Sell me on rights for illegal immigrants

Because it’s expensive. The key phrase there is “at the same rate as others in their economic class.” They’re likely to be working for below the minimum wage, right? I thought that much was clear. Their economic class is going to be low. And when I wasn’t pulling in the dough, I drove uninsured. Couldn’t afford the payments, but I needed to get around. I was a student and could barely afford food at the time, so insurance was an easy thing to stop paying.

Really, I’d like to know how many illegal immigrants use their licensure to get insured. If they’re not “playing by the rules” in the first place, why do we suspect that they’re going to do the lawful thing and buy insurance at “at least the same rate” as legal US citizens?

Lots work for nothing, but some work for more. And insurance around here is not that bad for a junker (but I lived in NJ before I moved here, so my norm is pretty high.) Anyhow, more will have insurance than have it now.

I may have a skewed opinion, because I was in an accident with someone who had a suspended license and no insurance. He was as American as apple pie.

At the least more will have insurance than have it now. With licenses and registrations, they’d have something to lose by not getting it.

I’ve personally known people in this situation. It was a bad scene for everyone- he was sixteen, uninsured and driving to work, and got in a car minor car accident. The woman he bumped in to quickly figured out the situation, claimed whiplash and threatened to report him if he didn’t pay for her “expenses”. He spent his young adulthood working double shifts at a print shop after school to pay the 16K she demanded.

He’s not a dumb guy. He knew that whole thing could have been avoided if he had been able to get insurance. Most illegal immigrants just want to work and live quiet lives, not cause trouble.

Hello? magellan01?

BrainBlutton, Sorry for the delay, but I’ve been a little busy. I wanted to tighten this up some, but I’ll submit it now, as you’ve already had to wait so long. My apologies. My apologies also for the links. For some reason my links never work, so you’ll have to copy and paste.

I think it is a major problem. Here’s why:

**1) Loss of national identity. ** Unlike large immigration waves in the past, the current one from south of the border is not assimilating into our society the way previous groups did. The reasons:

•There exist large Spanish-speaking populations in many cities, so the need to assimilate in order to function is not so great as for say, Russian-Jews at the beginning of the last century.

•They are not as eager to be “American” as previous immigrants were. This is due to the fact that their native countries are so close, they plan to go back to visit, if not to live. This, combined with the previous bullet, means there is very little to gain and something to lose by embracing a new country fully and completely.

•Language: America, by virtue of it’s being a conglomeration of people from so many diverse places benefits from having one language. A very large group that adheres to their old language and culture too strongly begins to balkanize the country. This can be seen in many large cities where all signs for blocks are in Spanish.

Additionally, excessive accommodation of one culture leads to an argument for all cultures. Right now, Canada is having to make accommodations for Sharia law, as Muslim’s insist that their legal traditions be recognized along with those of other laws. While the existence of other cultures make for a rich societal experience, the society needs a dominant culture to unite all the diverse groups. (This is also one of the reasons I am in favor of the U.S. having an official language.)

2) Dilution of citizenship. It should be self-evident that the more “rights” and privileges the country bestows upon non-citizens, the less meaning citizenship has. In San Francisco (and, I think, other areas) this pendulum has swung so far that illegal immigrants are voting in school board elections.

**3) Cost. ** Illegal immigrants are a drain on services and our coffers. As of now, they are legally entitled to emergency medical care (which they abuse, treating ERs as doctors’ offices), education (with the added cost of language instruction), and welfare.
Although I have seen in stated on these boards that Illegal immigrants contribute more to the U.S. than they get out of it, the information I’ve found indicates the opposite.

General
In California during 2004, illegal immigrants were responsible for $10.5 billion in government outlays, while paying $1.7 billion in taxes, for a net drain of $8.8 billion. (FAIR)

In Florida during the same year, illegal immigrants were responsible for 1.8 billion in outlays, while paying .9 billion in taxes, for a net drain of $.9 billion. (FAIR)

The Center for Immigration Studies looked at the national picture for 2002. They found costs to the federal government to be $26.3 billion, tax receipts to be $16 billion, for a net drain of $10.4 billion.

Center for Immigration Studies:

California study:
http://www.fairus.org/site/DocServer/ca_costs.pdf?docID=141

Florida study:

National numbers

Education
Florida spends $1.5 billion a year to educate illegal immigrant children and their U.S.-born siblings. California spends $7.7 billion, enough to buy computers for half the legal school children in the state. (FAIR)

In 2004, illegal alien students and U.S.-born children of illegal aliens cost California $7.7 billion, Texas $3.9 billion, New York $3.1 billion. The bill to all 50 states is over $26.6 billion. (FAIR)

Healthcare
Taxpayer-funded, unreimbursed medical outlays for health care provided to the state’s illegal alien population cost Floridians about $165 million a year. In California, the number is $1.4 billion. (FAIR)

BrainBlutton, I was still trying to find specific information about hospital closings due to unreimbursed care given to illegals. The only information I have right now is that illegals are responsible for 84 hospital and emergency room closings in the past 10 years or so.

Wages
This from this article: http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/policy_cost.htm, (which has links to original research done by a Harvard economist and the National Research Council) states that:

“…The 1995 findings of Harvard economist George Borjas [George Borjas, “The Economic Benefits from Immigration,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, Spring, 1995] were confirmed by the National Research Council’s 1997 report The New Americans: essentially all the increase in Gross Domestic product [GDP] brought about by immigration is captured by the immigrants themselves, in the form of wages. Virtually no benefit accrues to native-born Americans.
(And once transfer payments like welfare, education and healthcare are factored in, immigration becomes a net cost—for example, over $1,000 in annual extra taxes per native-born household in California. Americans are financing their own dispossession.)
Even less publicized: the Borjas model reveals the true economic consequence of immigration: a massive redistribution of wealth within the American native-born community—basically, from labor to capital, because of immigration’s impact on wages.

The key variable: the rate at which native-born wages fall as the total number of workers rises—the so-called “price elasticity” of labor. Borjas estimates that each 10% increase in immigrant workers reduces native wages by about 3.5%. About 14% of employed workers in 2002 were immigrants. So the reduction in native wages attributable to immigrants that year was approximately 4.9% (35% of 14%).
As our reader told his dinner companions, it’s true that immigrants don’t do work Americans won’t do—they just do it for less.
But, more importantly, immigrants do indeed do one dirty job: make it easier for Americans to exploit each other.
I’ve recalculated this immigration impact on the basis of the latest government data. This is how it came out:

Net economic gain from the immigrant presence to native-born Americans, before transfer payments: just 0.2 percent of GDP (that is, two-tenth of one percent!) in today’s 10.4 trillion economy – that comes to a mere $84 per native-born American.

Native-born capital-owners’ gain as a result of immigration: about 3.1% of GDP, or $323.8 billion. This goes to employers and, for example, upper-income owners of stocks and employers of servants.

Native-born workers’ loss as a result of immigration: about 2.9% of GDP —$302.9 billion in a $10.4 trillion economy, or a remarkable $2,578 for each native-born worker every year.”

Warning: the original research done by Borjas is true egghead economics. Not for the faint of heart. Admittedly, I was lost through much of it.

Other
Then there’s also money taken out of the economy and sent to the illegal immigrants’ native countries. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that the amount, which does not capture all remittances to Latin America, will go beyond $18 billion for 2005.

Not all “costs” are monetary. The drain on services is creating major problems for our education and medical infrastructures. Schools in border states are becoming overcrowded and are saddled with the increased expense of language instruction. The general student population suffers, as well, because classes have to be slowed down to accommodate so many non-native speakers. Many parents find the need to move their children to private school, increasing the burden on them.

I’ll end with an interesting anecdote that illustrates the problem well. It is from this article: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43275

“Cristobal Silverio emigrated illegally from Mexico to Stockton, Calif., in 1997 to work as a fruit picker.
He brought with him his wife, Felipa, and three children, 19, 12 and 8 – all illegals. When Felipa gave birth to her fourth child, daughter Flor, the family had what is referred to as an “anchor baby” – an American citizen by birth who provided the entire Silverio clan a ticket to remain in the U.S. permanently.

But Flor was born premature, spent three months in the neonatal incubator and cost the San Joaquin Hospital more than $300,000. Meanwhile, oldest daughter Lourdes married an illegal alien gave birth to a daughter, too. Her name is Esmeralda. And Felipa had yet another child, Cristian.
The two Silverio anchor babies generate $1,000 per month in public welfare funding for the family. Flor gets $600 a month for asthma. Healthy Cristian gets $400. While the Silverios earned $18,000 last year picking fruit, they picked up another $12,000 for their two ‘anchor babies.’”

**4) National Security. ** The more porous our borders are the greater the risk that terrorists can sneak across. In September 2004, The Washington Times reported that a top al Qaeda lieutenant had met with the Salvadoran street gang Mara Salvatruch (MS-13) to access their network of alien smugglers. In June of 2005, two Iraqis were apprehended in a border town near San Diego, along with two suspected alien smugglers.

Link (password necessary, but free): http://insider.washingtontimes.com/articles/normal.php?StoryID=20050630-124933-1494r

**5) National Health. ** In addition to being a drain on our healthcare system to the point that hospitals have had to close their doors, illegals are responsible for resuscitating deadly diseases we’ve eradicated, as well as bringing us new ones. From a report in the Journalal of American Physicians and Surgeons (http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/cosman.pdf):

“Many illegals who cross our borders have tuberculosis. That disease had largely disappeared from America, thanks to excellent hygiene and powerful modern drugs such as isoniazid and rifampin. TB’s swift, deadly return now is lethal for about 60 percent of those infected because of new Multi-Drug Resistant Tuberculosis (MDRTB). Until recently MDR-TB was endemic to Mexico. This Mycobacterium tuberculosis is resistant to at least two major antitubercular drugs. OrdinaryTB usually is cured in six months with four drugs that cost about $2,000. MDR-TB takes 24 months with many expensive drugs that cost around $250,000,with toxic side effects. Each illegal with MDR-TB coughs and infects 10 to 30 people, who will not show symptoms immediately. Latent disease explodes later.

TB was virtually absent in Virginia until in 2002, when it spiked a 17 percent increase, but Prince William County, just south of Washington, D.C., had a much larger rise of 188 percent. Public health officials blamed immigrants. In 2001 the Indiana School of Medicine studied an outbreak of MDR-TB, and traced it to Mexican illegal aliens. The Queens, New York, health department attributed 81 percent of new TB cases in 2001 to immigrants. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ascribed 42 percent of all new TB cases to “foreign born” people who have up to eight times higher incidence. Apparently, 66 percent of all TB cases coming to America originate in Mexico, the Philippines, and Vietnam….

Chagas disease…is transmitted by the reduviid bug, which prefers to bite the lips and face. The protozoan parasite that it carries…infects 18 million people annually in Latin America and causes 50,000 deaths. This disease also infiltrates America’s blood supply. Chagas affects blood transfusions and transplanted organs. No cure exists. Hundreds of blood recipients may be silently infected. After 10 to 20 years, up to 30 percent will die when their hearts or intestines, enlarged and weakened by Chagas, burst. Three people in 2001 received Chagas-infected organ transplants.Two died.

Leprosy… was so rare in America that in 40 years only 900 people were afflicted. Suddenly, in the past three years America has more than 7,000 cases of leprosy. Leprosy now is endemic to northeastern states because illegal aliens and other immigrants brought leprosy from India, Brazil, the Caribbean, and Mexico.

Dengue fever is exceptionally rare in America, though common in Ecuador, Peru, Vietnam, Thailand, Bangladesh, Malaysia, and Mexico. …

Polio was eradicated from America, but now reappears in illegal immigrants, as do intestinal parasites.

Malaria was obliterated, but now is re-emerging in Texas. About 4,000 children under age five annually in America develop fever, red eyes, “strawberry tongue,” and acute inflammation of their coronary arteries and other blood vessels because of the infectious malady called Kawasaki disease. Many suffer heart attacks and sudden death.

Hepatitis A, B, and C, are resurging. Asians number 4 percent of Americans, but account for more than half of Hepatitis B cases.”

**6) Crime. ** Illegal aliens are responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime committed. (Mind you, even if it was at the same rate as native born it would still be a valid reason.) According to an article by Jim Kouris.

In the population study of 55,322 illegal aliens, researchers found that they were arrested at least a total of 459,614 times… Nearly all had more than 1 arrest. Thirty-eight percent (about 21,000) had between 2 and 5 arrests, 32 percent (about 18,000) had between 6 and 10 arrests, and 26 percent (about 15,000) had 11 or more arrests. Most of the arrests occurred after 1990. ??They were arrested for a total of about 700,000 criminal offenses, averaging about 13 offenses per illegal alien. One arrest incident may include multiple offenses, a fact that explains why there are nearly one and half times more offenses than arrests. …??More than two-thirds of the defendants charged with an immigration offense were identified as having been previously arrested. Thirty-six percent had been arrested on at least 5 prior occasions; 22%, 2 to 4 times; and 12%,1 time.?? Sixty-one percent of those defendants had been convicted at least once; 18%, 5 or more times; 26%, 2 to 4 times; and 17%, 1 time. Of those charged, 49% had previously been? convicted of a felony: 20% of a drug offense; 18%, a violent offense; and 11%, other felony offenses. Twelve percent had previously been convicted of a misdemeanor.?? Defendants charged with unlawful reentry had the most extensive criminal histories. Nine in ten had been previously arrested. Of those with a prior arrest, half had been arrested on at least 5 prior occasions. ??Fifty-six percent of those charged with a reentry offense had previously been convicted of a violent or drug-related felony. By contrast, under half of those charged with alien smuggling, a third of those charged with unlawful entry, and just over a quarter those charged with misuse of visas and other charges had previously been arrested. The criminal histories of these defendants were generally less extensive: more than 70% had been previously arrested fewer than 5 times."?
This article was also interesting, particularly the opening quotes from the Mexican press.
http://www.desertinvasion.us/articles/art2005jul12.html

As I said, I wanted to tighten this up, but it’s just as well to get it out. There is considerable more crime information I wanted to include, but haven’t gotten to.

I hope this explains my position more fully. Your other question will be answered shortly.

Uwaaa? Chinatown, in New York and San Francisco? North Beach in San Francisco and Boston’s North End, old Italian neighborhoods? The Yiddish-speaking neighborhoods of Old New York? All of them urban enclaves populated by immigrants, and largely monolingual.
Face it, your argument that “this wave of immigrants won’t assimilate or learn English, the bums!” has been tossed around since the 19th century.

As a guy who originally was here illegally (fleeing the civil war in El Salvador, got amnesty and citizenship later) I have to say that the Independent center for immigration studies agrees with the economical impact of illegal immigration but:

As a receiver of amnesty (I don’t care about the excuses then, I do believe the Republican administrations did so as to atone for what they did in Central America) I agree that there is a better solution than just deportation.

I know places where all signs for blocks are in Chinese. Or Yiddish (yes, even today). It’s part of America.

Not true. It was only proposed that illegal immigrants be given the right to vote in school board elections in S.F., but so far that hasn’t come to pass.

Ed

I submitted my post to you in haste as I was leaving the house this evening. I now see that I misspelled your name twice, and just wanted to assure that it was simple carelessness. My apologies.

I’m not sure what your point is. But your examples make my case. The thriving, dense Italian, Jewish, and Greek enclaves of old New York, Boston and SanFrancisco are virtually gone. The only thing Italian about North Beach is a few blocks of mediocre Italian restaurants. Little Italy, and that longer-lasting Italian stronghold in The Bronx, Arthur Avenue, look and sound like just about any other part of New York. The lower East Side is still a good spot to get blintzes, but the owners moved to Westchester and Long Island decades ago. Th point is that all those groups wanted to assimilate. They grouped together with those that were familiar to themselves when they first came to a new country, but them became part of it and infused themselves into it. The Chinese communities in both New York and San Francisco are interesting exceptions. I don’t know enough about the culture to know why.

The question is which is better. Which is better for the group? Which is better for the country? I believe the assimilatiing is better for both. If you disagree, you may want to explain why. But it should probably be in another thread as it is a little tangential for this one.

If it helps you to attempt to discredit my position by putting words in my mouth or ascribing feelings to me, knock yourself out. What I read is that my position makes you uncomfortable but you have nothing constructive to offer in return. I will not respond to other sophmoric tactics.

Why might that be?

You seem pretty certain, so you are probably right. I remember some recent proposals failing, but I thought there were other areas where it was already established. But thanks for the correction.

I think the larger point still stands, though. The mere fact that this is being discussed shows an amazing tolerance for illegal aliens and a willingness to devalue citizenship. Since you seem interesgted in the issue, I found this article (www.bostonreview.net/BR23.5/Gordon.html) which claims that both New York and Chicago give illegal immigrant parents the right to vote in school board elections:

article

Cute effort to ignore the quote and the link in post #67 .

Of course not all will qualify, but it is better IMO to give amnesty to the ones that show that they will work hard and be profitable by being here:

As an immodest proposal: I do think one element for amnesty should be to make all receivers of it to pay something like 10% more in taxes as a penalty until they become legal residents, it will be an incentive to legalize their status.

My guess is that the point would be that those neighborhoods did not assimilate in ten years or twenty years or any other artbitrarily set number. The Yiddish neighborhoods took at least 60 years to assimilate and disperse. The Italian and Polish neighborhoods that I knew took over fifty years to assimilate. Brownsville Texas had a thriving German-speaking community for nearly one hundred years. My ancestors spoke German for the first fifty years that they lived in the U.S.

When someone has a need to show how the people entering from the south are “resisting” assimilation, they send a reporter out to one of the tiny groups that ineffectually talk about Aztlán and dig up quotes indicating that one person or another has no desire to become “American.” This sort of reporting ignores the fact that the overwhelming majority of immigrants (of whatever legality) are, indeed, assimilating. (At the time of the last great immigrant wave, with all the calls to “defend” our “American” values, an enormous number of the immigrants arriving got a stake and returned to the old country without ever attempting to assimilate.)

There may be reasons to oppose wide open immigration, but, as Lathe of Heaven has noted, the spectre of hordes of people refusing to assimilate was used (falsely) at the beginning of the twentieth century and appears to be making a (false) comeback at the beginning of the twenty-first century.

I was not trying to be cute. Seriously. I was confused by the quote because I read the last part of it to support my position, and I didn’t think that was your intent.

You and I are not going to agree on this at all. For me, amnesty is not—and should not—be on the table. Period. It is unfair to those trying to come here legally. It rewards breaking the law. And more most important, it iwill increase further illegal immigration. I have no doubt that there are some stellar individuals who might be hurt by deportation. But policy needs to look at the principle and the big picture, not anecdotes.

More cuteness from your part, the proposed 10% extra tax is there to acknowledge the law.

Besides, the past and current Republican leaderships are the main proponents for amnesty.

I cannot speak for all past immigrants. But grandparents came her at the turn of the century and lived in east Harlem, which was Jewish and Italian. One of my grandmothers tried to assimilate as much as she possible could. The other was pretty much a homebody, content to stay in her neighborhood where her poor to non-existent English was not much of a hinderance. The important thing, though, is that they both pushed thier children to be American. The appreciated the amazing opportunity the country offered and wanted their children to take advantage of it. That meant becoming American and speaking English without an accent. There seemed to be an attitude (or so I glean from my parents, uncles, aunts, and my reading) that there were great things to be had for Americans, so they endeavored to become one of them.

Can this be taken to an extreme? Yes. My (homebody) grnadmother lived with us and her English was never very good. But I remember that anytime she attempted to talk to us in Italian my father (born 1913) would have a fit yelling at her to speak to us in English. He was painfully aware of the stigma attached (in his youth) to those who were more “Italian” than “American”. Was it worth the price? My parents say absolutely. Do I wish my grandmother was able to teach me some Italian? Absolutely.

But it is not the case that all groups are equally eager to assimilate. (Legality no doubt also acts as a hinderance.) Immigrants from African nations and the Slavic countries seem to hold the same view of America as a land of opportunity and embrace their new society, as they try to become part of it. The smaller numbers involved with these might play a role in their eagerness to assimilate. Which, as I see it, is further support for us to control immigration. There are two questions. One is how many immigrants to we allow in a particular timeframe. The other is what should the make-up be. I think the more diverse it is the healthier it is.

Yes. And I was very surprised to hear that when I leraned it a few years ago. I think that it is completely fine for people to move back to their homes if they so desire. Wouldn’t you agree?

But the large population coming in from the south are NOT assimilating. At least not at a rate that surpasses the new influx to make their isolated communities grow larger and larger.

Here’s what I think is an interesting anecdote, 100% true. I had jury duty about a year ago. When we went into the courtroom they had us split into two random groups, 16 of which (I think) were the “primary pool”. Out of the 12 who were seated in the actual jury seats, two had to be disqualified because of poor English. One was a 50-year old Hispanic woman who had liviing in San Francisco for 15 years. The other was a Chinse gentleman who arrived here in 1970. Both of them could barely communicate with the judge. Now they might have been “faking it” to get out of jury duty. But that simply makes the point in another way.

Okay, could you please restrain yourself from injecting cute little digs into this. If you havn’t noticed, it’s been a pretty interesting thread so far.

I take it you think your 10% tax idea solves some problem. I don’t. I supplied three reasons why amnesty is a bad idea:

  1. Unfair to those trying to come here legally
  2. It rewards breaking the law
  3. It encourages more illegal immigration in the future

Do you disagree with the validity of the reasons? If so, why? What do you think would be accomplished by your additional 10% tax, aside from a little more money in the coffers?

So? What does this have to do with anything? Do you think that we should follow their lead?

:rolleyes:

However, as one that is now an American citizen I have to say that that anecdote shows that older immigrants do indeed have a hard time getting to learn English (The people in your anecdote are just like my parents). The silly thing is that Chinese have had the same “problem” for more than a century and in light of your anecdote it is odd that only the ones “coming in from the south” threaten the fate of our nation.

But in the context of this discussion, it sounds a little ignorant not to realize that there is no way illegals would be called to jury duty, those were American citizens. Unless you can point to a law that says they are forced to learn English, they still have the same rights as you and I.

That is what you get for ignoring quotes.

If you stop being obtuse you should realize that I am not disagreeing with that, some punishment should be imposed, and it has to fit the bottom line.

As I am an example of a successful former illegal, now an American citizen, the answer is yes.

Well juxtaposing those two quotes of mine was almost clever. The difference, if you were unable to see it, is that the first one is saying that anecdotes shouldn’t be confused for reasons. The second one is consistent in that after I gave reasons I offered an anecdote, labeling it as such.

My opinion is that it is better for the nation and the immigrant groups to assimilate. All of them. The mass immigration from the southern border is particulalry problematic because of the rate at which it is happening.

[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
But in the context of this discussion, it sounds a little ignorant not to realize that there is no way illegals would be called to jury duty, those were American citizens. Unless you can point to a law that says they are forced to learn English, they still have the same rights as you and I.

Yes, they were not illegal immigrants. That is why I offered it as an anecdote. It suggested that even those here legally are not overly eager to participate fully in our society.

No, that’s what I get for attempting to have an meaningful discussion with you. And it’s getting old. You still haven’t explained why that quote I ignored (being polite, as it supported one of my claims: cost) was so important to your point that you’ve brought it up again twice now.

I’ll take this as you don’t want to answer the specific questions I asked you that would help move the discussion forward. And you spend time on a debate board, why…

I’m glad you are successful. One less person that I have to help support.

Look GIGObuster, I understand that the stance I take means that you wouldn’t be here. It’s not personal for me. I understand that it is personal for you. But can you envision a law or policy that would benefit you or I personally, but would not be good policy or law? I think that amnesty is such a an act. I also think a law that made everyone give me .1% of their income would not be in the best interest of the country and would veto it. (Albeit very sadly.)