Illegal immigration from Mexico is receding (1 Viewer)

[StrikeS2k]

I don't think this thread is going like Timmy thought it would.

 

[timschochet]

Tim seriously how can you look at this research and say it is time to stop worrying about illegal immigration? The numbers show that it is the worrying about it that created the numbers you reference.

I'm not at all sure of the bolded. Don't forget the study is over a 5 year period from 2005-2010. Most of the new crackdowns that Obama has imposed have only been for the last couple of years. So I don't see the correlation. I also have trouble seeing the correlation between this and our poor economy, given the years in question. Both of these have played some part, but I believe the largest part of this is the expanding Mexican economy- Mexicans don't need to come here anymore to find decent jobs; there are jobs in Mexico. And this is the reason I agree with so many economists that the main era of illegal immigration from Mexico has ended. Sure, there may be periods in the future when due to economic concerns it rises again, but I don't think it will ever rise to the level we saw before. The era of millions of people crossing the border illegally is over, IMO. But whatever created the numbers, the facts appear to still be the same: it's a net negative. I think this fact gives us the golden opportunity to deal with the 12 million who are here in a reasonable way, in a way that will help our economy. We need to absorb them and not reject them.

 

[timschochet]

I don't think this thread is going like Timmy thought it would.

To the contrary, it's going EXACTLY like I thought it would. I have never started nor entered a discussion on this subject without knowing just how the majority of people think. But I always hope it will change over time...

 

[StrikeS2k]

But whatever created the numbers, the facts appear to still be the same: it's a net negative. I think this fact gives us the golden opportunity to deal with the 12 million who are here in a reasonable way, in a way that will help our economy. We need to absorb them and not reject them.

From your link:

In the five-year period from 2005 to 2010, about 1.4 million Mexicans immigrated to the United States and about 1.4 million Mexican immigrants and their U.S.-born children moved from the United States to Mexico.

Tim, did you take math when you were in school? When I took math they taught me that if 1.4 million come here and 1.4 million leave it's EQUAL. Why are you suggesting it's a negative?Also, you tend to question sources quite a bit for their bias. You've pretty much discounted every report I've ever posted on illegal immigration as biased. Don't you think the Pew Hispanic Center might be slightly biased regarding this issue?

 

[Joe T]

Since you guys seem to want to rip me for my choice of words rather than discuss the substance of the issue, I have changed them. When I wrote "it's ended", what I meant is that illegal immigration is no longer an issue of concern, IMO, if the net numbers are actually down over the last 5-7 years.

Even if all is true, it doesn't make it not an issue of concern.

It's an issue of concern in many ways. For example, can we now stop all this silly talk about a fence? It's not necessary.

You tell us. You brought it up (again).

 

[timschochet]

But whatever created the numbers, the facts appear to still be the same: it's a net negative. I think this fact gives us the golden opportunity to deal with the 12 million who are here in a reasonable way, in a way that will help our economy. We need to absorb them and not reject them.

From your link:

In the five-year period from 2005 to 2010, about 1.4 million Mexicans immigrated to the United States and about 1.4 million Mexican immigrants and their U.S.-born children moved from the United States to Mexico.

Tim, did you take math when you were in school? When I took math they taught me that if 1.4 million come here and 1.4 million leave it's EQUAL. Why are you suggesting it's a negative?Also, you tend to question sources quite a bit for their bias. You've pretty much discounted every report I've ever posted on illegal immigration as biased. Don't you think the Pew Hispanic Center might be slightly biased regarding this issue?

1. Correct. I should not have said negative. I should have used equal. For the purpose of my point, it's the same. 2. From Michael Barone's article: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/04/26/shrinking_problem_illegal_immigration_from_mexico_113960.html

Pew's demographers have carefully combed through statistics compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau, the Department of Homeland Security and the Mexican government, and have come up with estimates of the flow of migrants from and back to Mexico. Their work seems to be as close to definitive as possible.

Barone is a well known conservative who has written extensively on this issue. Of course, you're welcome to be skeptical of him if you wish.

 

[StrikeS2k]

But whatever created the numbers, the facts appear to still be the same: it's a net negative. I think this fact gives us the golden opportunity to deal with the 12 million who are here in a reasonable way, in a way that will help our economy. We need to absorb them and not reject them.

From your link:

In the five-year period from 2005 to 2010, about 1.4 million Mexicans immigrated to the United States and about 1.4 million Mexican immigrants and their U.S.-born children moved from the United States to Mexico.

Tim, did you take math when you were in school? When I took math they taught me that if 1.4 million come here and 1.4 million leave it's EQUAL. Why are you suggesting it's a negative?Also, you tend to question sources quite a bit for their bias. You've pretty much discounted every report I've ever posted on illegal immigration as biased. Don't you think the Pew Hispanic Center might be slightly biased regarding this issue?

1. Correct. I should not have said negative. I should have used equal. For the purpose of my point, it's the same. 2. From Michael Barone's article: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/04/26/shrinking_problem_illegal_immigration_from_mexico_113960.html

Pew's demographers have carefully combed through statistics compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau, the Department of Homeland Security and the Mexican government, and have come up with estimates of the flow of migrants from and back to Mexico. Their work seems to be as close to definitive as possible.

Barone is a well known conservative who has written extensively on this issue. Of course, you're welcome to be skeptical of him if you wish.

I don't know him but, according to Wikipedia, he is an illegal immigrant sympathizer. He may be conservative in general but it seems he has your views re: illegal immigration. This is why you lack credibility Tim. You tout him as a conservative to try to suggest that we should all listen to him, despite the fact that he is an illegal immigrant sympathizer and therefore SHOULD be suspect.

 

[RCon]

Since you guys seem to want to rip me for my choice of words rather than discuss the substance of the issue, I have changed them. When I wrote "it's ended", what I meant is that illegal immigration is no longer an issue of concern, IMO, if the net numbers are actually down over the last 5-7 years.

What is the substance you want to discuss? Net illegal immigration is down? I wouldn't know personally, but if the experts say so, I'll believe them. That net illegal immigration is currently down should change my policy preferences? Seems kind of silly.

Not your policy preferences- I was incorrect to lump you in with how most conservatives tend to feel about this issue, and I apologize for that. But the policy preferences of the majority of conservatives, yes. As people like Michael Barone point out, if net illegal immigration is no longer a concern, then we can now have a serious conversation about what do with the 12 million people who are already here.

The same points apply.1. Whether net illegal immigration is a concern at this point in time isn't necessarily reflective on whether it will be a concern at a future point in time.2. Apparently, the cause of net illegal immigration being down is economic factors that could change in the future rather than that the border has been "secured".If the conservative argument is that we shouldn't work on the issue of the illegals currently here until the borders are secure, nothing about the present situation changes the validity of that argument. It may still be a bad argument/policy preference, but not because net illegal immigration has slowed.Personally, I don't think securing the border is the best way to combat illegal immigration (although I think we should work on securing the border for other reasons). I think cutting off benefits to illegals and heavily fining employers of illegals will be a much better method.

*bump*

 

[StrikeS2k]

Here are a couple more articles by Michael Barone over the years on illegal immigration:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/07/new-reality-emerging-illegal-immigration/116154

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michael/barone032706.php3

Do you really think I should take this guy seriously Tim?

 

[Clifford]

Tim seriously how can you look at this research and say it is time to stop worrying about illegal immigration? The numbers show that it is the worrying about it that created the numbers you reference.

I'm not at all sure of the bolded. Don't forget the study is over a 5 year period from 2005-2010. Most of the new crackdowns that Obama has imposed have only been for the last couple of years. So I don't see the correlation. I also have trouble seeing the correlation between this and our poor economy, given the years in question. Both of these have played some part, but I believe the largest part of this is the expanding Mexican economy- Mexicans don't need to come here anymore to find decent jobs; there are jobs in Mexico. And this is the reason I agree with so many economists that the main era of illegal immigration from Mexico has ended. Sure, there may be periods in the future when due to economic concerns it rises again, but I don't think it will ever rise to the level we saw before. The era of millions of people crossing the border illegally is over, IMO. But whatever created the numbers, the facts appear to still be the same: it's a net negative. I think this fact gives us the golden opportunity to deal with the 12 million who are here in a reasonable way, in a way that will help our economy. We need to absorb them and not reject them.

I agree, but I can't say these numbers support a reduction of border enforcement and current policies. If anything they provide a very strong argument for continuing them.

 

[timschochet]

Here are a couple more articles by Michael Barone over the years on illegal immigration:

http://washingtonexa...igration/116154

http://www.jewishwor...rone032706.php3

Do you really think I should take this guy seriously Tim?

Well that depends. If your goal is the ultimate triumph of political conservatism in this country, then he is exactly the sort of conservative you should take seriously. Like Karl Rove and the late William F. Buckley, he appears to "get it" when it comes to this issue. He's not going to let the nativist fanatics destroy the Republican party.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Here are a couple more articles by Michael Barone over the years on illegal immigration:

http://washingtonexa...igration/116154

http://www.jewishwor...rone032706.php3

Do you really think I should take this guy seriously Tim?

Well that depends. If your goal is the ultimate triumph of political conservatism in this country, then he is exactly the sort of conservative you should take seriously. Like Karl Rove and the late William F. Buckley, he appears to "get it" when it comes to this issue. He's not going to let the nativist fanatics destroy the Republican party.

He "gets it" because he shares your viewpoint? Ok, credibility completely shattered now. Why don't you just finish it off by calling me a racist, er I mean xenophobe.

 

[timschochet]

Tim seriously how can you look at this research and say it is time to stop worrying about illegal immigration? The numbers show that it is the worrying about it that created the numbers you reference.

I'm not at all sure of the bolded. Don't forget the study is over a 5 year period from 2005-2010. Most of the new crackdowns that Obama has imposed have only been for the last couple of years. So I don't see the correlation. I also have trouble seeing the correlation between this and our poor economy, given the years in question. Both of these have played some part, but I believe the largest part of this is the expanding Mexican economy- Mexicans don't need to come here anymore to find decent jobs; there are jobs in Mexico. And this is the reason I agree with so many economists that the main era of illegal immigration from Mexico has ended. Sure, there may be periods in the future when due to economic concerns it rises again, but I don't think it will ever rise to the level we saw before. The era of millions of people crossing the border illegally is over, IMO. But whatever created the numbers, the facts appear to still be the same: it's a net negative. I think this fact gives us the golden opportunity to deal with the 12 million who are here in a reasonable way, in a way that will help our economy. We need to absorb them and not reject them.

I agree, but I can't say these numbers support a reduction of border enforcement and current policies. If anything they provide a very strong argument for continuing them.

I won't even argue the point, Clifford. I just want to deal the ones already here.

 

[timschochet]

Since you guys seem to want to rip me for my choice of words rather than discuss the substance of the issue, I have changed them. When I wrote "it's ended", what I meant is that illegal immigration is no longer an issue of concern, IMO, if the net numbers are actually down over the last 5-7 years.

What is the substance you want to discuss? Net illegal immigration is down? I wouldn't know personally, but if the experts say so, I'll believe them. That net illegal immigration is currently down should change my policy preferences? Seems kind of silly.

Not your policy preferences- I was incorrect to lump you in with how most conservatives tend to feel about this issue, and I apologize for that. But the policy preferences of the majority of conservatives, yes. As people like Michael Barone point out, if net illegal immigration is no longer a concern, then we can now have a serious conversation about what do with the 12 million people who are already here.

The same points apply.1. Whether net illegal immigration is a concern at this point in time isn't necessarily reflective on whether it will be a concern at a future point in time.2. Apparently, the cause of net illegal immigration being down is economic factors that could change in the future rather than that the border has been "secured".If the conservative argument is that we shouldn't work on the issue of the illegals currently here until the borders are secure, nothing about the present situation changes the validity of that argument. It may still be a bad argument/policy preference, but not because net illegal immigration has slowed.Personally, I don't think securing the border is the best way to combat illegal immigration (although I think we should work on securing the border for other reasons). I think cutting off benefits to illegals and heavily fining employers of illegals will be a much better method.

*bump*

Sorry.1. Agreed, though I think it is. 2. IMO, it will always be based on economic factors. You will never be able to secure the border "enough". Economic factors will always play the most significant part, and I think they've changed for the better of Mexico, and this is a long term change. 3. I don't see the point in fining employers. But of course we differ on that. I see employers who choose to hire illegals as a benefit to our economy. I wouldn't fine them. If you want to solve the "problem", eliminate minimum wage and all employment restrictions. Then it won't be an issue.

 

[timschochet]

Here are a couple more articles by Michael Barone over the years on illegal immigration:

http://washingtonexa...igration/116154

http://www.jewishwor...rone032706.php3

Do you really think I should take this guy seriously Tim?

Well that depends. If your goal is the ultimate triumph of political conservatism in this country, then he is exactly the sort of conservative you should take seriously. Like Karl Rove and the late William F. Buckley, he appears to "get it" when it comes to this issue. He's not going to let the nativist fanatics destroy the Republican party.

He "gets it" because he shares your viewpoint? Ok, credibility completely shattered now. Why don't you just finish it off by calling me a racist, er I mean xenophobe.

He doesn't share my viewpoint. He gets it on this issue because he recognizes the demographic reality. And he knows, as any thoughtful person should, that there is no good reason that a decent percentage of Latinos should not be Republicans, since they are generally a conservative people, just as most African-Americans are. Republicans screwed themselves with blacks beginning in 1964 and are continuing do so even today. Now they're doing the same thing with Latinos. Even if 100% of all black people vote Democratic it doesn't hurt the GOP too much because of the demographic areas in which they live: their votes are rarely nationally decisive. Latinos, however, are a different story. They WILL decide national elections in the years to come. Republicans need their votes, and they're not going to get them, because of this issue. If you're someone like me who prefers Republican ideas on our economy, such as lower spending and lower taxes, this fact is a catastrophe. We are letting the Democrats win because people like you are so ####### stubborn on this issue.

 

[Clinton]

Republicans screwed themselves with blacks beginning in 1964

What did the Republicans do in 1964 to begin screwing themselves with blacks?Civil Rights Act of 1964: Vote by Party

The original House version

Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)

Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

Cloture in the Senate

Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%–34%)

Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)

The Senate version

Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%–31%)

Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House

Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%–37%)

Republican Party: 136-35 (80%–20%)

 

[Sinn Fein]

Heard this on the radio yesterday. One of the commentators suggested that one reason why the level of migration from Mexico to the US is unlikely to ever return to the levels of the last twenty years is the dramatic drop in birth rates in Mexico from 1970 to now. Something like almost seven children per woman to a little over two.

 

[RCon]

Since you guys seem to want to rip me for my choice of words rather than discuss the substance of the issue, I have changed them. When I wrote "it's ended", what I meant is that illegal immigration is no longer an issue of concern, IMO, if the net numbers are actually down over the last 5-7 years.

What is the substance you want to discuss? Net illegal immigration is down? I wouldn't know personally, but if the experts say so, I'll believe them. That net illegal immigration is currently down should change my policy preferences? Seems kind of silly.

Not your policy preferences- I was incorrect to lump you in with how most conservatives tend to feel about this issue, and I apologize for that. But the policy preferences of the majority of conservatives, yes. As people like Michael Barone point out, if net illegal immigration is no longer a concern, then we can now have a serious conversation about what do with the 12 million people who are already here.

The same points apply.1. Whether net illegal immigration is a concern at this point in time isn't necessarily reflective on whether it will be a concern at a future point in time.2. Apparently, the cause of net illegal immigration being down is economic factors that could change in the future rather than that the border has been "secured".If the conservative argument is that we shouldn't work on the issue of the illegals currently here until the borders are secure, nothing about the present situation changes the validity of that argument. It may still be a bad argument/policy preference, but not because net illegal immigration has slowed.Personally, I don't think securing the border is the best way to combat illegal immigration (although I think we should work on securing the border for other reasons). I think cutting off benefits to illegals and heavily fining employers of illegals will be a much better method.

Sorry.1. Agreed, though I think it is. 2. IMO, it will always be based on economic factors. You will never be able to secure the border "enough". Economic factors will always play the most significant part, and I think they've changed for the better of Mexico, and this is a long term change. 3. I don't see the point in fining employers. But of course we differ on that. I see employers who choose to hire illegals as a benefit to our economy. I wouldn't fine them. If you want to solve the "problem", eliminate minimum wage and all employment restrictions. Then it won't be an issue.

You're the one who often argues that while true libertarianism would be better than the status quo in many ways, there's no way to get there from here, so we need to be pragmatic when creating or altering policy. That said, eliminating minimum wage and employment restrictions isn't going to happen any time in the near future, for obvious political reasons. So I don't know how you can then say you want to reward employers who ignore our employment laws, hiring illegals (or anyone else, for that matter) under the table for less than minimum wage.Let me ask you something. If the following deal was offered, would you suggest we implement such a policy?1. We decriminalize what is currently illegal immigration (i.e. anyone can come across, provided they pass a security check).2. All federal benefits to non-citizens eliminated.3. States and localities could choose whether to eliminate their own benefits (including health care, public schooling, welfare, etc.).4. Heavy fines, along the order of $50K per incident, imposed for employers who hired "non-registered illegals*".* In this context, "non-registered illegals" would mean non-citizens who come here without passing the security check and registering as guest workers (or whatever we call it).

 

[RCon]

Heard this on the radio yesterday. One of the commentators suggested that one reason why the level of migration from Mexico to the US is unlikely to ever return to the levels of the last twenty years is the dramatic drop in birth rates in Mexico from 1970 to now. Something like almost seven children per woman to a little over two.

If true, persuasive argument.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Republicans screwed themselves with blacks beginning in 1964

What did the Republicans do in 1964 to begin screwing themselves with blacks?Civil Rights Act of 1964: Vote by Party

The original House version

Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)

Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

Cloture in the Senate

Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%–34%)

Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)

The Senate version

Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%–31%)

Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House

Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%–37%)

Republican Party: 136-35 (80%–20%)

Southern Strategy for the win.

 

[Clinton]

Republicans screwed themselves with blacks beginning in 1964

What did the Republicans do in 1964 to begin screwing themselves with blacks?Civil Rights Act of 1964: Vote by Party

The original House version

Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)

Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

Cloture in the Senate

Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%–34%)

Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)

The Senate version

Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%–31%)

Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House

Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%–37%)

Republican Party: 136-35 (80%–20%)

Southern Strategy for the win.

Well, I'm glad you think you won. Self-esteem is very important for a developing mind. But the point is that in 1964 the Southern Strategy was employed by Barry Goldwater who was considered more Conservative than he was a mainstream Republican. The Civil Rights Act voting records, which reflect a far greater spectrum of Republican views in 1964 than the strategy of one man, suggest that Republicans on the whole didn't alienate blacks in 1964 so much as Goldwater did in employing the Southern Strategy.

 

[Chadstroma]

Well, there you go. Obama's plan finally makes sense. Do everything within his ability to keep the economy sucking and it fixes our illegal immigration problem.

 

[Clinton]

Republicans screwed themselves with blacks beginning in 1964

What did the Republicans do in 1964 to begin screwing themselves with blacks?Civil Rights Act of 1964: Vote by Party

The original House version

Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)

Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

Cloture in the Senate

Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%–34%)

Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)

The Senate version

Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%–31%)

Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House

Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%–37%)

Republican Party: 136-35 (80%–20%)

This is like those silly, "Republicans: Party of Lincoln" mottos. Why don't you break out who voted for it by state. Many of the Dixiecrats who were against civil rights left the Democratic party after the passage of the Civil Rights Act. So they were on the D side at the time of the vote but were on the R side shortly thereafter.

Tim, seriously, I'm trying to have a legitimate conversation. Please stop jumping between your aliases. Next thing I know you'll have Adonis and Raiderfan32904 in here, too.

 

[17seconds]

Well, there you go. Obama's plan finally makes sense. Do everything within his ability to keep the economy sucking and it fixes our illegal immigration problem.

There's at least 3 things wrong with this drivel.

 

[timschochet]

1. We decriminalize what is currently illegal immigration (i.e. anyone can come across, provided they pass a security check).2. All federal benefits to non-citizens eliminated.3. States and localities could choose whether to eliminate their own benefits (including health care, public schooling, welfare, etc.).4. Heavy fines, along the order of $50K per incident, imposed for employers who hired "non-registered illegals*".* In this context, "non-registered illegals" would mean non-citizens who come here without passing the security check and registering as guest workers (or whatever we call it).

You've asked me something along similar lines before. I can go along with most of it. I can't go along with eliminating basic helath care and public schooling.

 

[RCon]

1. We decriminalize what is currently illegal immigration (i.e. anyone can come across, provided they pass a security check).2. All federal benefits to non-citizens eliminated.3. States and localities could choose whether to eliminate their own benefits (including health care, public schooling, welfare, etc.).4. Heavy fines, along the order of $50K per incident, imposed for employers who hired "non-registered illegals*".* In this context, "non-registered illegals" would mean non-citizens who come here without passing the security check and registering as guest workers (or whatever we call it).

You've asked me something along similar lines before. I can go along with most of it. I can't go along with eliminating basic helath care and public schooling.

Why not? What method of discouraging, for lack of a better term, "freeloaders" would you use?

 

[Clinton]

Tim, seriously, I'm trying to have a legitimate conversation. Please stop jumping between your aliases. Next thing I know you'll have Adonis and Raiderfan32904 in here, too.

Delusional and unfunny isn't good shtick.HtH

I don't want to derail this illegal immigration talk, Tim. My intent isn't to get into a pissing match. I was just legitimately curious about something that Tim, and not one of your aliases, wrote. Sorry for the hijack, and apologies to Rich Conway, Stike2K, and Clifford who were actually having a good conversation on the topic.

 

[17seconds]

1. We decriminalize what is currently illegal immigration (i.e. anyone can come across, provided they pass a security check).2. All federal benefits to non-citizens eliminated.3. States and localities could choose whether to eliminate their own benefits (including health care, public schooling, welfare, etc.).4. Heavy fines, along the order of $50K per incident, imposed for employers who hired "non-registered illegals*".* In this context, "non-registered illegals" would mean non-citizens who come here without passing the security check and registering as guest workers (or whatever we call it).

You've asked me something along similar lines before. I can go along with most of it. I can't go along with eliminating basic helath care and public schooling.

It's so strange that you support Mitt Romney who isn't exactly for a big safety net for US Citizens, yet you'll give just about anything to people here illegally.

 

[timschochet]

1. We decriminalize what is currently illegal immigration (i.e. anyone can come across, provided they pass a security check).2. All federal benefits to non-citizens eliminated.3. States and localities could choose whether to eliminate their own benefits (including health care, public schooling, welfare, etc.).4. Heavy fines, along the order of $50K per incident, imposed for employers who hired "non-registered illegals*".* In this context, "non-registered illegals" would mean non-citizens who come here without passing the security check and registering as guest workers (or whatever we call it).

You've asked me something along similar lines before. I can go along with most of it. I can't go along with eliminating basic helath care and public schooling.

Why not? What method of discouraging, for lack of a better term, "freeloaders" would you use?

If 12 million people are going to live here permenantly then we cannot deny them basic health care or education. I don't want them to grow up to be criminals, and I don't want them to create a public health menace.

 

[timschochet]

1. We decriminalize what is currently illegal immigration (i.e. anyone can come across, provided they pass a security check).2. All federal benefits to non-citizens eliminated.3. States and localities could choose whether to eliminate their own benefits (including health care, public schooling, welfare, etc.).4. Heavy fines, along the order of $50K per incident, imposed for employers who hired "non-registered illegals*".* In this context, "non-registered illegals" would mean non-citizens who come here without passing the security check and registering as guest workers (or whatever we call it).

You've asked me something along similar lines before. I can go along with most of it. I can't go along with eliminating basic helath care and public schooling.

It's so strange that you support Mitt Romney who isn't exactly for a big safety net for US Citizens, yet you'll give just about anything to people here illegally.

Link to where Romney wants to remove the safety net?

 

[StrikeS2k]

Here are a couple more articles by Michael Barone over the years on illegal immigration:

http://washingtonexa...igration/116154

http://www.jewishwor...rone032706.php3

Do you really think I should take this guy seriously Tim?

Well that depends. If your goal is the ultimate triumph of political conservatism in this country, then he is exactly the sort of conservative you should take seriously. Like Karl Rove and the late William F. Buckley, he appears to "get it" when it comes to this issue. He's not going to let the nativist fanatics destroy the Republican party.

He "gets it" because he shares your viewpoint? Ok, credibility completely shattered now. Why don't you just finish it off by calling me a racist, er I mean xenophobe.

He doesn't share my viewpoint. He gets it on this issue because he recognizes the demographic reality. And he knows, as any thoughtful person should, that there is no good reason that a decent percentage of Latinos should not be Republicans, since they are generally a conservative people, just as most African-Americans are. Republicans screwed themselves with blacks beginning in 1964 and are continuing do so even today. Now they're doing the same thing with Latinos. Even if 100% of all black people vote Democratic it doesn't hurt the GOP too much because of the demographic areas in which they live: their votes are rarely nationally decisive. Latinos, however, are a different story. They WILL decide national elections in the years to come. Republicans need their votes, and they're not going to get them, because of this issue. If you're someone like me who prefers Republican ideas on our economy, such as lower spending and lower taxes, this fact is a catastrophe. We are letting the Democrats win because people like you are so ####### stubborn on this issue.

Tim,The problem with you touting him as a conservative is that the implication is that due to this report he's somehow changing his stance. Whether he's conservative or not I've demonstrated that he believes in illegal immigration as much as you do, and has forever. Therefore, whether he's conservative or not is irrelevant to a discussion of his OPINION piece. And that hurts your credibility. Badly.

 

[StrikeS2k]

1. We decriminalize what is currently illegal immigration (i.e. anyone can come across, provided they pass a security check).2. All federal benefits to non-citizens eliminated.3. States and localities could choose whether to eliminate their own benefits (including health care, public schooling, welfare, etc.).4. Heavy fines, along the order of $50K per incident, imposed for employers who hired "non-registered illegals*".* In this context, "non-registered illegals" would mean non-citizens who come here without passing the security check and registering as guest workers (or whatever we call it).

You've asked me something along similar lines before. I can go along with most of it. I can't go along with eliminating basic helath care and public schooling.

Why not? What method of discouraging, for lack of a better term, "freeloaders" would you use?

If 12 million people are going to live here permenantly then we cannot deny them basic health care or education. I don't want them to grow up to be criminals, and I don't want them to create a public health menace.

They're already criminals.

 

[DrJ]

Wouldn't "under control" imply that you have the ability to set the number of illegals that come in every year? Being at the mercy of economic cycles that are outside of our control certain doesn't indicate "under control" to me.

 

[17seconds]

1. We decriminalize what is currently illegal immigration (i.e. anyone can come across, provided they pass a security check).2. All federal benefits to non-citizens eliminated.3. States and localities could choose whether to eliminate their own benefits (including health care, public schooling, welfare, etc.).4. Heavy fines, along the order of $50K per incident, imposed for employers who hired "non-registered illegals*".* In this context, "non-registered illegals" would mean non-citizens who come here without passing the security check and registering as guest workers (or whatever we call it).

You've asked me something along similar lines before. I can go along with most of it. I can't go along with eliminating basic helath care and public schooling.

It's so strange that you support Mitt Romney who isn't exactly for a big safety net for US Citizens, yet you'll give just about anything to people here illegally.

Link to where Romney wants to remove the safety net?

come on... "isn't exactly for a big safety net" <> "remove the existing safety net"you know what I'm talking about... he's heavily inclined to reduce services from the government. you want to give services to illegals.

 

[RCon]

1. We decriminalize what is currently illegal immigration (i.e. anyone can come across, provided they pass a security check).2. All federal benefits to non-citizens eliminated.3. States and localities could choose whether to eliminate their own benefits (including health care, public schooling, welfare, etc.).4. Heavy fines, along the order of $50K per incident, imposed for employers who hired "non-registered illegals*".* In this context, "non-registered illegals" would mean non-citizens who come here without passing the security check and registering as guest workers (or whatever we call it).

You've asked me something along similar lines before. I can go along with most of it. I can't go along with eliminating basic helath care and public schooling.

Why not? What method of discouraging, for lack of a better term, "freeloaders" would you use?

If 12 million people are going to live here permenantly then we cannot deny them basic health care or education. I don't want them to grow up to be criminals, and I don't want them to create a public health menace.

So you really think we should implement a new policy saying that anyone can come here and get free health care and education, no strings attached. You don't anticipate that this would add greatly to our already staggering debt problems? Should people be allowed to come across the border, grab some free health care, then head back to their country of origin?

 

[RCon]

1. We decriminalize what is currently illegal immigration (i.e. anyone can come across, provided they pass a security check).2. All federal benefits to non-citizens eliminated.3. States and localities could choose whether to eliminate their own benefits (including health care, public schooling, welfare, etc.).4. Heavy fines, along the order of $50K per incident, imposed for employers who hired "non-registered illegals*".* In this context, "non-registered illegals" would mean non-citizens who come here without passing the security check and registering as guest workers (or whatever we call it).

You've asked me something along similar lines before. I can go along with most of it. I can't go along with eliminating basic helath care and public schooling.

Why not? What method of discouraging, for lack of a better term, "freeloaders" would you use?

If 12 million people are going to live here permenantly then we cannot deny them basic health care or education. I don't want them to grow up to be criminals, and I don't want them to create a public health menace.

They're already criminals.

Stop. That's not what he meant and you know it. Harping on talking points doesn't help your narrative that you want to have an actual productive policy discussion.

 

[dparker713]

The pew numbers seem awfully light considering all the numbers being discussed in 08.

 

[Soonerman]

So 2.8M people crossed the border, but because 1.4M were going each way, the border is "under control".

I don't think your definition of "under control" is very persuasive.

 

[Clinton]

Tim, seriously, I'm trying to have a legitimate conversation. Please stop jumping between your aliases. Next thing I know you'll have Adonis and Raiderfan32904 in here, too.

Delusional and unfunny isn't good shtick.HtH

I don't want to derail this illegal immigration talk, Tim. My intent isn't to get into a pissing match. I was just legitimately curious about something that Tim, and not one of your aliases, wrote. Sorry for the hijack, and apologies to Rich Conway, Stike2K, and Clifford who were actually having a good conversation on the topic.

Stop the cutesy crap. You want to argue that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was supported primarily by Republicans. Let's have it. You always cry that nobody engages you in discussions. Let's engage.Electoral Map from 1952

Electoral Map from 1956

Electoral Map from 1960

Electoral Map from 1964

Electoral Map from 1968

Now you want to deal with facts. That's facts. Or do you only want to deal with "facts" when you pull them from your kooky klan sites.

First, if Matthias and Tim are different people than why is Matthias so hopping mad that I called out Tim?Second, what do those facts show? Yes, I know that Goldwater employed the Southern Strategy in '64 and that began to chip away at the solidly Democrat south. Yet that doesn't take away from my contention that Republicans, on the whole, did not do something dastardly to alienate blacks in 1964. You understand that for those states to swing from Democrat to Republican many disgruntled Democrat voters had to swing. This makes sense when you look at the '64 Civil Rights Act votes. A higher percentage of Republicans voted for it because Republicans had a stronghold on the North and Democrats had a stranglehold on the South. Northerners tended to support the Civil Rights Act and Southerners tended to be more against it than their Northern counterparts. But to say that the Republicans, rather than Southerners or Conservatives, turned on blacks in 1964 is incorrect.

Now back to our regularly scheduled, and much more interesting, debate about immigration that affects us today.

 

[roadkill1292]

Heard this on the radio yesterday. One of the commentators suggested that one reason why the level of migration from Mexico to the US is unlikely to ever return to the levels of the last twenty years is the dramatic drop in birth rates in Mexico from 1970 to now. Something like almost seven children per woman to a little over two.

If true, persuasive argument.

Interesting observation in that I hadn't considered how the changing demographics brought on by declining birth rates are going to affect things we never dreamed they'd affect.

 

[RCon]

First, if Matthias and Tim are different people than why is Matthias so hopping mad that I called out Tim?

They say they're not aliases of each other, so let's leave it at that unless there's some real evidence otherwise. No use cluttering potentially decent discussions and threads with that sort of stuff.BTW, Matthias and timschochet have some distinct differences in their posting styles, so I believe them.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Border agents dispute claim that illegal immigrant tide is slowingMay 14, 2012 -- 8:00 PMSara A. CarterThe once red-hot issue of illegal immigration has cooled considerably in recent months, in large part because of studies like one from the Pew Hispanic Center that said the flood of people entering the U.S. from across the Mexican border has slowed, and that the number actually returning to Mexico from the U.S. has increased, reversing a decades-long trend.But federal law enforcement agents on the border are skeptical that the illegal immigrant tide is slowing. And new information from the U.S. financial sector shows that more money is flowing from American cities to Mexico in the form of remittances from immigrants than last year.Federal law enforcement officials interviewed by The Washington Examiner say security is being compromised as the government seeks to keep a lid on the border as a campaign issue during the presidential election cycle. Department of Homeland Security's Border Patrol agents and Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers are being told not to make arrests of noncriminal illegal immigrants, and not to patrol areas of high traffic along the roughly 2,000-mile Southwest border.A Border Patrol official working along the Texas border said administration officials are deliberately failing to document what is actually happening on the border. "In many cases my supervisors make it clear that they don't want increased apprehension numbers, which means no arrests," he said.The government is also failing to patrol hundreds of miles of federal wildlife reserves that fall under the jurisdiction of the Interior Department. That has given smugglers and illegal immigrants a clear corridor to enter the county and has skewed national arrest figures, an official said. The U.S. is allowing "drug and human smugglers in without a fight" in parts of the Southwest, he said.T.J. Bonner, former president of the National Border Patrol Council, said recent reports stating that immigration has declined are not substantiated by the facts. He said Border Patrol agents are being hampered by numerous restrictions."For every illegal crosser who is arrested, two get away," Bonner said.Bonner said the Pew report, which uses statistics provided by DHS, is "surprising, considering remittances to Mexico are up despite a bad economy."Maria, an illegal immigrant who spoke with The Examiner on condition that her last name not be used, said few, if any, of her Baltimore neighbors in a community consisting largely of illegal immigrants have fled back to their homeland.Statistics from the Bank of Mexico, that country's largest bank, showed that remittances totaled $3.29 billion in January and February, up 7.9 percent over the same period last year. Remittances to Mexico are on a pace to total about $19.7 billion this year, according to the recent reports.An ICE official who spoke on background said, "The guys in my office were laughing when we heard the Pew report and when we see DHS flat-out lie. We are in a constant battle with higher-ups to do our job. The problem is if we did it right, the numbers wouldn't add up" -- that is, they wouldn't support the administration's desire to keep the immigration issue off voters' minds in 2012, he said.But administration officials argue that current studies suggesting illegal immigration has dropped are a sign that efforts to secure the border are working. President Obama said he hopes immigration reform will soon be a reality if he is re-elected. In an interview last month with Spanish-language television channel Univision during his trip to Cartagena, Colombia, Obama said immigration reform will be a top priority early in his second term but warned that in order for it to pass "what we need is a change either of Congress or we need Republicans to change their mind."Chris Crane, president of the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council, said the administration is attempting to change everyone's mind by cherry-picking data to boost ICE deportations and keep border numbers low.ICE officers are often ordered not to make arrests of noncriminal aliens and "supervisors have been ordered not to put anything in writing," said Crane, who testified to this before the Senate Judiciary Committee and whose union represents roughly 5,500 ICE officers.A senior ICE official pointed to statistics that showed the agency is doing everything possible with its level of funding. ICE is tasked by Congress with removing 400,000 people a year. As of May 5, ICE has already removed 229,664 people, of which 118,430 were convicted criminal aliens, he said."Realistically we don't have the resources to remove 11 million aliens, but our priorities are to remove criminal aliens, immigration fugitives, illegal re-entrants and recent border crossers," said the official.Sara A. Carter is The Washington Examiner's national security correspondent. She can be reached at scarter@washingtonexaminer.com.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/news/world/2012/05/border-agents-dispute-claim-illegal-immigrant-tide-slowing/611151

 

[Joe T]

It's ended. There will still be some illegal immigration, but not at anything close to previous levels ever again. The Mexican economy is getting stronger, and people have less reason to come. Many of those who have opposed amnesty and/or a path to citizenship in the past have argued, "Let's get the border under control first, THEN we'll deal with it." The border is as under control as it's ever going to be. Now's the time to deal with it.

really?

 

[timschochet]

This is a good thread. I'm proud to have started it. I have started many threads on this same issue, and will likely start many more.

 

[Jayrod]

This is a good thread. I'm proud to have started it. I have started many threads on this same issue, and will likely start many more.

Keep your head up, Tim. You lost this game, but its a long season. Get some rest and come back tomorrow ready to go to work.

 

[MC Gas Money]

If they stop coming because of our crap economy it will make being poor easier. We can take those neighborhoods back and and get fresh fruits and vegetables other than bananas and green bananas in the convenience stores

 

[bigbottom]

Good Michael Che piece on the Daily Show

 

[StrikeS2k]

Thanks Tim. Another illegal kills Americans, in this case cops, and you're still hoping they all get to simply walk across the border. Don't know how you can sleep at night.

http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/2-suspects-questioned-in-deputies-killings-5847906.php

 

[timschochet]

Thanks Tim. Another illegal kills Americans, in this case cops, and you're still hoping they all get to simply walk across the border. Don't know how you can sleep at night.

http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/2-suspects-questioned-in-deputies-killings-5847906.php

if we had a better system for allowing them in, we'd have an easier time keeping the felons out. The vast majority of undocumented are very law abiding once they get here, as study after study has shown. A small percentage of them commit felonies than do the rest of our population. But don't let facts get in the way. It's far easier to rely on anecdotes.

 

[jonessed]

Thanks Tim. Another illegal kills Americans, in this case cops, and you're still hoping they all get to simply walk across the border. Don't know how you can sleep at night.

http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/2-suspects-questioned-in-deputies-killings-5847906.php

If we had a better system for allowing them in, we'd have an easier time keeping the felons out. The vast majority of undocumented are very law abiding once they get here, as study after study has shown. A small percentage of them commit felonies than do the rest of our population. But don't let facts get in the way. It's far easier to rely on anecdotes.

How so?