If you want a correlation between illegal immigrants and crime just ask the people who live close to the work centers that Phoenix has been forced to provide for these people so they aren’t standing out in the middle of a major highway waiting for employers to pass by in trucks and hire them. Their cars are broken into and their children can’t go outside to play. Or, maybe it’s just their immagination. Yeh, that’s it.
Also a comment about comparing divorce rates: don’t compare Hispanics and especially Catholic Hispanics to white Protestants. The reason is obvious. Stability in the home and staying together because your culture and religion disapprove of it are two different things.
No correlation? Then why did imply a negative one?
Can’t you see that it could very well be the case that there IS a correlation, but other factors come into play to obfuscate that fact? Again, you have heard of the dot.com boom, which was felt strongly by Norther Californis and NYC. and that the high emoployment numbers it helped to create go to reducing crime. And are you not aware that the policies of Rudy Guilianni (I suggest Blink, by Malcolm Gladwell) are credited with reducing crim in NYC beyond what people believed could be accomplished?
Your findings regarding family strength does not surprise me. But what your data seems to be silent on is illegal immigrants. I think it is safe to say that illegal immigrants are more likely than legal ones to not be part of a family at all. And most of them are male. And males are the ones that commit most of the crime. So it seems, based on the information you provided, we really can’t draw the conclusions you seem so ready to draw. But the info is interesting. Thank you for providing it. Seriously.
Not so fast. Here is some info from a post from a previous thread on the subject. ( I don’t know why, but the links to the FAIR info aren’tlinking to the appropriate pages. They did in the original post. Sorry. The others work. )
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.
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)
Not to mention 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. I believe that is in the Southwest and West only.
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.
Data, too, can be anecdotal. Which was the cause for my original post.
Yeah, like that kind of remote control exists. And the catapult wouldn’t work because it would be hard to reach over the wall we’re goint to build. A trebuchet on the other hand…
Why waste a perfectly good nuke when a a wall/electric fence/barbed wire/moat will probably work just fine. (But it’s always nice to have a Lan B.)
Hope that answers your question. Here’s one for you:
Why don’t you just obey our fucking laws and stay the fuck out of the country until you can enter legally? And here’s another: "Why the fuck don’t you fucking Mexicans get your own shit together and clean out your cesspool of corruption? But to reiterate, until you do, come legally or stay the fuck out.
Are you* CERTAIN* that the cars are being broken into by the immigrants and not other poor people? Have you personally witnessed every crime?
Secondly, is there any actual risk to the children, or are the parents just keeping them indoors because they see a bunch of Mexican kids around and they have racial fears? (In other words, do you have any proof that the Mexicans would harm the kids?)
Yeah, I think it just might be their immagination.
What do you think kept the divorce rate down in the 1800s, when wife-beating was more common and many people had arranged marriages? Social stigma. Why do you think that in the 1950s, women who had the misfortune to get pregnant outside of wedlock had to either hide their pregnancies or live in shame? Social stigma. It wasn’t until about the 1970s that divorce became socially acceptable, yet somehow kids of families who stayed together simply because they couldn’t endure the social stigma managed to survive. (Aren’t those supposed to be the “good old days”?)
Can you really not admit that there might be positve aspects to Hispanic culture?
I’ll tell you my story. Every day I take the bus home from work. I’m young, clearly dressed for an office job, and wearing tennis shoes. Every day, the bus is full. Every day, some man gets up and motions for me to get in his seat- it’s not the same man, it’s different every time. Every time, that man is a Mexican laborer.
On that same bus, there are always plenty of babies. Most of these are in strollers, parked and ignored for the ride. Sometimes the parents are yelling at or berating the kids. But there are always a few people holding their babies close, whispering in their ears, holding them up to look out the window, and generally being active and loving. Bet you can guess what these mothers are.
They get hired because they are hardworking. They work because they are supporting a family- if it’s not a wife and kids here it is elderly parents and brothers and sisters back in Mexico. These are exactly the kind of people I want in my neighborhood.
This agrees with my experience, as well. The many Mexicans I encounter here in SF are just as you describe. They have an admirable work ethic, are polite, and have a strong sense of family.
But that is not the point. The point is we have an immigration problem. M Ost rational people would agree that there is a limit—some limit—to how many we can allow in every year. Therefore, we need an immigration policy with numbers attached to them. Once we have that, we need laws to enforce these policies. Now each countgry is free to attempt to effect our immigration policy, but in the end it is our decision. We (our elected officails) have a responsibility to make policy and legislative decisions based on what is in OUR best interest, no one else’s.
Is immigrating to the US as easy as it should be? From the direct accounts of friends of mine who have done so, the answer is a resounding no. That needs to be improved. But that doesn’t speak to the question of quantity, which is up to us.
I have great respect for ALL people who wish to better themselves, particulalry those who display the work ethic of many (all?) immigrant groups I have seen in the U.S… I think they are so willing to work hard because they see the land of opportunity of legend, especially when compared to their home countries.
So there are many, many positive attributes immigrants bring to America. Mexicans included—and from what I’ve seen, especially. (I think more of a desire to assimilate would benefit everyone, but that is and has been the subject of other debates.)
But even with all this being true, it does NOT excuse poeple coming into our country illegally. I simply do not get how anyone tries to handwave away breaking the law. Now the incidence of this lawbreaking has reached such gross proportions that there are 11,000,000 people here illegaly. And it is undeniable that there is a cost associated with them being here. A cost paid by the citizens and legal immigrants. That just is not fair or right. Some will say that the benefits of them being here outweigh the costs. The research I’ve seen points to that not being the case. But even if it were, it brushes the side the notion of illegallity, which is the paramount issue.
I’d also point out that having people beiong able to sneak in to the country prevents us from knowing WHO is coming in. Criminals can be coming in. Al Qaeda operatives. People with communicable diseases. Deadbeats who just want to leech onto the American system.
So the great respect I have for peopple who desire to change their circumstances and improve their lives goes completely out the window when they think that their desire to do so trumps our nationhood and it’s laws. To all so inclined, I say fuck you and stay the fuck home. Petition whoever you can, work to change the system, start a movement back home to stop the corruption rife in Mexico, and get on the list to come here legally.
magellan01, you are linking to the same trash that Clothahump linked to earlier. I’m going to be generous and assume that you’re not aware of what those groups are about, who’s been funding them, etc. Even our racist friends, the Pioneer Fund, have their hands in this one.
I am aware of Brimelow is, which includes being a LEGAL imigrant. And aside from the fact that I do not agree with your estimation of his website or FAIR, to prove your point you direct me to a website that is even more unbiased than those you object to, albeit in a different direction.
And instead of attempting to discount the data via cries of racism, why don’t you offer up contrasting data?
By the way, that still leaves one cite you haven’t objected to. And the SF Chronicle also had a rep[ort on the cost of illegal immigration. I’ll try to find it. Unless you categorize the Chron as being unacceptable, as well.
There is no good data on illegal immigrants. That’s the problem, and also why those who claim to have the numbers are full of shit. Quick, how many illegal immigrants are in America?
Nope, I objected to all. You just don’t seem to be aware of their connections to each other. CIS is a spin-off of FAIR, and was needed as many people wanted a softer, less obviously racist image. John Tanton is the man behind both of them, and other organizations, as well.
I’ll happily accept a study done by a newspaper as worthy of actual debate.
And to bring this to the present, (Thank you DMC) even if the data was in your favor **magellan01 ** other economists demonstrated that to cover the difference the best economical and human solution was to legalize the status of the ones that are already here (I also posted that on the citizen by birth debate before), a similar solution (they will have to pay a fine as an acknowledgment of not coming in properly and many other hoops before they obtain residency) is being discussed right now in congress.
Deal with the issue at hand, or continue being irrelevant with those next to racist cites or jokes.
Before anyone chalks this up to “racism” in its ugliest terms, read the whole article and others by the same writer. He is a racist if you define the term to mean anyone who believes there are differences among the races and discusses them. He, personally, may or may not be a racist. But his articles, although there is inflamatory language present in them, is attempting to force us to look at real differences that may exist between the races.
So, you cry “racism” in attempt to stifle information and discount serious reports tghat have been conducted. Congratulations. Given the slant of this board, I expect this tactic to be fairly successful.
Make that, no good data for your position. The data collected by CIS was reported on by many reputable papers, as is evidenced here, here,and here. I know it was covered by the NY Times and the SF Chronicle, but I couldn’t find it right now.
There are arguments to counter the data, and some of the articles explore them, instead of wishing them away as you attempt. To each his own.
OTOH I did not, Some of the more valid information changed some of my opinions regarding illegal immigration, but the counter to that was already mentioned a long time ago, it is you who is wishing upon a star that that was not so, or that that solution is the one most likely to be considered now.
Would you mind offering up cites for “other economists” and the criteria you apply to “the best ecomnomical and human solution”. And wouldn’t you agree that once "ecomomists begin to take into account highly subjective concepts like “human solution”, that they are no longer speaking from authority and just offering opinions as valid as anyone else’s?
I’ll tell you what, I’ll cointinue to deal with the issue at hand AND continue supplying you with highly relevant jokes (what do you have against laughing) and cites. If you wish to handwave them as racist, knock yourself out.
It looks like you may want to defer to me (or anyone) when it comes to humor, but I’ll pretend this makes any sense whatsoever and laugh: hahahahahaha.
Please do. If you think hard enough you might realize that the seed of truth you’ll find in them is an intolerance for ILLEGAL immigrants, regardless of their race. The fact that the immigration debate revolves around our southern border and the brown people who sneak across is, I would agree, very, VERY unfortunate.
It is not his (clearly) inflammatory rhetoric that causes me to dismiss his tirades, but the way he has cherry-picked his data for all the years that I heve seen his nonsense posted. The “real differences” are matters of culture, poverty, and opportunity wherein he only cites those examples where such phenomena break along perceived racial lines.