Sorry for the light posting today... In the meantime, more on the immigration issue.
Sorry for the light posting today. Aside from there not being much going on, I was watching as two of my daughters tested from their yellow to green belts in Tae Kwon Do.
In the meantime, since it's a hot topic at least on this website, one of the readers pointed out to me the other day that Congresswoman Herseth Sandlin has faced votes on immigration bills before. How did those votes go when it was a GOP controlled House?
H R 4437 RECORDED VOTE 16-Dec-2005 10:33 PM
QUESTION: On Passage
BILL TITLE: Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act
Herseth voted in favor of the 2005 Bill. And on the Hunter Amendment which was to put a 700 mile border along the US Mexican Border.....
H R 4437 RECORDED VOTE 15-Dec-2005 9:30 PM
AUTHOR(S): Hunter of California Amendment
QUESTION: On Agreeing to the Amendment
She voted in favor of that as well.
And to those votes, I'd say good show Congresswoman. That's what we like to see. So that's why her recent flip flop on the immigration issue is so confusing.
Just because someone might get around any fence she voted to build is not a reason to reward them with "the cookie of amnesty. " No matter what Nancy Pelosi's position on the bill is.
In the meantime, since it's a hot topic at least on this website, one of the readers pointed out to me the other day that Congresswoman Herseth Sandlin has faced votes on immigration bills before. How did those votes go when it was a GOP controlled House?
H R 4437 RECORDED VOTE 16-Dec-2005 10:33 PM
QUESTION: On Passage
BILL TITLE: Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act
Herseth voted in favor of the 2005 Bill. And on the Hunter Amendment which was to put a 700 mile border along the US Mexican Border.....
H R 4437 RECORDED VOTE 15-Dec-2005 9:30 PM
AUTHOR(S): Hunter of California Amendment
QUESTION: On Agreeing to the Amendment
She voted in favor of that as well.
And to those votes, I'd say good show Congresswoman. That's what we like to see. So that's why her recent flip flop on the immigration issue is so confusing.
Just because someone might get around any fence she voted to build is not a reason to reward them with "the cookie of amnesty. " No matter what Nancy Pelosi's position on the bill is.
Comments
PP – Stop it! This is George Bush’s bill. I know you can’t help but take cheap shots at Herseth but this has gotten just ridiculous.
Wait until she actually casts a vote - then you can judge her.
If it passes, it will simply encourage a new flood of illegals waiting for the next amnesty a few years down the road. And why would an illegal (who already gets free education for his kids, free medical care, and doesn't have to pay taxes most times) register and become legal. Most are here to make money but don't care if they actually becomes citizens. And how would the gov't enforce the law when it hasn't enforced the ones it has on the books now?
This would work:
1. Enforce the laws we have now.
2. If we find illegals, deport them immediately along with their family.
3. End the anchor baby law; it was never meant to be abused.
Of course, this wouldn't buy votes. And this is the only reason I can think of for reviving this amnesty bill.
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=189
Suggest that a porous border that lets in uneducated aliens while the system keeps out English-speaking aliens with talents and skills not available and the knee-jerk liberals will attack you for being a nativist, xenophope, racist, bigot, nazi, etc.
There is a total brain short circuit on this issue where the short term partisan or corporate business interests are trumping the future of the United States.
This verse by Emma Lazarus appears on on a plaque at the base of the Statue of Liberty.
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."
It sounds to me like most of you here think we should take it down, huh?
Really, you should all listen to yourselves sometimes. No wonder the American dream is fading. Liberty's children have forgotten the lesson.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/29/AR2007042901322.html
Remember folks, most of them pay taxes. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), nearly three quarters of them pay payroll taxes (think Social Security and Medicare), all of them pay sales and property taxes, and a third of them pay income taxes.
Read the article for more information.
And please nonnie, do not try to tell me you actually think deporting 20 million workers from this country is a) possible, b) cost effective, or c) good for our economy.
It doesn't make sense to pass unenforcable laws. Many of you should know (as conservatives) that government is not capable of doing everything.
"Immigrants with an ungrateful attitute."
Anything other than purely anecdotal evidence to support any of your claims? Do you have any aggregated evidence, or just stories about your grandparents? Verifiable facts, not just opinions, would be a useful addition to this debate.
Be sure to note that nativist Americans a century ago were using many of the same arguments to try and stop your grandparents from immigrating that you are making today.
I'm not disputing that your grandparents were hard-working, fully assimilated immigrants. I was asking for something other than anecdotal evidence to support your argument. Here is a definition of anecdotal evidence:
"based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation"
Give me something other than personal observations. How are immigrants hurting our economy? How are they hurting our fiscal situation? Are they really stealing our jobs? Are your proposals reasonable given these facts?
Do you see what I mean? Give me some rational thought. I'm not going to pay attention to emotionally charged, illogical rhetoric that adds nothing to finding a reasonable solution to this situation.
"then expect "Se Habla Espanol" everyplace and free services that the rest of us have to pay for."
Did you not read the previous comments stating that the majority of illegals pay taxes?
Is there any substance in any of your arguments?
You can look at this bill another way. Some poeple are immigrating here legally, jumping thru the hoops, doing everything right, and assimilating into our society. Then along come the illegals who with this bill will go to the front of the line, while demanding rights like free college tuition, that even citizens and legal immigrants don't get.
Amnesty is unfair in all senses of the word. It just encourages more illegals with the hope of future amnesty.
Jack, ask CA and some other border states how illegals are impacting eduation and social services in their state. It's not up to me or Anon to find you anectodal evidence; you can do that yourself. Illegals have no insurance; if they get sick we do not refuse to treat them, but they can't pay, so the taxpayers do. They get free education, often with the added expense of an ESL teacher.
They might pay sales taxes. They don't pay income taxes for the most part. I doubt many of them own property, so the property tax argument is ridiculous.
And as long as we refuse to address border security, it's not only illegal Mexicans that are probably coming thru.
It seems that the only people who really want something done are the ones who aren't in DC.
"They might pay sales taxes. They don't pay income taxes for the most part. I doubt many of them own property, so the property tax argument is ridiculous."
Check out the article I previously linked to for a good summary of some of the research on the effects of illegals.
75% of illegals pay Soc. Security and Medicare taxes, of which they will see nothing. Property taxes are imputed into rental costs. So, they actually do pay those taxes. You're right about income tax, only 1/3 of them pay that.
"It's not up to me or Anon to find you anectodal evidence"
Actually, I was asking for NON-anecdotal evidence. For instance, some pieces of research would be nice. Everything you are saying is good and fine, but it lacks legitimacy unless it is backed up with evidence. Hypotheticals, on the other hand, are not as useful as you would like to think.
" Make the fines stiff enough, and the jobs for illegals will disappear,"
Care to make a GUESS as to what THAT will do to the economy (since I know you won't actually look for any actual research)?
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTBlOTVlNDFkNTYwOTg4YWYxMThkZmE2MWZhMmVjMWM=
P.S. I never said they are stealing jobs. In fact, that is the problem. Big business (and heck, I'm a capitalist Republican) is enabling them because of the cheap labor. So they are not stealing the jobs. They are being handed them by businesses which, in my view, should be prosecuted.
Read this op-ed, by a non-politician:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20-07/04/29/AR2007042901322.html
Here are more studies refuting a lot the emotional anecdotes Tancredo referenced:
http://www.phil.frb.org/ec-on/conf/immigration/card.pdf
http://www.cfr.org/content/pu-blications/attachments/Imm-igrationCSR26.pdf
http://www.cid.harvard.edu/blu-esky/papers/kremer_globali-zation_0609.pdf
Note that I am not saying illegal immigration is good or justifiable. Nor am I saying they impose NO cost on social services. What I am saying is that your arguments and the arguments of Sen. Tancredo are incomplete and emotionally motivated. Furthermore, the solutions you are proposing are impractical and are not cost effective. The current immigration bill is probably not realistic either, but some parts of it are.
Read the literature, accept that immigrants commit fewer crimes (proportionally) than do current citizens. Accept that their net effect on the economy is positive and that the effects on wages are extremely small, at worst. Or, don't accept any of these things. But try and have credible, objective sources of your information.
If you all keep getting your information from talk radio and other sensationalist nativists, you're going to be ignorant. Plain and simple.
C'mon.. they're no better than talk radio. It's just someone's beliefs spun in a way to get people to agree, and to attempt to make them look credible.
Why is it that people assume that if someone writes something down, it must be the truth, but if it's spoken on talk radio or TV, it must be a lie?
Ever read the Argus?
Case closed.
The people rule. The people rule. (Oh, in case you didn't catch my drift? I, um, said, "the people rule.") Always have, always will.
Those weren't websites I posted, they were academic JOURNAL ARTICLES. If you would have taken the 20 minutes to read them (or the 5 seconds to copy and paste them into your browser) you wouldn't have made such an ignorant comment. Apparently, exposing yourself to opposing points of view is not something you're fond of.
Comparing a Tom Tancredo op-ed to a journal article published in a highly reputed economics journal is asinine. Or do you really think they are on the same level?
"Probably he'd still demand more anecdotal or non-anecdotal evidence."
Come'on, man. Read the comment thread before you type something.
I have not demanded more anecdotal evidence, I have demanded OBJECTIVE, SCIENTIFIC evidence. Not emotional, contextual riff-raff. If you have a sound argument with some sort of sound intellectual backing, I will listen. Until then, your nativist and yes, racist claims are going to undermine your arguments.
Seek objective sources. As long as you listen to, watch, or read sources with obvious bias and a very blatant agenda, your thinking will be flawed.
Those aren't any more objective sources than the people who post on this blog. They just have their point of view, like everyone else, but it seems to carry more credibility with you cause they took the time to write it down.
And 7:23 -- What exactly do you rule?? Nothing that matters, as far as I can see.
State motto of South Dakota.
But these stalwarts of the community were beyond reproach, they were wealthy, they said they were not going to be held hostage to unions and they gave "liberally" to our party.
And we did nothing!!!
We didn't ask questions as the almighty god of economic development was worshipped.
We didn't want to know...we were just glad they were on our side.
Now I wonder. Hell to avoid this I would have supported unions!
And lastly to get away from the racist label...as long as we're spending money like drunken sailors on a 700 mile fence let build one on the north and just shut ourselves off from the rest of the world.
Americans went down the tubes. Flat out.
If you want your country back, get behing the American worker.
Before that, when I used to work for them, we were the ONLY people who stood at the borders
and told people to go back home.
http://www.ufw.org/_board.php?mode=view&b_code=cre_leg&b_no=55&page=1&field=&key=&n=3
If you don't think scholarly journal articles are any different than a blogpost, you are terrible (and sadly) misinformed. Go (back) to college.