Goddess wrote:
let's have highly skilled technical workers, not another 5,000 dishwashers.
- - - - - - - - -
... and you and my Jewish immigrant ancestors came here with what qualifications, exactly?

You know - the barefoot Tevyes who went on to create musical theater, Hollywood, the atom bomb, polio vaccine, garment industry, law firms and brokerage houses.

What did they say to the immigration officials? They and the Italians, Irish, Chinese, and Indian villagers who came and worked their way up - what qualifications did they bring?

It's certainly a good idea to encourage highly skilled technical workers to immigrate, but the unskilled also contribute. Many of them work in jobs (most obviously, farm work) that Americans won't take. Also, the article you cite looks pretty one-sided, assuming immigrants make zero contributions. Finally, if we restrict immigration, who's going to pay for the Social Security of baby-boomers?

When unemployment hits 10% in this country, you will see a groundswell of demand that we deport them all. It's going to go from "jobs Americans won't do" to "they're taking jobs from Americans".

I also expect there to be a major political backlash against the H1B program. When unemployment hits 10%.

There is no possible way these illegals pay in 5 billion a year. They tend to swap and hand around items, so they aren't shopping, not putting money in the economy or paying taxes that way. They typically work for cash, being illegal, so they pay no income tax. So how, exactly, do they contribute? If they want to come here legally, and learn english and work, I welcome them. The rest need to get their leech asses back to where they came from.

And no, the children of felons (illegals by definition) should NOT be rewarded with citizenship. Insane. There is no job americans won't do. That's a democrat myth to keep their illegal voters here. Americans will work in slaughterhouses and collect trash (my trash men are legal and black) and bus tables and pick fruit. They will. They might cost you a quarter more a pint of berries for their legal wage-levels, but is you being cheap a reason to flood our country?

I think they should get no medical care past immediate lifesaving, and should then be taken from the hospital to the border. After all, americans are expected (rightly so) to pay for their health care, why should illegals get it free? Wait, I mean why should we pay for their care too, on top of our own?

"They might cost you a quarter more a pint of berries for their legal wage-levels, but is you being cheap a reason to flood our country?"

Perhaps not, but then do YOU insist on checking the integrity of every company you buy your fruit from? Do you KNOW that that "bargain" you picked up was made by/produced by/picked by a tax-paying American?

Come to that, who do you think you're supporting when you buy the vast bulk of your clothing?

Even the 'designer' labels manufacture their garments in sweat shops (either just over the border in Mexico or further afield in India or Thailand). They just hand-stitch the last button on in the US or Europe to get the label 'right.'

Even if you're very careful, the large majority of the items you buy every day will have had input from a poorly paid worker, likely to have been employed in conditions that you wouldn't submit your dog to.

It doesn't make an awful lot of difference whether that person is resident in the States or not, other than you're probably paying a little closer to the true cost of your 'cheap' products if they do, albeit indirectly through providing them healthcare services.

And let's not forget that your healthcare system works the other way too. You may be paying for life-saving treatments for those illegals, but your country (like mine) is also quite happy to attract and retain doctors and other medical professionals from much poorer countries.

Fortunately for you, 'you' haven't paid for all the training they've received - that's been borne by the tax-paying individuals in their country of birth.

>>You know - the barefoot Tevyes who went on to create musical theater, Hollywood, the atom bomb, polio vaccine, garment industry, law firms and brokerage houses.

Off topic, Ben-David, but I cannot resist!

Chaim Topol, the much-loved Israeli actor who was the film's Tevye, is even now embarking on his farewell public tour in the USA as the lead in a stage revival of "Fiddler..."

He's about 73 - and a thoroughly adorable man, as far as I know.

(I sentimentally watched the uncut version of that "joyously square" (Pauline Kael] 1971 movie musical at the weekend and googled Topol out of curiosity, assuming he had probably expired. Nope, but he IS finally about to call it a day...)

James -

How much of the wealth gathered by "tax-paying individuals in their country of birth" was created by the fact that the bulk of those countries had their defense subsidized by the taxpayers of the United States?

Do you think the EU would have developed the myriad socialist states they have were it not for the US military providing the bulk of their national defense?

Best solution for the illegal immigrants is to fucking pound the companies that hire them. I don't mean hit them with nickle and dime fines either. Make it fucking hurt and hurt bad. Make the fines proportionate to the size of the business and big enough to make it clear to these folks that their businesses are at stake.

And momof3 is dead on. I've hired folks for all kinds of shit work. Never had a problem finding Americans to bust ass for me.

DuWayne - I said the same thing a while back in meatspace, and I got called all sorts of names for it.

Actually, I wanted something a little more draconian. I was suggesting seizure of all business assets and prison time for the entire management.

If we are going to have labor laws, then by God everyone is going to obey them.

James, you misunderstand me.
"Even if you're very careful, the large majority of the items you buy every day will have had input from a poorly paid worker, likely to have been employed in conditions that you wouldn't submit your dog to"

I don't think the illegals need better wages. I don't care that people make my goods cheaply. And I'm well aware the fruit I buy now was probably not picked by americans. I'm saying we need to get rid of the illegals so that it IS picked by americans. We are the breadbasket of the world, agriculture is not going to be exported. Get rid of extortionist corporate tax rates, and other jobs wouldn't be either.

If someone is paid next to nothing in a 3rd world country to make my goods, then that person doing so is probably happy for the job, shit though you think it is. Have you seen how most of them live? Nike paying a little better is not the solution. Nike paying at all has improved their lives dramatically. What other countries allow companies and workers to do is not my business. Not subsidizing all these lawbreakers in my country is.

And yes duwayne, companies that hire illegals should be forced under. That would solve the issue pretty speedily.

It's a different time, and my relatives weren't on welfare.

And they weren't here illegally. And they took pride in their adopted country, and learned the language, and didn't expect bilingual Yiddish classes in the public schools.

Here's Tierney on sweatshops:

http://select.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/opinion/17tierney.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

Making toys or shoes for Wal-Mart in a Chinese or Latin American factory may sound like hell to American college students — and some factories should treat their workers much better, as Strong readily concedes. But there are good reasons that villagers will move hundreds of miles for a job.

Most “sweatshop” jobs — even ones paying just $2 per day — provide enough to lift a worker above the poverty level, and often far above it, according to a study of 10 Asian and Latin American countries by Benjamin Powell and David Skarbek. In Honduras, the economists note, the average apparel worker makes $13 a day, while nearly half the population makes less than $2 a day.

Some of them prefer to keep farming or to run small local businesses, and they’re lucky to get loans from the Grameen Bank and its many emulators. But other villagers would prefer to make more money by working in a factory. If you want to help them, remember the new social justice slogan proposed by Strong: “Act locally, think globally: Shop Wal-Mart.”

Yeah, but the Wal Mart in my town sucks. I have to go two towns away to get to one that doesn't.

But there's a shiny new Target just up the street...

I am all for legal immigration; I would like to see it expanded, especially for the people who currently apply for H1B visas. In my opinion, if somebody wants to come to our country to work and be a law-abiding citizen, their presence will help more than it will hurt, be they highly educated or not. If the best and brightest want to come here and enrich our country, I say let them. Obviously keep screening immigrants for terrorists, criminals etc.

Enforcing laws against employers is the second most effective way to curb illegal immigration. The first is having a housing crash. (Oh, look.)

"How much of the wealth gathered by "tax-paying individuals in their country of birth" was created by the fact that the bulk of those countries had their defense subsidized by the taxpayers of the United States?

Do you think the EU would have developed the myriad socialist states they have were it not for the US military providing the bulk of their national defense?"

Brian - with all due respect, you've either confused my point or you're just being deliberately snarky.

Many of your healthcare workers (and a good number of those in 'socialist' Europe) come from very poor countries indeed. Poland (mainly dentists), India and Pakistan (mainly Doctors) and the Phillipines (nurses) are all popular 'shopping' destinations for Western countries to source medical staff.

You could argue that they have all benefitted in some way from US defence budgets, but you know as well as I do that that money is rarely spent without there being a strategic reasoning behind it, one that is *meant* to serve US interests in the short to medium term**

**which, by the way, I don't condemn in the slightest.

"There is no job americans won't do."

Except sorting recyclables.

Especially milk jugs on a hot summer day.

Hubby works for the recycling company here in town, and had to learn Espanol for all the Hispanic employees. Every single natural born citizen who has ever gotten a job on the line has walked out before lunchtime. Hubby says it's no big deal, after changing diapers for all three of our girls (grin)

We have huge unemployment in our town, (alot of Cabrini Green relo's) but also huge unemployment bennies for taking said relos, so they don't feel like getting their hands dirty for a day's wages. Some of the Hispanics are actually great workers, and the owner hires them through a temp agency with a reputation of thoroughness for not hiring illegals. There are some big ugly penalties that will go far beyond obliterating any savings for going cheap on illegals.

"If someone is paid next to nothing in a 3rd world country to make my goods, then that person doing so is probably happy for the job, shit though you think it is. Have you seen how most of them live?"

Yes - first hand thanks. Have you?

"Nike paying a little better is not the solution."

So you'll retract your earlier comment then? (I'll remind you: "They might cost you a quarter more a pint of berries for their legal wage-levels, but is you being cheap a reason to flood our country?").

What you're actually saying is that you'll take all the BENEFITS of mass globalisation (underpriced goods, massive imbalances between rich and poor, cheap labour etc) but won't accept any of the repercussions.

Given the hysterics that the average American goes through when the cost of gasoline rises by a few cents, I would LOVE to see the effect that your proposed policies would have (assuming any of your politicians were unwise enough to actually impose them).

If you (personally) were actually proposing a 'buy American' policy (and meant it, and actually followed through on it) then I'd have a little more respect for your position.

What you actually want though is to continue to buy from the sweatshops and shanty towns, thereby helping to perpetuate the inequalities that made NIKE 391 million USD in profits (in the last QUARTER), whilst keeping the "huddled masses" firmly at arm's length.

The irony is that you actually believe that that will help your lower-paid American brethren to 'better' themselves when, in reality, they'll STILL have to live in shitty conditions with poor educational provision, little to no healthcare and few, if any, opportunities to advance.

It's all meaningless unless you can lock the door, and not let them in. All the laws in the world won't change that. Every year you delay in building a boarder that works, is a year more expensive it gets. If they had done something with the last amnesty in the early 90's, and built a wall then. Not only would it be done already, but the 12mill est. illegals here now wouldn't be.

Boarder control is the only way to enforce the law. Until we as a nation see this as an actual threat, nothing will be done.

"Boarder control is the only way to enforce the law"

I agree entirely. All those pesky kids living away from home. Something should be done!

"Many of your healthcare workers (and a good number of those in 'socialist' Europe) come from very poor countries indeed. Poland (mainly dentists), India and Pakistan (mainly Doctors) and the Phillipines (nurses) are all popular 'shopping' destinations for Western countries to source medical staff."

And what a pain in the ass it is to have a nursing staff, or even Dr, who can't understand you when you speak perfect english, and who is difficult to understand as well. That can't possibly contribute to medical errors, can it?

I think if a company wants to make goods elsewhere and ship them here to sell, what is wrong with that James? That I buy goods from that country does not mean they should be able to sneak over our borders and take up all our tax-payer funded perks. They got paid to make the items. Period. That's what we owe them. Nothing else. And thanks AMy for linking to the fact that though sweatshops suck to US, they are a boon to the people working them. Much better than scavenging garbage dumps for food. It's not out job to turn the world into the US suburbs.

Boarder control is the only way to enforce the law.

No, no it's not. See my comment above. Driving under businesses that hire illegals would not only stem the tide of illegals coming into the U.S., it would convince a lot of them to get the fuck out.

Taking away the benefits of being here illegally would be far more effective and less expensive than trying to really clamp down the boarders.

Even though a mass roundup and deport is logistically possible, it is politically IMpossible.

Ditto any REAL border enforcement. We aren't going to let the border patrol shoot back when they are fired upon, and militarizing the border risks antagonizing Mexico further.

No, enforcement on the demand side will cause the majority of illegals to self-deport, saving us both the political and financial hassle of removing them.

"Ditto any REAL border enforcement. We aren't going to let the border patrol shoot back when they are fired upon, and militarizing the border risks antagonizing Mexico further."

The first time a terrorist pays off a Mexico port official and smuggles through a dirty bomb, things will change. The horse will be out of the barn though.

Control of the boarder isn't JUST about control of illegal immigration. It's true that making it difficult to hire them is a good thing, and that has been starting to work in AZ and NM, but as soon as the econ turns around, they will be back. The amount they can make here is simply too good to stay away, and there are plenty of small businesses that can hire them at day rate for cash.

The other thing is you have to know they are illegal. There are many identity theft rings that can get them papers that have a useable SSN, and so forth. How can you reasonably tell that a SSN is incorrect?

Basically you have to have it all working... but would you go 55mph, if you knew there wasn't a cop to pull you over?

The new employment laws have helped in AZ. I work in a restaurant and there are far less illegals than there were two years ago. This is because every job that you apply for you have to be screened to for citizenship or legal papers.

I think the biggest problem here in Arizona is that you don't have to have a SSN to get either the government health care or welfare. That to me is so supremely fucked up that I am still in shock over finding that little piece of information out. I can't qualify for state health care or welfare and yet I am paying illegals to get it. Not that I would but I think you get my point. It just pisses me off that nobody in politics seems to remember that these people are here ILLEGALLY. They don't seem to give a shit.

Also, I don't buy the whole shit job thing. They usually pay the best because nobody wants to do them. I know garbagemen who make more money than most college grads. Hell I'd do it but I don't want to wake up at 3am.

"Many of them work in jobs (most obviously, farm work) that Americans won't take."

This is a sound-bite that people have bit on, nothing more. Be my guest and show me just where these jobs are advertised.

While you're at it, notice that if you're not an illegal, you can get other jobs.

-----

Second the "hammer employers" motion. I think the WalMart who hires an illegal should be locked shut until the illegal is seen on camera in his home town. I'll fly the plane.

You want to know what's amazing? The IRS actually even has armed agents, and the agency isn't doing anything about the fraud this constitutes.

Second the "hammer employers" motion.

Excellent. Now if I could just get you to see sense about legalizing currently illicit drugs we'll be all set....

(Sorry, I couldn't resist. This is what my brain looks like on research paper - about addiction and, oddly, legalizing drugs comes into play)

DuWayne, you've obviously missed my whole point on those: you must define what "legalize" means to do that and protect the public. It's a responsiblity thing, something wholly missing from arguments for raising drug use today. And what a coincidence. I was just reading about Kurt Cobain, and how wonderful heroin was for him. Just think what good it could be for others!

-----

But back to the topic: can anyone show me a graph of budget distress vs. political affiliation? I mean, these people who are so enlightened as to choose the correct political leaders should also be able to control spending, should they not?

Make it simple - blue states vs. red states: who's in the clink?

I submit that government is not what makes California great; it's more of an impediment.

The major difference between the successful immigrant experience of the past and the dysfunctional one of today is simple: the welfare state.

In the past, there was little or no state and federal money for immigrants -- they were dependent on the largesse of their respective ethnic cultural associations. This meant the immigrant was encouraged to gain self-sufficiency sooner... the longer one lingered, the more he cost his kinfolk.

Now, of course, the situation is reversed. Power and money flow to the "helpless"... the longer one malingers, the more his ethnic group gains... in both money and clout. Political empires depend on dependency.

Radwaste -

I'd love to go the rounds with you on that, but of course this isn't place (at least in this thread). My email's duwayne.brayton at gmail. Trust me, I am all inundated with case studies - I've read innumerable articles and somewhere approaching twenty books over the last several months, especially in the last few weeks - all about addiction.

But I've been gearing up for another round with you. I appreciate discussing this with you, because it sure as hell aint preaching to the choir.

It's a different time, and my relatives weren't on welfare.

Let's split that in half:
It's a different time
Oh bullshit. I realize that you don't and can't put the same level of expertise and scientific research into these topics as you do for your columns, but this is weak. momof3 weak.

and my relatives weren't on welfare.
Good point. So, instead of complaining about illegal immigrants, complain about how arbitrary and unfair the legal immigration system is, how much welfare we hand out to the undeserving of all nationalities, how expensive and bad our schools are and how are prisons are nowhere near self-sustaining.

Certainly I'm against immigrants coming here and committing real crimes (you know, the kind with victims), but every immigrant who comes here to make an honest living is an improvement to the country.

I'm basically in favor of the constitutional amendment you mentioned. I don't think parentage should be the only way to citizenship, but I don't think it should be automatic either. As long as we're wishing for ponies, I'd like to make passing a basic econ test a prerequisite for voting, too.

The way I read most of these comments, the main issue with 'illegals' is that they are a nett drain on the economy. Many of you seem to think that they contribute little and take jobs and welfare from US taxpayers.

How about taking all this to the logical next level? Make citizenship dependant on your contribution to your country.

If you can't (subject to some limitations for disability etc), or won't, work then your citizenship rights are suspended. Remain unemployed for a given period of time and you're out (where to send natural-born citizens may get tricky, but there's always a way around these things).

The process wouldn't be any different if you're born in the country or if you're an immigrant (legal or otherwise).

That solves the welfare dependancy issue - you're only eligible as long as you keep full citizenship - and you don't get full citizenship until you've hit a certain age and/or contributed a certain amount in taxes.

It would keep wage inflation down, the State would have to pay less in welfare and everyone's a winner.

Well nearly everyone (plus ca change eh?)

Ooooo, Shawn's so strong. Yes yes, let's not complain about illegals in the least. They are all, each and every one, a benefit to society as long as they don't commit "real" crimes. Of course, only Shawn is qualified to decide what real crimes are, as obviously just breaking written US law does not qualify as crime.

Let's talk about these illegals who benefit our society so much. Let's talk about their lowering property values in every neighborhood they move into with their 20 people and 10 cars at each house, their unmowed weed yards, the garbage overflowing because they can't pay for pick up, the beer cans all over the yard. Let's talk about the fact that their kids can't speak english, so teachers can't teach anyone anything else because they are so busy trying to teach english. Meaning the legal poor are now getting an even shittier education, and have no hope of bettering themselves, because they are stuck in the same neighborhoods as these leeches. Let's talk about the ERs so jam packed with illegals with colds who don't pay their bill that others can't get care. I live among these asshats, so don't talk about what you don't know about, lib.

James, our main issue is that they are ILLEGAL. What is hard to understand about that? All other issues flow from that. We don't need them, or want them, so why should we reform immigration to let them in?

Shawn -

With unemployment rising, every illegal in America is a net drain on some citizen's ability to earn a buck.

Furthermore, every illegal that takes advantage of government-funded services without paying taxes (and you're fooling yourself if you think they pay taxes) is a net drain.

The law is the law. If you don't like it, lobby to have it changed. You can't advocate ignoring it, unless you're trying to get arrested to have standing to challenge the law.

James, I've got a little tribalism issue going on. I accept the fact that some of our own people are going to be a net drain on us, and that we are helping them out. That doesn't mean we should be accepting all the world's poor and helping them out, too.

If my brother was a deadbeat, I'd try and help him get back on his feet, and I'd put a lot of effort into it. If YOUR brother was a dead beat, I wouldn't.

We can't help the whole world. We barely have the resources to help ourselves these days.

"We can't help the whole world. We barely have the resources to help ourselves these days."

The problem is that you're/we're not just 'not helping,' we're actively contributing to the problem. Why do you think that so many illegals want to 'flood' our respective countries? Because we have a better standard of living, obviously.

WHY do we have a better living standard though? In large part it's because we industrialised first - nothing wrong with that, per se. Unfortunately we've then leveraged the advantage that gave us to exploit other (less developed) nations/markets.

How can you justify the massive subsidies that we pay our farmers to over-produce? The nett effect of that is that the surplus is dumped onto third-world markets at below cost price, disincentivising local farmers and promoting aid-dependancy.

Our multi-nationals pay third-world workers $2 USD a day to produce goods that they'll sell (for a good profit) artificially low.

Not content in undermining the local markets in those countries, our big multi-nationals will target their children for tobacco products and their women for baby formula (hey, who cares if the water supplies aren't suitable - breast milk is free and doesn't turn a profit).

Do we care? Not unless it means we can't keep on wasting 30% plus of the food we buy, or carry on being the world's biggest polluters, per head of population, by a country mile.

None of this would be quite so bad if we let the other countries play by the same rules as we do, but we don't. We give internal subsidies, impose tariffs and other artificial trade barriers and we generally distort the markets as much as we can in our favour.

Hypocrisy is an ugly word, but it's something that we in the West have honed to a knife's edge. Small wonder that illegals choose to disregard the stacked deck and go straight for the dealer.

I think if we made everyone on welfare work, even if it was only one or two days a week, we could solve this whole "Americans won't do these jobs" problem. You want benefits, work.

And yeah, what part of ILLEGAL is unclear here? If you're not here LEGALLY, you should be kicked out. And yeah, children born to illegals should not automatically become citizens. If you must allow them to be citizens, you tell the parents fine, your kid can stay here, but you're leaving. If you want to take the kid with, then he/she can come back at eighteen. Your choice. Still not a perfect solution, but better than what we have now.

If someone is paid next to nothing in a 3rd world country to make my goods, then that person doing so is probably happy for the job, shit though you think it is.

"A man who hasn’t had much experience, and doesn’t think, is apt to measure a nation’s prosperity or lack of prosperity by the mere size of the prevailing wages: if the wages be high, the nation is prosperous; if low, it isn’t. Which is an error. It isn’t what sum you get, it’s how much you can buy with it that’s the important thing; and it’s that that tells whether your wages are high in fact or only high in name." - Mark Twain

Boarder control is the only way to enforce the law

James beat me to it.

Sorry I'm sipping the dregs of this thread, but if I screw around posting at work some sneaky illegal might come in and take my job, so here goes...

momof3, I specifically picked on you because you wear your ignorance like a badge of honor. Would it kill you to pick up an econ book and read it? Some are even available in audio versions if that's your style.

I live among these asshats, so don't talk about what you don't know about, lib.
Listen, I never said illegal immigrants are all wonderful, but neither are legal immigrants or born citizens. People do what they're incented to do. I would prefer that the law focused on curbing activities that involve one person doing violence to another or his property, regardless of who those two people are. Period.

In the places I've lived there are these little things called ordinances and if property owners didn't obey them, they pay fines and if they don't pay fines, they lose their property. It doesn't take special treatment for anyone. Don't blame the illegals for your local government being incompetent - unless the illegals voted them in.

Same goes for schools, hospitals, etc.

...our main issue is that they are ILLEGAL.
But you just finished saying all those things about schools, hospitals and property values. I guess they're not really important after all, since they don't merit ALL CAPS. Now perhaps you can explain why any sane person should use what's legal as a model for what's ideal.

As for calling me a lib, I hope you meant libertarian.

I almost forgot, regarding your "don't talk about what you don't know about" line, even you shouldn't descend to the level of "you yankees don't understand how it is down here." But, hey, maybe you're right, I live in San Diego and I don't think there are any illegals here.

Shawn, I can only deal with one issue or so per blog posting. There's no "instead." I've addressed all these issues on various occasions.

Yes, I know and I appreciate it. Yet, the reason I said "instead" is that once those other issues are taken care of, there aren't many illegal immigrant issues left. And we'd be better off with those other issues solved regardless.

This whole issue has the feel of scapegoating to me. If it weren't for the [illegals, Jews, infidels, breakers, group of your choice here], everything would be fine.

With unemployment rising, every illegal in America is a net drain on some citizen's ability to earn a buck.
I expect to hear this kind of dreck from Obama making a stump speech in Michigan, but I really didn't expect it from you. Are you giving up all foreign-made goods and boycotting foreign-supplied services. If so, can I have your TV? If not, why? They're just as much of a "net drain on some citizen's ability to earn a buck." Also, let's say I pay some illegal $5 to mow my lawn instead of paying Joe America $10. Where's the net loss? Does the $5 I save evaporate? How about the other $5? Let's say it goes to Mexico. Does something magic happen to it there? Will the nefarious Mexicans hold onto it as part of their Machiavellian plot to destroy Los Estados Unidos? It's just an idea, but perhaps they will spend it. Now where oh where could they possibly spend it?

Furthermore, every illegal that takes advantage of government-funded services without paying taxes (and you're fooling yourself if you think they pay taxes) is a net drain.
Yes. That's why I support making them legal and minimizing both taxes and government services.

The law is the law. If you don't like it, lobby to have it changed. You can't advocate ignoring it, unless you're trying to get arrested to have standing to challenge the law.
Don't be silly. I can and I do advocate ignoring it and so do you when it suits your purpose. Remember your comments about Chinese dissidents using anonymous proxies? I do advocate changing the law in this case, even so far as the constitutional amendment Amy mentioned. I'm not driving illegals over in my car either, but if you want me to pretend that it's a bad thing that Pedro's here just because it's illegal, tough luck.

"How is that going to work?"

If they're legal, they're paying taxes. They're subject to the same conditions on medicare/medicaid as any other legal citizen.

If they're legal and they choose NOT to pay their taxes, then you deal with them in exactly the same way as you deal with natural-born tax evaders

(ie if they're poor with no connections you hammer them, but if they're a rich WASP and have made the right political donations then you ignore them - or have I misunderstood how your system works in practice?)

Who's the bigger drain on your tax revenues anyway? The illegals, who at least have to spend money locally to eat and live, or the very rich who can squirrel their money off-shore and into tax-avoidance schemes, and yet get to enjoy all the benefits of being a fine 'upstanding' citizen anyway?

James H:

If they're legal, they're paying taxes. They're subject to the same conditions on medicare/medicaid as any other legal citizen.

This is the ignorant myopia of the open-borders crowd.

Why the fuck do you think the illegals are so attractive to employers in the first place?

Because they're cheaper, on account of there are no taxes to pay, no minimum wage to adhere to, and no regulations (OSHA, etc.) to comply with.

Make them legal, and all the benefits of hiring them are GONE.

Which means that a blanket amnesty will (not may, will) create 10-12 million instant unemployed freshly-minted Americans, followed almost immediately by a NEW flood of illegals that will work for below minimum wage in substandard conditions for extended hours.

Am I the only one who thinks past "Pawn to Queen's Knight 3" in this country?

Shawn:

I expect to hear this kind of dreck from Obama making a stump speech in Michigan, but I really didn't expect it from you. Are you giving up all foreign-made goods and boycotting foreign-supplied services. If so, can I have your TV? If not, why?

It's very simple, yes? The illegal worker represents unfair competition, because he offers something that an American citizen cannot - which is below market-cost labor.

We punish companies who sell products below cost for "dumping" all the time. Why aren't we punishing laborers for that?

Having open borders as you and many others advocate means, very simply, the end of even the concept of sovereignty. This is entirely unacceptable.

How is that going to work?
What James H said.

(ie if they're poor with no connections you hammer them, but if they're a rich WASP and have made the right political donations then you ignore them - or have I misunderstood how your system works in practice?)
Nice! Although, I don't think WASP has anything to do with it and I think that's more or less how it works everywhere, not just here.

The reason you expect it from Obama is because in your heart, you know Obama's an imbecile.
No, no, I just know that he panders with the best of 'em.

It's very simple, yes? The illegal worker represents unfair competition, because he offers something that an American citizen cannot - which is below market-cost labor.
Yes, it is very simple. The only way anyone can offer below market prices is by being subsidized. I advocate eliminating the subsidies.

We punish companies who sell products below cost for "dumping" all the time. Why aren't we punishing laborers for that?
I thought that your not answering my questions above that exposed your economic ignorance might have indicated that you got a clue that you're out of your depth here, but I see that isn't the case. I don't have the time to teach you basic econ.

Having open borders as you and many others advocate means, very simply, the end of even the concept of sovereignty.
Sovereignty - is that the concept where 200 million other people vote for how they're going to spend my money and tell me me how to lead my life or else I'll be put in prison? Here's a news flash for you: green cards don't come with the right to vote. And for the third time, I support the constitutional amendment Amy mentioned.

Shawn's from california and seems to think like it. Yet he spells his name like an irishman. I'd like to think my reading all his posts as complete liberal stupidity is just a result of him sharing a name with my ex, but I think he's really just stupid. Yes, make all the unskilled busboys here legal. Then they charge the same as other citizens. So, the restaurant does have no reason to hire him, when he could hire another for the same price who actually speaks english. Or, yes, more likely hires a new illegal. No one wants or needs more market-rate unskilled laborers. The parking lot at home depot is full enough, thanks.

Not at all surprised you're in California. Man, you all ROCK at economics, don'cha?

I thought that your not answering my questions above that exposed your economic ignorance might have indicated that you got a clue that you're out of your depth here, but I see that isn't the case. I don't have the time to teach you basic econ.

Wow. Abject stupidity and incredible arrogance all in one! I've forgotten more about economics than you'll ever know.

Who the fuck is subsidizing the below-market-rate laborers from Mexico, asshole?

Wait. Don't answer. I'll end up stupider just trying to read it anyhow.

Oh, and I didn't answer your questions because they were fucking stupid questions.

Either we are a nation of laws, or we are not. Take your pick.

If you choose to be a nation of no laws, you better hope you're the biggest and most well armed guy on your block. Because ultimately, the law is the only thing standing between you and a pine box.