Thursday, February 09, 2006

OregonCatalyst: A catalyst to little Mexico

I would be remiss if I didn't put up a link to the OregonCatalyst post that calls me (and most likely you) a "vocal minority of restrictionist conservatives" with "no 'actual' political power."

The post takes the same position as the WSJ which is: illegal immigration is an ecomonic issue and nothing more.

This Mac Johnson column is the best way to debunk that in a short period of time.

I would also question as to why some people who supposedly believe in small government are so eager to create a new government program for "guest workers" (a program that already has a proposed budget of $247 million) when we already have the infrastructure for bringing legal people here that I outlined in the post below this.

16 comments:

RINO WATCH said...

The post on Oregon Catalyst is laborious with leanings towards "Rinoism".

Guestworker program = Amnesty

Pure & Simple

Anonymous said...

Daniel -- the enforcement program that you outlined last week would cost far more, and require an unfathomable amount of government bureaucracy and involvement in all of our lives that I cannot believe you call yourself a Republican...This is without the enourmous cost for building, monitoring and manning that stupid wall across the border. Looking into the future, illegal immigration from Mexico (and immigration from Mexico) is likely to decline substantially. For one, Mexico has undergone one of the biggest and most transformative demographic changes of any nation in the modern world, with fertility rates of Mexican women changing from over 4 in the 60's and 70 to about 2 births per woman today (about the same as the U.S.).

As with most things you say, your (vague) expensive and bureaucratically heavy proposals are extremely short-sighted.

Anonymous said...

Nonsense, enforcement has never been tried. Enforcement works if consistantly applied, coupled with expedited removals. Economic studies suggest, if you total the costs of enforcement, against the savings from social programs, incarceration, education ect. the net savings would be in the billions and pay for the enforcement programs in two years. Consistant immigration law enforcement, sends the message to illegal aliens, they will be found and deported and businesses fined heavily will be reluctant to hire them; most illegals would do something ounce experienced in the 70's "Self Deportation" Also if you believe so strongly in your position, why are you anonymous?

Anonymous said...

I've seen no conclusive evidence of the economic impact of immigration (both legal and illegal varieties). I've read a few books on the matter: Smith and Edmonston (1997), Bean and Bell-Rose (1999), Hammermesh and Bean (1998). George Borjas, a leading economist agrees that the evidence is not conclusive. To what studies are you referring?

Anonymous said...

p.s., that I choose to remain anonymous bears no connection to my arguments. Furthermore, my arguments are based on facts and published research. No place for feelings there.

Anonymous said...

"Nonsense, enforcement has never been tried."

Are you kidding me? In the span of about 40 years, the border patrol grew from a tiny agency to one with a $4 billion budget in 1998. Enforcement was the biggest line item in the 1986 reform budget, and there were repeated enforcment allocations throughout the 1990s. To say enforcement has never been tried is the only thing that is nonsense.

So self-deportation happened in the 1970s, huh? What do you mean? Based on what I've read, it USED to happen all the time. Before border enforcement was beefed up in 1986, illegal immigration was far more circular. Because it has become exponentially harder to get across the border, unauthorized migrants who do get here are staying longer. This is well documented in 2002 book on Mexican migration, Beyond Smoke and Mirrors: Mexican Immigration in an Era of Economic Integration.

Michael t -- your reasoning is flimsy. that's why policy makers don't buy in.

Ric said...

This guy would be here under the guest worker program

http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=83190

I know they never mention 'illegal' but - living under false identity ...

The immigration hold is because Mexico wants him back.

I nominate Jose Cruz Serratos-Ponce, for the Alien of the Week.

Anonymous said...

ric -- nice propaganda. all types of people commit murder. it's fallacious to say that a guest worker program would increase the crime rate. Please though, find a candidate for governor who would campaign on that line. It would be fun to watch.

Anonymous said...

If someone breaks the law to get into the country in the first place, that to me indicates a higher propensity to further break the law. Illegals already prove they have no respect for the laws of this country.

Anonymous said...

Story says Jose Cruz was lving under several false identities, SOMEBODY Please find out if he had a Matricula Card-This is IMPORTANT!

Guest workers & crime? 1986 Amnesty 2.7 million given a green light-Later we discover that several hundred thousand were convicted criminals (www.michellemalkin.com)to include-MAHMUD ABOUHALIMA-Leader of the 1st BOMBING on the WTC in '93. He was given AMNESTY as a seasonal AG Worker. www.numbersusa.com
Do any of you really think that the Government WILL & CAN do a good background check on 12 Million people with questionable ID? I have Ocean front property in AZ. for sale also
We have done 6 AMNESTIES since 1986, it solves nothing, but encourages many more to sneak in because they think we will forgive their crime, and GEE we have.
BUILD A WALL & ENFORCE THE LAW!

Anonymous said...

Six amnesties? What were they?

Because people can take advantage of a system doesn't make it bad. It's what freedom is all about.

Could you bring some figures to the table that aren't provided by people with a right-wing or immigration-reduction agenda? Perhaps something peer-reviewed?

Ric said...

There is a nice tear-jerker story over at Reason. Poor guy has to go home to renew his visa while is his illegal wife stays in the US with their 2 citizen children.

Apparently too many El Salvadorians are in the US. ( legally? )
"So many people have left El Salvador that they're importing Hondurans! Of course, if there's a "labor shortage," then why don't we phase out the Temporary Protected Status that covers some 250,000 Salvadoran illegals in the U.S. and send them home?" From NRO.

PoliPundit has a roundup of news on less desirable un-expected guests of the US.

I am all in favor of immigration.
I also can see that the current system needs to be reviewed.
However, until and unless we have the border under control, any and all changes would be bad - meaning creating more problems.

First things first - control the border.

At the State level, do not make it 'easy' or 'comfortable' for illegals to stay, work, or get services.

Anonymous said...

6 Amnesties? Go to www.numbersusa.com click on left button "Amnesty" All official titles of programs and numbers are there.
TOTAL= 5 MILLION since 1986. And last year, Bear-Stearns estimated, very dilligently, 18-20 Milion Illegals with 5 Million working "off the books" AFTER 5 MILLION were EXCUSED for their CRIME!
Mandatory Employer verification of status is the only solution legally, that is not the law, yet. But, The A.G. of AZ. is a co-signer in that state for a Bill to force it on Employers. HR Bill 4437 brings it in over 6 years. For FREE companies can now use the S.A.V.E. program and call in or e-mail an I-9 and get a reply in seconds, but it is voluntary (BAR "S" foods in PHX. uses this). It was called the Basic Pilot Program when tested.
Their is a great free flyer at www.alipac.com explaining this simply for workers and employers.
RALLY! Saturday-Eugene-Be-There

Anonymous said...

As one of "a vocal minority of restrictionist conservatives" I say keep it up, Daniel.

And RINOWATCH is right. That post was laborious lawyerese doublespeak.

The truth is, there is an alien invasion occuring that is altering the cultures of both latin america and the US negatively and dramatically.

It puts Americans at risk.

We have programs that allow people to come legally. Jumping the line should not be rewarded.

Make them go home (the wall should have a one way door) and apply, make it a very quick but comprehensive system, and let them come back matched to an employer/sponsor. When their work is done, let them go home and come back again to work legally another day.

Now I can add "restrictionist" to my resume. I am ok with that.

-Andy

Anonymous said...

Fuck U!


-Miguel Campos-

Anonymous said...

Hi there Blogger, a real useful blog.Keep with the good work.
If you have a moment, please visit my banking career site.
I send you warm regards and wishes of continued success.