The Amnesty Bill - Immegration Debacle

[Coda]

This is the first I've seen of any real dialog on the financial consequences of this initiative.


Link

The bipartisan immigration "reform" legislation pushed by Sens. Edward M. Kennedy and Jon Kyl and others, applauded by Michael Chertoff, the secretary of Homeland Security, and Carlos Gutierrez, the secretary of Commerce, is a disaster in the making. That is not so slowly becoming abundantly clear.

It's a disaster for national security, for keeping Islamist jihadists out of the country, for exploding the costs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, for preserving the rule of law, and for that quaint principle called national sovereignty. From the details that have leaked out thus far, the legislation, which provides amnesty for nearly all of the 12 million (or maybe even 20 million) illegal aliens already here, would swell the size of the welfare state in a way we haven't seen since Lyndon Johnson imposed his Great Society on us four decades ago. Sen. Jeff Sessions, the Alabama Republican who is likely to lead the fight to save the nation from this disaster, and Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation will reveal at a press conference this morning the details of just how expensive it will be. We're talking trillions of dollars -- that's not millions or even billions -- over the next several decades.

Senate floor debate on the bill begins today, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid clearly wants to force it through before Memorial Day, before senators and everyone else can become familiar with even a fraction of what is in this massive bill, which could run to 800 pages. It was still being written over the weekend. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who is said to lean in favor of the bill, yesterday said that at least two weeks would be required for a serious Senate debate on such a complex piece of legislation. We hope he means it when he says "serious debate." To win the support of conservatives who opposed last year's immigration bill, the administration agreed that provisions enabling illegals to remain here could only become effective after new border-control measures are in place.

These include the hiring, training and deployment of 5,000 to 6,000 additional Border Patrol agents, increasing the total to approximately 18,000 agents. (Assuming there are 12 million illegals here, this amounts to 2,000 of them getting amnesty for every new Border Patrol agent hired to keep illegals out).

The legislation calls for erecting 370 miles of additional fencing along the U.S.-Mexican border. To put that number in perspective, in October, the Senate passed legislation sponsored by Rep. Duncan Hunter, California Republican, calling for 854 miles of fencing. Mr. Hunter protests that the Senate bill in effect "cuts my fence in half." (Actually, it's closer to 55 percent.) That assumes of course, that Congress actually keeps its word and appropriates money for the fence. Counting on Congress is always a very big "if." Another "trigger" requires that the Department of Homeland Security -- not a model of bureaucratic efficiency -- develop and implement by the end of next year a system to enable employers to quickly verify that job applicants are in the country legally. In exchange for such very modest achievements, the administration and the Senate propose to make enormous and in some cases unacceptable concessions to illegal aliens and their political patrons. Here are some of them:

m Amnesty, document fraud and terrorism: There is good reason to be skeptical of the notion that United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) -- the Homeland Security bureaucracy that will be charged with verifying whether tens of millions of illegals are terrorists and/or criminals, and therefore ineligible to receive amnesty -- is up to the job. Over the past four years, the ineptitude of the immigration services bureaucracy has been severely criticized by the Office of Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office and other investigators. This, according to Michael Cutler, who spent more than 25 years as an immigration agent, would "provide millions of illegal aliens who have violated our nation's borders" with "official identity documents that would enable terrorists to embed themselves in communities around our country as they await instructions to launch the next terrorist attack against against our nation and the people who live in the United States." Mr. Cutler says the Senate bill should be named the "Terrorist Assistance and Facilitation Act of 2007."

m Staggering increases in federal, state and local spending, with attendant pressure for tax increases. Mr. Rector of the Heritage Foundation says one major effect of the Senate amnesty bill will be to make approximately 9 million additional persons -- many of them low-skilled immigrants -- legal permanent residents of the United States who could lawfully benefit from a variety of social programs, including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income and public housing. Over the course of their lifetimes, these people will utilize $2.5 trillion more in government services than they will pay in taxes. American welfare and social services were designed for poor Americans; as a result of amnesty legislation, this legislation would expand the American welfare state to include a significant portion of the population of Mexico. Instead of going home to Mexico at the end of their working years, these elderly beneficiaries of amnesty would remain in this country "and collect public funds for the rest of their lives," Mr. Rector says.
m The Senate immigration bill includes legislation called the DREAM act, legislation subsidizing college education for illegal aliens. And what a dream it is.

m Illegal aliens who worked using fraudulently obtained Social Security numbers will be able to collect Social Security Disability Insurance.

The Bush administration deludes itself if it believes that the measure can be improved during Senate debate. Right now, the toughest criticism of the bill is coming from labor unions who argue that the amnesty/guest-worker provisions are too strict, and from senators like Mel Martinez of Florida, a Republican who talks of waiving the much-ballyhooed $5,000 fine illegals are meant to pay. If the administration wants to preserve what's left of its credibility on immigration, it would spare us Mr. Chertoff's hyperbolic rhetoric that critics of the administration regard anything short of capital punishment to be "amnesty." The only "capital punishment" coming is what's likely to happen to the careers of those determined to inflict this disaster on us.

[claude]

Originally Posted by Coda

This is the first I've seen of any real dialog on the financial consequences of this initiative.

What about the financial consequences of any of the alternatives (what are the alternatives, by the way)? For example what would be the consequence of expelling those 12 million or so people who are now working in the US and contributing to the economy? I would expect a significant recession at the very least to be the result, what would be your learned opinion?

[Coda]

Claude, Thanks for offering a valid debate.

I would agree that the U.S. would experience a mild recession if we were to expel between 12 and 20 million people. Prices would rise as cost of goods would increase due to having to hire people at a competitive wage and to pay into social security. You believe that a major recession would occur, I disagree. I believe it would be mild, and only for the time period that it would take to hire and train new people at fair wages.

We would experience a higher tax base and increases in every taxable category. Payments out would decrease due not to having to service between 12 and 20 million people annually. This in turn would ease our liability and keep the U.S. out of a serious recession.

You do believe in fair wages, correct? Would you say that by making these illegals legal that they would expect an increase in pay? This would cause a mild recession. Couple this with an immediate benefit of Social Security, pent up demand for medical attention, and a re-evaluation of our long term debt and this mild recession immediately turns into a fiscal crisis.

[Coda]

Here are a few more articles of interest:

Michael Barone points out that no one has read the Immigration
Bill because they haven't even finished writing it

John Fund weighs is on the Immigration Bill.
It's not all doom and gloom


Those who help write bill are actually reading it?

[Coda]

I found a link to a website that has the preliminary bill online. It's interactive so you can read and write comments.

[Dr Dave]

This bill is going to be a horror, although my perspective is somewhat different. Call them what you will, we have a huge illegal labor force in place, and to force them out would be economically stupid. Beyond that, the Democrats want to "protect American jobs" and the Republicans want to punish illegal immigrants for being illegal.

It all amounts to a huge roiling cauldron of xenophobia.

[Al in NYC]

Not to mention the problems of how one gets 12 to 20 million people - many of whom have been here for years or even decades - to leave. The cost of that would be enormous it seems to me, and the human toll in dislocation and chaos tremendous. To say nothing of the potential costs to Mexico and other Latin American countries.

Although my favorite part of all this talk is always the terrorism fear tactics. Have any terrorists actually come in by sneaking across the Mexican border? Is there any record of such a thing? As far as I can tell almost everyone coming in that way are Mexicans or other Latin Americans in search of work and a better life for themselves and their families (and I've yet to hear of a Mexican terrorist). All of the non-American terrorists I can remember entered the U.S. LEGALLY. Certainly the 9/11 guys did.

[shrugs]

what would jesus do?

[Dr Dave]

Jesus would turn the water into tequila.

[Scott Dolan]

What fucking bullshit, Finch.

If he did that, you and I would be Christians.

[shrugs]

and the wonder bread into tortillas....

[Coda]

Deleted

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by Dr Dave

the Democrats want to "protect American jobs"

Some Democrats want to limit immigration legal or otherwise because immigrants are competing with working poor Americans for jobs, pushing down wages in the process. That also exacerbates the inequality of wealth in the U.S. and hurts a Democratic constituency.

If that's a concern, then those opposed for that reason should support IQ or education driven immigration. That would drive down wages for high paying jobs and reduce inequality of wealth. It also hurts a Republican constituency.

The flip side of the argument is that we are helping ourselves at the expense of poor countries by encouraging brain drain into the U.S.

I"ve gone back and forth on immigration for years and still haven't staked out a definitive position. The ideal solution to the Mexican immigration problem is to figure out how Mexico can raise its standard of living so that Mexicans lose their incentive to hop the border in a good way.

[rollhead]

Originally Posted by Dr Dave

This bill is going to be a horror, although my perspective is somewhat different. Call them what you will, we have a huge illegal labor force in place, and to force them out would be economically stupid. Beyond that, the Democrats want to "protect American jobs" and the Republicans want to punish illegal immigrants for being illegal.

It all amounts to a huge roiling cauldron of xenophobia.

how silly is it for Democrats to want most Americans to have living wages, don't politicians have more important things to do?

asshole.

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by rollhead

how silly is it for Democrats to want most Americans to have living wages, don't politicians have more important things to do?

asshole.

A "living wage"? Doing what? The work that immigrants do? Immigrants seem to be doing jobs Americans don't want to do; and those who can do the jobs Americans do are restricted by quotas. As the man from Silicon Valley said: If we can't hire the workers we need here, we'll take the business to where we can.

I'm sorry that that's how things are, but that's how things are. If you're concerned about Americans making a living wage, then you'd better start campaigning now for better schools. I honestly don't know how else to do it.

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

What fucking bullshit, Finch.

If he did that, you and I would be Christians.

Yeah. DRUNK Christians!

[patricia]

Originally Posted by Al in NYC

All of the non-American terrorists I can remember entered the U.S. LEGALLY. Certainly the 9/11 guys did.

And if I may be permitted to remind you. ALL the non-American 9/11 terrorists entered the U.S. LEGALLY, not through Mexico and NOT through Canada, as many Americans still believe they did.

And if I may also be permitted to remind you, ALL but 4 of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, not Iraq, and yet an invasion of Saudi Arabia was never suggested by the Bush Administration.
I suppose that the Middle East is all one big country to some.

[rollhead]

Originally Posted by Dr Dave

A "living wage"? Doing what? The work that immigrants do? Immigrants seem to be doing jobs Americans don't want to do; and those who can do the jobs Americans do are restricted by quotas. As the man from Silicon Valley said: If we can't hire the workers we need here, we'll take the business to where we can.

I'm sorry that that's how things are, but that's how things are. If you're concerned about Americans making a living wage, then you'd better start campaigning now for better schools. I honestly don't know how else to do it.

"doing jobs that Americans don't want to do."

Of course I can't argue with a trueism that is utterly untrue.

It is similar to the argument that the oil companies and the automobile industry has made in regard to global warming:

"Americans don't want to drive cars with good gas mileage, they would rather have cup holders."

Keep spouting the right-wing mantras.

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by particia

NOT through Canada, as many Americans still believe they did.

Do you have any evidence to back this statement up? I've never known a single person who thought this.

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by rollie

Of course I can't argue with a trueism that is utterly untrue.

Why is it untrue? In some case, i.e. services, that may be true. But it certainly isn't in the agricultural industry. American workers don't want to spend 10 hours in the field picking lettuce/strawberries/tomatoes/etc.

And there's no way they'd keep up the same pace that the Mexican laborers do.

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by Dr Dave

A "living wage"? Doing what? The work that immigrants do? Immigrants seem to be doing jobs Americans don't want to do; and those who can do the jobs Americans do are restricted by quotas. As the man from Silicon Valley said: If we can't hire the workers we need here, we'll take the business to where we can.

I'm sorry that that's how things are, but that's how things are. If you're concerned about Americans making a living wage, then you'd better start campaigning now for better schools. I honestly don't know how else to do it.

So Dave, do you support my idea for liberals? Tilt immigration in favor of those who will compete for high wage jobs? That seems like the logical extension of your view? Let's flood the market with computer scientists, mathematicians, economists, financial market wizards, CEO types, etc.

[Scott Dolan]

Of course, that will do absolutely nothing but worsen illegal immigration.

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Of course, that will do absolutely nothing but worsen illegal immigration.

Then I presume that Dave would support the idea accompanied with enough fencing and Border Control Agents to reduce the flow of illegal immigration from Mexico.

George Borjas has just started a blog. He's a Harvard economist who specializes in immigration and labor economics. My link is not an endorsement of his views but he's worth reading and discussing.

His disdain for Bush, Kennedy, and McCain is pretty amusing.

He agrees with Dr. Dave or at least the implication from Dave's immigration posts that immigration should be skill based.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Do you have any evidence to back this statement up? I've never known a single person who thought this.

Which statement, Scott?
That there were those who claimed that some or all of the 9/11 terrorists may have came through Canada?
Or that having made the suggestion, they never refuted it?
That you have never known a single person who thought that does not mean that nobody did.

Just for fun, google: "did the 9/11 terrorists come through Canada?"

[Scott Dolan]

Ha!! I guess you're right. Even HRC was quoted as saying they came into NY via Canada.

Bizarre.

al-Qoda types............sheesh....

[Dr Dave]

Hey, I have no fucking idea what to do. And no matter what you think, Rollie, I have no particular political or economic agenda to push. All I know is, there are a lot of illegals here, who are in fact doing jobs nobody else wants to do, (that's the thing about trueisms--like cliches, they have a lot of truth behind them) and making them go home is both expensive and stupid, so we'd better find a way to make them legal.

And for us at the same time to put quotas on immigrants who come here with PhDs--that just seems insane.

Again: I don't know what to do, but I'm pretty sure what not to do: Protectionism has never worked, does not work now, and will never work.

Actually, here's an idea: I've been thinking about the various adulteration scandals (pet food, now toothpaste) involving the Chinese. You want to protect American jobs? How about putting the regulatory agencies back in business, since the Bushies have effectively shut them down. Having an international reputation for producing pure and safe products sounds like a reasonable economic strategy to me.

[lynn]

I'm still absorbing the different opinions on this issue but I refuse to call illegal aliens undocumented workers. What a crock.

Also, it is my gut feeling that anything Bush wants passed this badly can't be good for the country.

Thirdly, I don't understand why the Dems don't use this legislation as a bargaining chip on the Iraq issue. I'd be making Bush come to the table if a guest worker program is so important to his legacy.

I personally think we should just annex Mexico as the 51st state. Obviously their government doesn't mind 20 million of their citizens illegally crossing their border to get out.

[Clay Fink]

Originally Posted by patricia

Which statement, Scott?
That there were those who claimed that some or all of the 9/11 terrorists may have came through Canada?
Or that having made the suggestion, they never refuted it?
That you have never known a single person who thought that does not mean that nobody did.

Just for fun, google: "did the 9/11 terrorists come through Canada?"

Scott, she's your typical lying Canuck and she's covering for her so called "Country". Of course the 9/11 guys came in from Canada. We got your number, Pat!!! Good work in spotting her typical America hating treachery, Scott.

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by lynn

Thirdly, I don't understand why the Dems don't use this legislation as a bargaining chip on the Iraq issue. I'd be making Bush come to the table if a guest worker program is so important to his legacy.

Holding one bill hostage for another only serves to make the hostage taker look bad.

I have no clue where to come down on the immigration debate. But as for Iraq, I'd kep sending Bush the same spending bill with hardly any modifications so that he would eventually paint himself into a corner. I realize it's not quite that simple, but the Dems really need to buckle down and not let him off so easy.

[Al in NYC]

Originally Posted by Gordon B

The ideal solution to the Mexican immigration problem is to figure out how Mexico can raise its standard of living so that Mexicans lose their incentive to hop the border in a good way.

Hey, a position on which Gordon and I agree (although I don't know if we'd agree on the means for acheiving it...).