/recipientgrants.php?recipientID=1147

Those who oppose immigration (& the CIS-affiliated groups want legal immigration limited further) need to find better sources for their statistics. And better statistics.

Further, if they don’t omit “English only” & the other xenophobic buzzwords from their rants, quite a few of us won’t even bother with the statistics.

I don’t favor Open Borders. But I wish our Immigration Laws reflected reality better than they do.

[CBEscapee]

@magellan01

I will just close with a request for your you to offer some support from your side of the debate. You’ve done a good job of attempting to discredit what I have offered, and on much of it we will simply disagree. So, can you provide a coherent argument FOR open borders? Or why the U.S should not seek to enforce its immigration laws?

In the first place you racist piece of shit, let’s see a cite where I advocate open borders or where I’ve said the US has no right to enforce its laws?

Or is your strongest suit merely a steady but weak stream of piss?

You must like the taste of it or why would you keep asking for more.

[cowgirl]

@ralph124c

The fact is, the USA allows LEGAL immigration.

Really? I have always wondered about this. So I started a thread called How easy is it for Jose Average from Mexico to immigrate legally to the USA?

I welcome all contributions, particularly from those with direct experience in these matters.

[magellan01]

@CBEscapee

let’s see a cite where I advocate open borders or where I’ve said the US has no right to enforce its laws?

Well, that’s what open borders amounts to, or not wanting to control ab activity that is occuring every day. But if you’d like, please state what your position is regarding the border. What the U.S. should do about it and why.

Granted, this may be tough, in that it will require you to use that pinata your neck has been holding up all these years. But give it a go. Do you have a position? Do you have anything to add to the actual debate?

[eleanorigby]

@Bridget Burke

So–how do you plan to get rid of all the Hispanics “no matter their immigrant status”?

What? Where did you get that from? I am a supporter of LEGAL immigration, as I have stated, ad nauseam.

Since this discussion seems to be not a discussion but characterization of those who have concerns re immigration as racist, xenophobes, I now bow out. Have at it.

[Liberal]

Lots of people have made coherent arguments in favor of open borders. You can search a number of libertarian leaning sites, including the Cato Institute.

[Cervaise]

@magellan01

Sadly, not all conservatives are guided by conservative ideals.

I’ll bet they aren’t even Scottish, either, the bastards.

[Liberal]

@Cervaise

I’ll bet they aren’t even Scottish, either, the bastards.

In fairness, he didn’t say that they weren’t real conservatives, just that they are not quided by conservative ideals. The No True Scotsman rhetorical vice is based on the philosophical principle of equivocation. It’s not necessarily bogus to point out hypocrisy or inconsistent ideology. Not that that’s what you meant. Just saying…

[Bella_Morte]

@eleanorigby

CBE –
I don’t know if YOU actually immigrated to this country. I don’t care. If you are here LEGALLY from Mexico, Nigeria, Korea, France-wherever-welcome to America. If you’re here illegally-I do care and I want you gone. Is that clear enough? Hello? Is this on?

CIS needs to be overhauled, yes? There are some people who are technically “illegal” because of backlogs/mistakes on CIS’s part. For instance, the wife of one of my coworkers, who is a Vietnamese woman who was adopted by a Belgian couple. Her paperwork is horrendous due to her adoption, etc. and CIS are doing very little to be helpful and get her permanent resident status situated.

It’s all a big mess. We need a do-over, I think me.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@magellan01

The more that people can better themselves the better it is for a society. I think it is the same with education. The government is helping encourage a better society for all when we educate our children. And keep in mind, in my scenario the governement is doing less and spending less by printing things in only opne language. It’s not that they’re takin an additional step when decidiing to offer documents in one language.

I agree that the government would be doing less. Still, they would have greater control over our lives; and considering that language can make you think in a very different way, it’s a potentially very intrusive form of control. Either way, learning a new language is something that could effect your entire life - should that really be something the government has control over?

I will clarify that making English the Official Language does not mean that no information will be offered in other languages, ony that the U.S. governement not do it. Foreign consulates, immigrant groups, clubs, whatever, could always provide whatever information they deem helpful.

But if these options are open to all, why shouldn’t the government force *you * to learn another language so that you can take advantage of these opportunities? It would help encourage a better society for all.

I’m a little unclear what you mean by this. I’ll just say that I view being able to speak more than one language is a good thing. And that offering services in more than one language may make for good business and marketing opportunities. Making English the official language would not interfere with either of these things.

Sure, but neither would making English and Spanish the national languages interfere. Or English, Spanish, and Chinese, etc, etc.

[Unregistered_Bull]

@eleanorigby

What? Where did you get that from? I am a supporter of LEGAL immigration, as I have stated, ad nauseam.

Since this discussion seems to be not a discussion but characterization of those who have concerns re immigration as racist, xenophobes, I now bow out. Have at it.

I haven’t met one yet that wasn’t a xenophobe, a bigot, a liar, and an idiot. And most people where I live aren’t that concerned about illegal immigration. Only the Usual Suspects: bigots, xenophobes, nationalists, nativist, idiot, and generally a white male Repulican as well. With the Minutemen, Lou Dobbs, CIS, and FAIR (the movers and shakers behind the movement) being nothing but xenophobic bigots, liars, and idiots like the worthless piece of excrement Magellan01, maybe you should bow out. You have to wallow in shit anytime that get involved with the anti-illegal immigration movement because the vast majority of the movement are some of the most vile pieces of scum the US has within its borders.

Maybe you could start an anti-illegal immigration movement that relies on true, statistically sound non-cultural arguments that suggests intelligent and even somewhat compassionate solutions? You probably wouldn’t get too many followers though, because as the Dopes’ resident piece of bigoted, xenophobic, idiot filth Magellan01 demonstrates so well, the anti-illegal immigration movement is charactarized by adhering to lies, idiocy, and cruelness. Truth, intelligence, and compassion just doesn’t sell well for this problem (probably because it really isn’t that big a problem).

[magellan01]

@Revenant Threshold

I agree that the government would be doing less. Still, they would have greater control over our lives; and considering that language can make you think in a very different way, it’s a potentially very intrusive form of control. Either way, learning a new language is something that could effect your entire life - should that really be something the government has control over?

How would having them produce documents in one language result in them having greater control over our lives? If they priinted the info in 2, 3 or 19 languages, the content would be identical. So how is communicating the same information in either 1 or 19 languages more controlling than the other? Learning a new language could, I guess, be something that could effect your entire life. But certainly no more then moving to a country where your language is in the minority. I don’t see this as any control. You can still speak any language you want when not dealing with the governement.

@Revenant Threshold

But if these options are open to all, why shouldn’t the government force *you * to learn another language so that you can take advantage of these opportunities? It would help encourage a better society for all.

I think we both would agree that government should do less, not more. The question is should it encourage English usage by doing less (priinting in one language) or much more (forcing people!) to be bilingual, trilingual, etc. I hardly think those are nuances in degree, they’re more like opposite ends of the spectrum.

@Revenant Threshold

Sure, but neither would making English and Spanish the national languages interfere. Or English, Spanish, and Chinese, etc, etc.

Again, the default for me (not that I am an absolutist or a strict libertarian) is the governement doing less. But your question raises an important practical issue. Why just English and Spanish? And Chinese? Why not the 10, 30, 50, 100(?) languages spoken in the U.S.? Where do you draw the line on the number? And after you do, where do you draw the line on what’s get printed? Should every single document be printed in every language? Why not? How about street signs? How about parking tickets? Information and letters from the IRS? How about every sign at the post office, etc?

[magellan01]

@Unregistered Bull

I haven’t met one yet that wasn’t a xenophobe, a bigot, a liar, and an idiot. And most people where I live aren’t that concerned about illegal immigration. Only the Usual Suspects: bigots, xenophobes, nationalists, nativist, idiot, and generally a white male Repulican as well. With the Minutemen, Lou Dobbs, CIS, and FAIR (the movers and shakers behind the movement) being nothing but xenophobic bigots, liars, and idiots like the worthless piece of excrement Magellan01, maybe you should bow out. You have to wallow in shit anytime that get involved with the anti-illegal immigration movement because the vast majority of the movement are some of the most vile pieces of scum the US has within its borders.

Maybe you could start an anti-illegal immigration movement that relies on true, statistically sound non-cultural arguments that suggests intelligent and even somewhat compassionate solutions? You probably wouldn’t get too many followers though, because as the Dopes’ resident piece of bigoted, xenophobic, idiot filth Magellan01 demonstrates so well, the anti-illegal immigration movement is charactarized by adhering to lies, idiocy, and cruelness. Truth, intelligence, and compassion just doesn’t sell well for this problem (probably because it really isn’t that big a problem).

Excellent. This well-crafted argument for your position is duly noted. We will add it to your file of other equally well-reasoned posts on the issue. (Cough—see post 185—cough.)

[GIGObuster]

As a cite of **magellian01 ** was already shown to have virtually no support, I’m not surprised many can not give **magellan01 ** and others any respect.

I would not be surprised to find more supported evidence elsewhere, but relying on crackpot and racist sites for points remains a really bad idea. It is worse when the problems with those sites were explained before.