Respect for Law Act has three main components:
1. Requires proof of citizenship or legal status to qualify for an Oregon Driver license.
2. Election officials shall require satisfactory evidence of U.S. citizenship from any applicant who is registering to vote for the first time in Oregon.
3. No statute, regulation or order shall prohibit any law enforcement agency from cooperating with federal immigration authorities.
This measure will be a slam dunk with the public. Thanks to Oregonians for Immigration Reform, as opposed to our worthless government, for bringing this about!
34 comments:
Yeah, good luck with that one. I think "motor voter" requires all DMV's to allow someone to register when they apply for a drivers license. The point of that law was to codify the procedure for vote fraud and eliminate ID requirements. In this manner those people who tend to be ahead of you at the bank, who have no ID, and are trying to cash a check, that was written out to their grandma, but grandma isn't there, and they don't have an account there and don't have anything to do with their lives but hold up the whole line when you finally got to the front after half an hour and this asshole wont give it up and just get the hell out of there..............can vote.
*****FEATURED PRODUCT OF THE DAY*****
The Rubber Piss Gag
"All rubber piss gag with a 1.75 inch outside diameter tube. This is a nice gag for initial toilet training. The rubber tube is easier to bite down on in case the toilet has a problem with retching or gagging. With this gag installed they will have no alternative but to face facts and accept the waste."
Yummy!
I got this in my e-mail today, and thought it was appropriate for this posting. (more appropriate than posting about a piss-gag)
I think it's an old e-mail, but it still rings true.
Here is the e-mail:
I bought a bird feeder. I hung it on my back porch and filled it with seed.
Within a week we had hundreds of birds taking advantage of the
continuous flow of free and easily accessible food.
But then the birds started building nests in the boards of the patio, above the table, and next to the barbecue.
Then came the bird shit. It was everywhere: on the patio tile, the chairs, the table...everywhere.
Then some of the birds turned mean: They would dive bomb me and try to peck me even though I had fed them out of my own pocket.
And others birds were boisterous and loud: They sat on the feeder
and squawked and screamed at all hours of the day and night and
demanded that I fill it when it got low on food.
After a while, I couldn't even sit on my own back porch anymore.
I took down the bird feeder and in three days the birds were gone.
I cleaned up their mess and took down the many nests they had built
all over the patio.
Soon, the back yard was like it used to be......quiet, serene and no one demanding their rights to a free meal.
Now lets see....... our government gives out free food, subsidized
housing, free medical care, free education and allows anyone born
here to be an automatic citizen.
Then the illegal's came by the tens millions. Suddenly our taxes went up to pay for free services; small apartments are housing 5 families: you have to wait 6 hours to be seen by an emergency room doctor:
Your child's 2nd grade class is behind other schools because over
half the class doesn't speak English:
Corn Flakes now come in a bilingual box;
I have to press 'one' to
hear my bank talk to me in English, and people waving flags other than 'Old Glory' are squawking and screaming in the streets, demanding more rights and free liberties.
Maybe it's time for the government to take down the bird feeder.
If you agree, pass this on.........
PS...keep letting people in this country that crank out kids with no reservations....and this is what our country will look like for YOUR children.
Call your congress and senate and tell them NO TO AMNESTY for illegals!!!
GET OFF YOUR ASS AND CALL YOUR CONGRESS AND SENATE!
links to congress and senate phone numbers.
http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.shtml
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Anthony -
There's a major problem with the underlying premise of your rant. You assume a causal pattern whereby government services exist and then illegal immigrants come. This is know among economists as the "welfare magnet hypothesis", and it has received NO EMPIRICAL SUPPORT in research testing the hypothesis. If the hypothesis were true, then illegals would flock disproportionately to states with the most "generous" social welfare programs. But they don't. Moreover, why has illegal immigration grown exponentially during an area of reduction of social welfare programs under the Reagan and Clinton administrations? If there was a welfare magnet for illegals, Clinton's 1996 reform should have substantially reduced illegal immigration. It didn't. Illegal immigration continued to increase.
A FAR better predictor of where illegals go and how many of them go there is relatively high job growth (go figure!) especially in the low-wage service and manufacturing sector.
Based on these findings, abolishing the welfare state with the expectation that it will reduce illegal immigration is pure folly. Jobs are the magnet, not social services.
Also, as an aside, if you're finding that you are spending an increasing amount of waiting time in the emergency room, poor native-born persons are likely the cause. Not illegal immigrants. A recent study by the RAND corporation demonstrated this when they reported that use of the emergency room for routine health needs is disproportionate among poor natives, and increasingly so, but not so among illegal immigrants, who tend to be of working-age, and thus, healthier.
Hey, How 'bout some logic?
First off...It wasn't a "Rant", it was an e-mail that I recieved (you DID READ the post didn't you??)
And secondly, are you trying to tell me that if we stopped allowing Illegal Immigrants access to social services, that it wouldn't effect the number of people who wish migrate illegally into this country? Or that it wouldn't have an adverse effect the illegal alien population already here who rely on these service programs?
Of course it would. While keeping Illegal Aliens away from taxpayer funded social services will certainly not solve the immigration problem, it's a good start. Look at the State of NY...already back-peddaling away from the "Illegal Alien Drivers License" Issue. That would have certainly been a magnet for Illegals to migrate to NY State.
Additionally, the e-mail never said that it wanted to "Abolish the Welfare State" as you stated, it simply (though apparently not simply enough) used the "Bird Feeder" analogy to illustrate a point regarding one of the many reasons that illegal aliens flock (no pun intended) to this country.
I really wonder why you didn't get that all on your own.
Apparently, common sense.....isn't.
Anthony, can I give you some advice?
Anytime you get an email that ends with something to the effect of "Please pass this on", 99% of the time that will serve as an obvious clue that the contents of that email are either 1.) Demonstrably false, or 2.) Hillariously illogical.
Anthony -
I understand it was an e-mail. It just seemed to be a bit of a rant.
"And secondly, are you trying to tell me that if we stopped allowing Illegal Immigrants access to social services, that it wouldn't effect the number of people who wish migrate illegally into this country? Or that it wouldn't have an adverse effect the illegal alien population already here who rely on these service programs? Of course it would."
I'm telling you that the notion that illegal immigrants, immigrants, or people in general, are drawn to certain locales because of the lure of welfare benefits is a myth. That is the conclusion drawn to this point by a legion of economists in academic papers published in leading economics journals. As I pointed out in an earlier post, they find no support for your welfare magnet hypothesis. If you'd like to check the papers out for yourself, here are just a few:
Allard and Danziger. 2000. The Journal of Politics.
Kaestner and Kaushal. 2005. Journal of Population Economics.
Kaushal. 2005. Journal of Labor Economics.
Levine and Zimmerman. 1999. Journal of Population Economics.
Neumark and powers. 2006. Journal of Population Economics.
These studies all show that changes in welfare policy have no significant impact on the labor market attachments and migration behavior of PEOPLE (illegal immigrants included).
So, trim our anemic social welfare system all you want. The evidence very strongly suggests that it will have no impact on the behavior of potential or current illegal immigrants. In fact, recent history has shown that illegal immigration continued to increase in the wake of reforms that effectively restricted access to public assistance (1996 Welfare Reform Act).
That is my point. Is it lost on you?
Based on existing evidence, one can only conclude that welfare benefits are not a substantial enticement to immigrants. Other things are.
Based on conjecture and "common sense", you can assert whatever you want, even if it flies in the face of actual data.
Actually, during years of record high unemployment in Oregon, the illegal population skyrocketed.
This reflected the publicized "sanctuary" nature of our state, the availability of identification, and the non-cooperation of local authorities with the immigration department.
They certainly didn't come here for the plentiful jobs, when we've been one of the 5 least employed states for years.
Eddie - Overall unemployment has little to do with immigration rates. High unemployment rates in industries such as manufacturing, forestry, and transportation can exist simultaneously with high rates of job growth, because the jobs being created are low-wage, and thus fall below the reservation wage of the unemployed workers in timber, manufacturing etc. This is precisely the situation in Oregon.
North Carolina (4.8), Nevada (5.0), Arkansas (5.5), Kentucky (5.6), South Carolina (5.6), and Mississippi (5.9) all have unemployment rates comparable or higher than Oregon (5.4). Are you going to argue that these are "sanctuary" states as well?
Oh, I left out that these states also have high rates of recent in-migration by Mexican immigrants, comparable to Oregon.
anon 12:39 pm your attempt at debunking the "welfare magnet" for illegals might carry some weight if you actually linked to some of those journal articles so they could be examined. Otherwise it's like saying trust me.
Wow, a varying standard for empirical evidence according to political orientation.
Conservatives: no empirical support necessary.
Liberals: Academic journal citations...with links.
Bobkatt - it's not my "attempt" at debunking a hypothesis. I simply summarized the results of several economists' tests of the hypothesis showing no support for it.
As for links, sorry. They're academic journals, and usually are not available on-line free of charge. You'll probably have to go to your local college library. Or, google the journal name and see if perhaps the articles are available for free on-line. Or, google the economists, send 'em an e-mail in order to verify if what I say is true. Otherwise, I guess you'll just have to trust me.
Bobkatt, you also might try the National Bureau of Economic research website. Sometimes these folks publish their articles in a working-paper version before it is revised and published in peer-reviewed journals.
I can't speak to each study, but the fact is that many studies have the purpose of being "pro-illegal or pro immigration" studies.
But it doesn't matter.
Public services cost money -- tax money. Citizens and legal residents have every reason to say, "No, we don't want to pay for or give any servies to illegal aliens, period."
Sending a strong message to illegal aliens that they are not wanted and will not be tolerated is proper, after all -- it's the law.
The pendulum is swinging hard to the enforcement position.
Look at N.Y. state, and the Governor backing off his DL proposal.
Why? because 70% of New Yorkers were against it.
And I bet the political break down was crucial to his decision.
Over 50% of Democrats were against giving out DLs to illegal aliens, and even higher for independents.
Governor Kulongoski is under intense political pressure -- from his own caucus in the legislature to prevent illegal aliens from getting DLs.
Protecting illegal aliens is becoming a political liability.
So even though the grand stategy was to bring in illegal aliens, give them amnesty, then get them voting for Democrats -- that has been stalled for now.
If the U.S. goes into recession, the political pressure to enforce the law and use attrition so illegal aliens self-deport will get even stronger.
Elected Democrats be afraid (rank and file Democrats already are for enforcement).
Be very afraid.
WHEN CLINTON LIED....NO ONE DIED....AND YOU STILL NEED A HOBBY DANIEL........
33As you may know, I'm a (legal) immigrant. A few weeks ago I went to renew my driver's license. At some point I was asked if I wanted to register to vote. I said not since I was registered already (I'm also a naturalized US citizen and very proud one at that.) Then I asked what documentation I would have to present to register to vote. The answer, not surprisingly, was NONE. The Clintonistas motor voter law prohibits MVD officials to ask such questions.
In other words, I don't hold my breath waiting for any changes until Democrats are in power. They know they can't win elections without (perceived) victims.
anon 6:37 -
"I can't speak to each study, but the fact is that many studies have the purpose of being "pro-illegal or pro immigration" studies.
But it doesn't matter."
Way not to let the results of scientific research get in the way of your beliefs. Your a true conservative...and total dipshit.
Dipshit anonymous 11:01 pm-Is asking for a chance to review the scientific evidence too much? Attacks like yours only succeed in proving your gullibility and lack of critical thinking.
beakeer he has a hobby you stupid fucktard...duck hunting..now go troll craigslist like a good little bitch.
To Anon 11:01,
You can call my comment that of a dipshit, but you never answered my contention.
That's more telling about your mentality than your characterization of my comment.
Common sense backs up my comment.
Evasion of the the real issue is evident from yours.
Anon 11:28 -
This is clearly a fundamental difference in opinion with respect to how policy issues ought to be approached.
What you did was essentially change the subject with your post by writing off the studies I cited as probably "pro illegal", despite the fact that they represent the most rigorous and well-respected academic journals for the study of economics. Your claim of these publications having some sort if immigrant bias is baseless.
What we were discussing before you changed the subject was whether the existence of social service benefits lures immigrants (legal or otherwise). Anthony assumed this to be the case, and I, familar with a mountain of research testing this hypothesis, informed him that despite his assumption, there is no evidence of it being true. It's really as simple as that.
With respect to your "contention" what was it, precisely? It seems to me that you were merely describing political currents and voicing your opposition to illegal immigration and proposing a solution - send a strong message that they are not wanted.
I'm skeptical of your assumptions (e.g., that immigrants hog social services and that illegals are a drain on public coffers) as I've seen no good evidence showing that they are valid. I try not to form rigid opinions until evidence is compelling, and I would certainly urge policy-makers to act only after consulting all available evidence.
I don't think it takes a restrictive policy to inform illegals that they're not wanted here. They already know that. Yet they stay, and there's evidence that it's for the public assistance benefits. If it was, then so many should have left after the 1996 welfare reform, but more came instead.
Common sense is just that: common.
I'm skeptical of your assumptions (e.g., that immigrants hog social services and that illegals are a drain on public coffers) as I've seen no good evidence showing that they are valid..
The Center for Immigration Studies estimated that households headed by illegal aliens used $10 billion more in government services than they paid in taxes. This was based on Census Bureau data and only accounts for the cost to the Federal government. I guess it depends on where you look for your evidence and which evidence you believe.
Hey, Bobkatt, You know that there are always two versions to the various costs that the illegals are using up in their unearned "gifts"; The correct version backed up by statistics and actual facts, and the version passed on by the liberal, illegal-loving crowd that will do and/or say anything to bolster their skewed positions, not letting the truth, facts, and statistics get in their way.
Scottie and Bobkatt -
On the one hand, you have a body of literature undertaken by the nation's leading demographers, sociologists and economists. These highly trained persons have persistently failed in their attempts to find, using advanced statistical analyses, any sort of compelling evidence that your claims -- illegal immigrants are a net drain on the economy, they commit more crimes, they are drawn to the nation's welfare programs, they will leave is access to programs is restricted -- have any empirical basis whatsoever. Their research is anonymously reviewed by other experts in order to determine that it adheres to the objective priniciples of scientific research, and only then is it published in the most influential scholarly journals.
On the other hand, you have the type of research emerging from the Center for Immigration Studies, written primarily by Steven Camarota, trained in none of these fields, and who I consistently see on my television, advocating for a policy of attrition through self-deportation, a policy-measure that has notoriously failed throughout history; most notably after the 1996 welfare reform. In substantially restricting illegals access to public services, the intent of this reform was to dissuade illegals from coming. As I've said before, more came after that, not less. Camarota's research is not peer-reviewed.
So, believe whoever you want. Me, I'll opt for the former, not out of any preference for a certain political position on an issue, but rather because I believe in science, and that adherence to scientific principles in analyzing any problem is the most promising way of devising the most effective policy solutions.
To anon 2:37,
Part of what you write has merit.
Part does not.
In high concentration illegal alien locals, the emergency rooms are forced to give free health care, as a result some hospitals have closed down.
This pushes health care costs up for citizens and legal residents.
Also, one public tax Dollar expended on illegal aliens, is an expense that citizens have a right to object to.
Also, the 1996 Welfare Reform didn't send a signal to illegal aliens that they aren't wanted.
A crack down on employers and stepped up enforcement of existing law would send that strong signal.
And, in fact, when that signal is sent out, you know what -- illegal aliens do leave to go back to their home country.
Illegal aliens aren't stupid -- they know a wink and a nod just as well as anybody else. Certainly, winks and nods have been given out all over the place.
I say, "No more winking and nodding."
As far as your studies, I reiterate that citizens have every reason to say, "NO! I don't want my tax Dollars going to illegal aliens by way of public services."
(Other than education, which the U.S. Supreme Court in all its wisdom says must be provided illegal aliens. And while that can't be stopped directly, it can be stopped indirectly, by enforcement: If illegal aliens are not here, then their children arn't going to be here, either.)
And that is true even if you are correct and these studies are accurate.
I hear the news out of Governor Kulongoski's office is that DL's will not be handed out like candy to illegal aliens, anymore.
Great!
I wrote above part of your argument has merit. The studies may be accurate, I simply don't have enough information to refute your assertion.
The facade in the Democratic Leadership is cracking. Hillary Clinton came out today stating she opposed giving illegal aliens DL's.
You think Kulongoski wanted to get with the new party line?
You think?
Anonymous, you are well written, I respect you response.
I disagree with your conclusions.
Americans deserve to have the law enforced.
Even if elite open border, amnesty supporters say otherwise: That's democracy.
Hope you respect that.
It is our system, you know.
"Also, the 1996 Welfare Reform didn't send a signal to illegal aliens that they aren't wanted."
It didn't? How do you reason not? If you were an illegal immigrant at the time, how would you have interpreted it?
"And, in fact, when that signal is sent out, you know what -- illegal aliens do leave to go back to their home country."
This assertion has no basis in fact. The 1990s witnessed several highly publicized and highly charged debates related to the issue of illegal immigration. The 1996 welfare reform and the Prop 187 (or was it 202) in California serve as the most well-known examples. These restrictive measures, and the harsh ethnocentric rhetoric (at which Daniel is so skilled) associated with their debate did absolutely nothing to curb illegal immigration from Mexico in the ensuing years.
Moreover, restrictionists often press for an enforcement-only or enforcement-first policy, but seemingly fail to realize this WAS the policy of the 1990s (exhibit Operation Blockade and Operation Gatekeeper). The only noteworthy effects of these policies were the exponential increase in costs of border enforcement and the SETTLEMENT of the illegal immigrant population, which had been to that point a temporary and circular flow.
The problem of the immigration system is not that we have illegal immigrants working in the country. It's that we have an immigration policy that does not face up to the reality, that so many of you are loathe to admit, which is that our post-industrial economy is heavily dependent on low-skilled immigrant labor in the low-wage sector. To date I haven't seen a shred of evidence that this bare economic and demographic reality is not so.
I will grant that we likely have more illegal workers than our economy needs. Nonetheless, a guest worker program for those we do need is an urgent necessity that restrictionsts are obstructing, in my view...and for no good reason, at least on economic grounds. Regularize them. It would follow that their consumption of services would be covered by their own taxes.
I'll anticipate the response to this: "But we can't reward illegal behavior! If we legalize the ones we have, then just more will come!"
Restrictionists act as if the whole of the third world is just dying to come to the United States, and this is just simply not true. When Mexican migration existed in its more circular form, more repatriated themselves after they had earned their desired amount of income for invenstment and expenditure in Mexico than settled in the United States. They are known as target-earners. According to survey research, the most common desire among migrants is to return home after earning enough to improve their standard of living and their communities in Mexico.
Moreover, doomsday scenarios of never-ending migration from Mexico, or the "invasion" as so many chicken-littles refer to it, are completely ignorant of the monumental fertility decline that has taken place in Mexico during the past two decades.
That your policy, at least in your claims, seems to enjoy public support, does not mean that it is not wholly ignorant of these realities, and insofar as it is, it is folly...and will be riddled with unanticipated consequences and ultimately, be deemed a failure. I'm sure your response will be to somehow pin it on liberals.
Wooopsie, on the Welfare logic. Welfare doesn't attract illegal and they simply follow jobs?
Ok, well, lets go with that, and keep in mind, I am not saying what you are saying is untrue.
Then, going by that logic, cutting welfare would also have no effect right?
Um, then doesn't that mean that we can go ahead and cut welfare and its not really going to have much of an effect on anything, people will simply go where the jobs are?
Sorry, just had to point that out.
Gotcha!
RHuse Fan Club Guy.
Thank you again! Sorry, I didn't see this one for a while as I hadn't been following this thread too closely. Do I need to put you on the payroll dude, your working pretty hard for me there and Im starting to feel guilty.
R-Huse:
Cute. Fun with logic.
Actually, I wouldn't draw those conclusions, and I doubt the economists who did the studies would either.
All it means is that in statistical models using data from Census and other surveys, changes in access to welfare (broadly speaking) programs had no effect on the migration and labor market behavior of immigrants. For other segments of the population, I believe there have been small alterations in behavior in the wake of changes, but am not sure.
But you're free to draw whatever conclusions you want, warranted by the data or not.
To anon 620am:
Sorry, you can't have it both ways.
One, you say the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 was a signal to illegal aliens and was ignored.
Two, illegal aliens come for work, not welfare.
Yes, r huse laid out the fallacy of your logic already.
It's not cute to point that out. Just cold hard logic, which you ignore.
I'm not.
You also ignore that enforcement never really was applied in the 1990's.
Yes, there were fancy sounding acts, but they were just smoke and mirrors.
On the ground -- where real enforcement happens -- little was done. Or if there was something done it was cosmetic.
Real systematic enforcement was never done.
That would require employers held accountable and they never were beyond here and there spotty action.
The "wink and nod" was the rule of the day in the 1990's.
Deal with the wink and nod reality and I would have more respect for your position.
Basically, your position is Rudy Giuliani's 1996 position: You can't control illegal immigration.
Yes we can with real employer sanctions and consistent enforcement.
President Eisenhower shortly after his election enforced the law and illegal aliens went home.
You never answered the hospital emergency room issue.
Funny, you never answer the points that are obvious.
And based on your economist studies, you are an apologist for big business, not some liberal bleeding heart.
Economists follow the almighty Dollar. Their base line doesn't consider national borders.
A smell of intellectual dishonesty hovers over your comments when you ignore points that go against you.
Anon - You are persistent if nothing else.
"Sorry, you can't have it both ways.
One, you say the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 was a signal to illegal aliens and was ignored.
Two, illegal aliens come for work, not welfare."
How is this having it both ways?
"You also ignore that enforcement never really was applied in the 1990's.
Yes, there were fancy sounding acts, but they were just smoke and mirrors.
On the ground -- where real enforcement happens -- little was done. Or if there was something done it was cosmetic.
Real systematic enforcement was never done."
Ironically, evidence supporting my assertion comes from a book called "Beyond Smoke and Mirrors: Mexican Immigration in an Era of Economic Integration" by Douglas Massey and colleagues.
On page 97, Figure 5.4, he demonstrates that the INS budget was nearly 8 times as large in 1998 as it was in 1986; the Border Patrol Budget was 5 times larger; the number of border patrol officers nearly doubled. On page 98, figure 5.5, he shows that deportations increased 12-fold (!) between 1986 and 1998; Linewatch-Hours nearly doubled during the same period. It seems to me that this is more than "cosmetic".
"Deal with the wink and nod reality and I would have more respect for your position."
I agree. Employers are THE problem here, and their powerful lobbies have every interest in keeping a large pool of undocumented labor in the country. They would prefer that nothing gets done to fix our immigration system. This makes me wonder why Daniel and his henchmen don't spend more time going after the business lobbies, large scale employers in agri-business, carpet manufacturing, the services, and nearly any other industry you can think of, as opposed to showing up at immigrant aid agencies and information sessions to take pictures and intimidate migrants. Why not picket the chamber of commerce? Talk about attacking the consequence while ignoring the cause.
"Basically, your position is Rudy Giuliani's 1996 position: You can't control illegal immigration."
I never said that. I think it's impossible to have zero illegal immigration, but it's certainly possible. I'm not sure, however, financially, how it is currently possible for this country to pay the costs that would be required to control it to the extent that most restrictionists want it controlled. It would take an effort the scale of which I think few people have considered or comprehend. But it could be done. It would also require a major modification to our foreign-trade policy. To effect such a change would take a tangle with the aforementioned business lobby that is currently, in my opinion, not win-able. Unfortunately, a person with the balls to take them on, is currently unelectable.
"You never answered the hospital emergency room issue."
I think this is primarily hype and hysteria over a problem that is not germane to illegal immigration. Sure, poor people without health insurance, which includes nearly all the illegals, use the hospital emergency room for routine health care, and increasingly so. It's a problem. Hospitals close. But its not a problem CAUSED by illegal immigrants. It would exist if we had zero illegal immigrants. It's a direct consequence of the state of our healthcare system. Pinning it on the illegals is nothing more than the immigrant scapegoating that has been a constant feature of our nation going back to the days of Ben Franklin, who loathed the Germans and predicted that their presence would ruin the nation.
Immigrants use this mode of healthcare provision less frequently than natives, at least that's what a recent national study by a doctor at USC shows.
http://lang.dailybulletin.com/socal/beyondborders/part_3/p3_day2_main.asp
(If this link doesn't work, just google "beyond borders the cost of care")
"And based on your economist studies, you are an apologist for big business, not some liberal bleeding heart."
Because I referred to some studies undertaken by by economists I'm an apologist for big business and a liberal bleeding heart? This is a non sequitur, to which I'm not sure how to respond.
"Economists follow the almighty Dollar."
Good economists objectively study micro and macro economic principles and trends using scientifically-based techniques. If they follow the almighty dollar, it's only to study it.
"Their base line doesn't consider national borders."
I'm not sure what you mean by this.
"A smell of intellectual dishonesty hovers over your comments when you ignore points that go against you."
Fair enough. You're certainly entitled to that opinion, but I think I've been pretty thorough and taken the time to provide some evidence to back up my points, a rarity on this blog.
To anon1253pm:
Persistent? No, it's easy to refute your propaganda.
How is it "having it both ways?"
You must be acting stupid:
One of your central arguments was that illegal aliens were not discouraged by the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, because they come only to work.
But then you turn around and say the Act was a signal that they weren't wanted.
In response to my assertion that a strong signal had not been sent.
That's having it both ways.
In truth the 1996 Act was directed at inter-generational welfare -- or long term welfare recipients.
Not to discourage illegal aliens.
Illegal aliens do use public services. They have no right to and cost taxpayers money.
Your second point is refuted in the title of the book itself:...Mexican immigration: In an Era of Economic Integration.
"Integration" is a code word for North American Union and open borders is a big piece of that.
This author, Mr. Massey, wants it spelled out in the title of his book that he is willing to say immigration into the U.S. to further "integration" is a postive economic event.
Massey wants it to be known that he's a whore for illegal immigration. He will take money for further work proving "immigration" is a good thing.
Massey might as well put a sign on the door to his crib -- Will "suck" your desire for cheap labor.
Which brings me back to your "studies." There is big money behind open borders, amnesty. The "big money" knows "studies" are useful to "stack up, one on top of the other" to overwhelm opponents of open borders, amnesty.
The big money open borders are more than happy to pay "economists" to cook up studies to support their position.
And, I might add, there are plenty of "economists" in that lonely profession willing to take money to make up studies (they got to eat too).
So just pointing to a bunch of studies means nothing.
You know the old Mark Twain saying: "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics."
To your other "study" saying border enforcement was increased -- O.K. I'll take that. But it's internal enforcement that is key. You can have all the border patrol in the world, but if there is no internal enforcement on employers...it ain't worth spit.
I am saying: THERE NEEDS TO BE INTERNAL ENFORCEMENT ON EMPLOYERS and once the jobs are dried up, illegal aliens will go home.
Also, more apprehentions says this: A tidal wave of illegals are flooding over the border because once they "make it" over, they are home free.
No internal enforcement.
Hospitals -- wrong.
Every illegal alien visit to an emergency room without insurance ADDS to the problem of non-payment.
Sure there are poor citizens and that is a cost, but every illegal alien that goes to a hospital without insurance which you acknowledge is almost all, is a cost. Period!
You can't blow it off.
O.K. now you say "illegal immigration can be controlled." But look at your accounting. Basically, you say it can be done but is in "practice" too expensive and wholly impracticle.
In the real world that is what I call a "distinction without a differnce."
What I wrote and you copied correctly was, you were big business and NOT a bleeding heart liberal.
You are an apologist for "CHEAP LABOR."
"Economists" are like anybody else: They want to make a living.
And in the dismal science a "study" is a gold mine.
Don't bite the hand that feeds you.
Economists know that too.
And, it is notorious that for every economic view point there is an "economist" willing to be a hired gun.
Anon 3:47 -
Okay. You win. The bewildering way in which you infer and draw conclusions is simply overwhelming. I cannot prevent you from inaccurately reading meaning into my (quite simple) statements, and insofar as you seem hell-bent on doing that, I don't see that there's any point in continuing the discussion.
But I'll leave you with this.
First, a major component of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act was the drastic restriction of services available to illegal immigrants (and even to legal, non-naturalized immigrants). If this is not a signal to illegals that they are not welcome, what is it? My assertion, and the assertion of those dastardly economists, is that they didn't respond to this signal by changing their migration behavior, because they are drawn by the availability of work at relatively high wages. Why do you interpret that simple line of reasoning as somehow having it both ways.
Second, as a card-carrying member of the academic community, I can guarantee you that there is no affinity between my colleagues and the corporate community, in general. Given that most of our research grants come from the federal government or private foundations (not corporations) we have no reluctancy whatsoever in criticizing corporate America for its abandoment of the well-being of American society for the sake of profits, and the power wielded in Washington for such purposes. Describing the importance of cheap labor for the economic elite does not make one an apologist for cheap labor. Definitely, our research findings are not beholden to the interests of corporate America.
Finally, if you read Massey's book, you would know that the last thing he is is a whore for cheap labor. That is simply an ignorant thing to say.
To anon411pm:
Yes, it's true professors in the ivory tower aren't used to pointed rebuttals. You don't get any in the echo chamber of the left-wing academia.
Obviously, you know what my conclusions are, because you feel compelled to answer them to the extent you can, to retain any shread of credibility.
By the way, I'm not reading anything into your simple statements -- I'm taking them at face value and refuting them.
This is part of traditional academic discourse. But then again, it's hard when nobody disagrees with you in your peer group in academdic circles.
As I wrote above: It's enforcement on the ground, out in the field as it were that counts.
It doesn't matter what is says in the act, if it's not enforced.
Heck, Governor Kulongoski set up social service "carousels" for illegal aliens, but that was discontinued after protests.
It's the whole package (job and social services) that draws illegal aliens, here, and that includes social services for the illegal alien's dependents, or himself if he needs services or can get services.
I will grant you, the job is probably the first draw and social services including emergency room care is an additional added bonus.
Your point fails.
Of course, your lame excuse for not answer my points, as being too "bewildering" really means: Anom 411pm doesn't have an answer.
Your research grants come from the "federal government" a supporter of illegal aliens and amnesty under Bush and Clinton.
And "private foundations" supported by corporations and rich open border, amnesty supporters like the Ford Foundation and many other "foundations" with a open border, amnesty agenda -- just like you and your ilk.
"Describing the importance of cheap labor for the economic elite does not make one an apologist for cheap labor."
Oh really?
You are convicted by your own words.
I'm just going off of Massey's title: Mexican Immigration: In an Era of Economic Integration.
I reject "integration" with corrupt Mexico and the "free flow" of cheap labor that implies.
Those who support "free flow" migration of cheap labor across borders are dupes and stooges of the open border, amnesty elite.
Whores, in other words.
Frankly, it sounds like you're just an academic whore in a brothel.
But thanks for making that clear to the readers.
Post a Comment