the following post is a little personal, based on opinions of people who are extremely close to me. mom, dad, if you still are reading this blog despite me asking you not to anymore, i'm sorry. i can't listen to this shit anymore, and i'm calling you guys out.
my parents and i bullshit politics all the time. they understand most of my madness over everything that's going on, but we fundamentally disagree on two issues: social security, and illegal immigration. being the good affluent and educated yet blue collar couple than they are, they have fairly predictable opinions on these two issues:
1) don't touch social security - this is great for our social democracy, and the fact that i want to semi-privatize it is abhorrent.
2) illegal immigrants are taking all of our jobs and should be rounded up and sent back to mexico.
normally i just brush arguments on these aside, because i don't want to hear alarmist rhetoric about the north american union, mecha, and the great conspiracy to end american sovereignty and give it back to brown people. people who espouse this nonsense doesn't listen when i tell them that rounding up and shipping 12 million people back to their home of origin is a logistical nightmare, costing us money we don't have.
today i got a healthy dose of this politics at the nexus of their two important issues, courtesy of a chain email sent to me by my mom, the details of which can be seen here. it claims, among other things, that "The United States Senate voted to extend Social Security Benefits to Illegal Aliens beginning in 2008." they also claim other dubious shit, including a fudged statistic that illegal immigrants supposedly comprise 30% of our federal prison population. incidentally, snopes clarifies the whole thing here, revealing it to be, as i told my mother, "heavily exaggerated sensationalist garbage." i only called it that because i don't want to say "you're full of shit" to my own mother.
i can't say this enough: stop blaming these people for trying to make a better life for themselves. a significant portion of our family ancestry is irish-catholic, having arrived during the potato famine. according to the library of congress, "Between 1820 and 1860, the Irish constituted over one third of all immigrants to the United States. In the 1840s, they comprised nearly half of all immigrants to this nation." they faced a lot of the same xenophobia and anger from the natives that the hispanic illegals are facing today, and if you think that they all arrived here legally, i'd be willing to bet that you're wrong.
i'm not saying they're not criminals (they are, by definition), and i'm not saying what they're doing isn't hurting america's infrastruture, but sorry, it's too late. they're here now. most of them are honest, hard-working people. in the event of amnesty, paying them legal wages will allow them to pay into our social services. the criminals among them who slip through the cracks will be easier to track when we actually do document them.
just stop blaming them for the problem, because they are but one effect of the many root causes that are currently plaguing our country. blame the greedy businessmen who wanted cheap under-the-table labor. blame the complacent citizenry who bitch and moan about this supposed 'reconquista' but then seemed a little more ok with it when they want a better deal on their landscaping. start supporting serious penalties for people who support this labor, and practice what you fucking preach.
stop crying about not everyone speaking english around here - you'd have a much more plausible case for that if you didn't live TWENTY MILES FROM MEXICO, in a region that was FORCIBLY TAKEN FROM MEXICO 150 years ago. i speak enough spanish to get by, and they speak enough english. i honestly couldn't care if i have to say "un big mac" instead of "a big mac", especially when i'm buying it on a street with a name like "camino del norte" in a suburb of san diego, california. speaking a bit of spanish around here only seems apropos. the same goes for texas, arizona, and new mexico.
and i'm sorry, but blaming them for all of our problems is just a little racist.
there, i said it.
Friday, May 23, 2008
my folks are scared of brown folks
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 responses:
Is it fair to blame them for our problems? No.
Is it a good idea to ignore the problem, or to deny that illegal immigration is a problem in the first place? Absolutely not.
Illegals are a burden on schools, health care, and social welfare programs. We can quibble over whether they "take American jobs," but these facts are undeniable: having a large portion of the workforce earn less than minimum wage creates a large socioeconomic inequality gap; increasing the supply of labor in a job market decreases the price point for wages; adding large portions of unskilled labor devalues the economy as a whole in comparison to that of other countries.
You hit an important point when you touched upon the fact that businesses encourage illegal immigrants to come here. The very first step that the United States must make if it wishes to curtail illegal immigration is to de-incentivize it. Employ cripplingly harsh fines on businesses who employ illegal labor, and you'll start to see a major effect.
Too many ICE personnel are deployed trying to stem the flow of illegal border crossings. Crack down on those who give illegals an incentive to come here, and you can re-deploy those ICE personnel to something more productive. Like patrolling our ports for dirty bombs and suitcase nukes.
I do not support amnesty, but I agree with you that deporting 13 million illegals is probably a waste of time and resources. What I would call for would be the following:
- If an illegal immigrant can show (with a utilities bill, or whatever) that he's been in the country for more than six months and he's got a steady job, grant him and his family resident alien status.
- Allow illegals to work after they obtain resident alien status, but levy an additional tax on his wages until he becomes an American citizen. (This tax is why my plan is not amnesty).
- Refuse federal benefits to individuals under this status, until they become U.S. citizens.
- Eliminate the anchor baby system. If neither of your parents aren't citizens or resident aliens residing legally in the United States, you are not an American citizen. Even if you were born here. (Of course, this wouldn't apply retroactively -- only to children born after the passage of this law).
- Give businesses fair warning regarding the hiring of illegals. Get them on board so they can help you get their workers registered. Force them to scale their pay rates up to minimum wage, but not all at once. Give them nine months to reach full compliance, with progressive checkpoints at three-month intervals.
That's the Joeverkill plan for curbing illegal immigration.
you are absolutely correct when you say that this is a burden on social programs, and you make a great point when you bring up the socioeconomic inequality gap. one cannot expect to maintain a stable and happy society in the presence of an underclass outside of the protection and penalties of the law that the rest of us must adhere to.
generally speaking, your plan strikes me as effectively fair. sure it's not 'amnesty,' but i guess i'm using it in the buzzwordy fashion - anything but kicking them out is amnesty. you seem to strike the best balance between rewarding the ones who otherwise play by the rules and clearly demonstrate the desire to be here, and those who are taking unfair advantage.
I don't understand why you would want them to pay a higher tax rate. That would keep them in the hole of poverty that they are in right now - they would be working for lower pay for the same work that an American does - that stinks of exploitation to me. What you are proposing is that the government takes over the job of slave driving these folks instead of the unscrupulous companies that are doing it now.
Isn't it enough if they just pay the regular tax rate? They still contribute on an equal footing to the economy as other Americans. I thought the right believed in reducing taxation. Does this mean that right wing fundamentals only apply to legal citizens.
Doesn't increased taxation reduce the entrepreneural spirit that republicans are so concerned about and limit the people's ability to participate in a free market economy and choose how their money gets spent.
If you believe that illegal immigration is a criminal matter, why would you want to impose civil penalties on illegals. There seems to be some legal jugglery going on here that doesn't add up to me. You allow them a legal alien status but you want to tax them extra? How does that make any sense. I live in America on a legal resident status; would I have to pay extra too? I guess not, so what you are proposing is a completely different resident alien status for people busted for being here illegally.
Wouldn't it just lead to more confusion regarding immigration law. Trust me, it's complicated enough as it is right now. The INS is completely overburdened with paperwork and having a new track to alien residency (the one with extra taxes as opposed to people like me who pay regular taxes because we came her legally) would probably completely overwhelm and distrupt their fragile infrastructure. Suppose someone who came here legally but overstayed his visa, would he have to pay the increased tax rate as well? Why not just charge people a fine and get it over with in one shot.
Anyway, as long as the illegal resident pays his fair share of taxes, what is the issue with them residing here. Your solution for a higher tax rate seems to me to be a measure with the sole aim of making it look like tough love - as you pointed out, you were not willing to give amnesty, that would be akin to a pardon, something the law revering conservative in you cannot stomach. I just don't understand why someone has to undergo some sort of penance or prove their loyalty in some convoluted way to gain citizenship. Isn't being a working and productive member of society who pays the taxes enough?
Minotauro,
Why the higher tax rate? Because of a moral imperative to punish crime. And because of an obligation of fairness to those who came here legally. It's a very expensive and difficult endeavor to enter this country permanently with our government's permission, and it would be a slap in the face to those who followed the rules if those who didn't were given a free pass.
Why not a one-time fine? Because illegals couldn't afford it. It makes more sense to allow them to pay over a larger period of time.
Why a civil penalty? To recoup some funds for government, and because criminal penalties such as prison terms would be counterproductive. I would support some sort of community service program initiative, but I'm not sure the government could find an effective way to enforce it.
Would this legislation
keep illegals under the poverty line? Not in California. I'm not up on minimum wage laws for other states, but the leap to Californian minimum wage would be a net increase over what they're making now, even including a tax up to about 25% (which is far more than I would propose the tax be set at, anyhow).
Would people who overstay their visas be required to pay this proposed tax (or fine; whatever you want to call it)? Yes, but only if they take a job in the United States.
Why not tax offending companies directly? Because they're already taking a sizeable economic hit from the wage increases, and because once again there's a moral imperative for the government not to condone unlawful behavior.
Would my plan increase the size of the INS and ICE bureaucracy? I can't say for sure, but I don't think so. Policing companies is much easier and less costly than policing individuals, so a shift in this direction would help streamline things. Placing a large portion of the financial and legal burden on offending companies would alleviate costs and prevent the bureaucracy from growing too large.
Also, make no mistake here -- the point of my plan is not to give illegals a helping hand. The point is to provide them a legal and safe way to stay in this country, while forcing them and the companies that hired them to pay at least a nominal penance for breaking United States law.
If illegals don't like being taxed, they can leave. I know you and I disagree on this, but I don't think it should be the responsibility of the United States or its citizens to support illegal immigrants financially.
illegals are NOT a burden on health care and social welfare programs. this is an ASSUMPTION that people make without analyzing any data. it is documented (this is just one of MANY articles to this effect) that illegal immigrants pay significant taxes toward social security and medicare without the possibility of being able to receive benefits from these programs.
here's a quote in case you don't want to read the whole thing.
The impact on Social Security is significant, though, because most of that money is never claimed by the people who pay it but instead helps cover retirement checks to legal workers.
Federal law prohibits paying Social Security to illegal immigrants, but the administration factors in both legal and illegal immigration when projecting the trust fund's long-term solvency.
This is especially important as the 78 million-member baby boom generation begins to leave the work force and draw Social Security checks.
"Overall, any type of immigration is a net positive to Social Security. The more people working and paying into the system, the better," Hinkle said. "It does help the system remain solvent."
sorry, i agree with most of your post, Analyst, but i think there are still misconceptions that need to be cleared up.
Yes they are.
First off, illegal immigrants rarely have health insurance and clearly can't afford their own health care; they burden our health care system. Illegal immigrants may be paying taxes now, but they haven't been for their whole lives. Additionally, because their salaries are far below the average, their tax contribution cannot possibly live up to the amount of benefits they are receiving from our government.
You can cite liberal studies that show data one way or the other, but there are usually flaws in either methodology or aim. The study you cite freely admits that its numbers are estimated.
Take a look at this link the Analyst posted a while back: http://www.hometownstation.com/local-news/illegal-aliens-clarita-2008-05-05-02-00.html
Simple math dictates that the more money you pay in taxes, the less you will proportionally receive for it. Are you arguing that illegals are not poor? Because if so, I haven't heard that argument before. Are you arguing that they don't receive social benefits? Because that's simply not true at all. Social security is the exception, not the rule. Illegals drive on our roads, their children attend our schools, they seek health care in our hospitals and our emergency rooms, etc.
The article you cite makes no statement about whether illegals contribute more than they receive, because that argument is mathematically impossible to support. The article estimates $90 billion in federal tax revenue over an eight-year period. Let's crunch some numbers on that, okay? Suppose that the United States has had an average of about ten million illegals in this country over the past eight years, which I think is a fairly accurate if somewhat rough assumption. That means that illegal immigrants, on average, have paid about $1125 per year over the period in question. In that same period, the average salary in the U.S. has been roughly $37,000 per year. That pay rate falls into the 25% tax bracket, so the average U.S. citizen has paid roughly $9250 per year over the period in question. That's 8.22 times the average amount paid by illegals, for those of you following at home.
Add to this the fact that illegal immigrants have an average of about 1.5 times as many children as American citizens, and you have an exponentially climbing burden.
Your argument is poorly thought-out and mathematically implausible. If you want to argue for giving illegals a helping hand, fine (I don't). But please, do a little thinking about the numbers before you start throwing them around.
Joe the statistician, here are some numbers for you to chew over. At 37,000 a year, the average american makes about 20-21 dollars per hour, which is a pay rate that is 4 times the pay rate of an average illegal immigrant. When compared to an american living on minimum wage, that 125 dollars a year tax paid per year doesn't look as bad. Besides just comparing them against the 'average American' is a reductive and simplistic arguement. Seems to me that you think that the American who earns that amount of money is the standard by which the rest of us should be judged.
Also you seem to be not just anti illegal but also anti poor. After all the poorest Americans cannot contribute as much in taxes as the wealthy or even the 'average american who makes 37000' either. Why not just do away with the poor and the unemployed for being burdens on the rest of us?
How many of these 10 million people use emergency room services? Not that many people use those services and if they do, what is the big deal about that? Shouldn't emergency health care be provided to every human being regardless of one's tax contributions. It's a damn shame that this country cannot do that much for its people, citizens or not.
That statistic about them having an average of 1.5 times the number if children as citizens is laughable. That sort of statistic can be used against other groups like catholics and inner city poor or the uneducated just as well as they can against illegals. Why not villify them as well while you are at it?
Minotauro,
First of all, I've already repeatedly vilified the Catholic Church. Don't know if you caught those posts...
Secondly, I'm not trying to vilify illegals here. I'm arguing that they are a burden on social welfare programs. That doesn't make them "villains."
You're arguing that it's the U.S.'s responsiblity to should the burden to social welfare, law enforcement, education, and health care programs that illegals present. Is that correct? If so, that's fine, and that's your opinion. I don't agree with it. But arguing that the presence of large numbers of illegal immigrants does not present additional stress to the programs in question -- as WorkerBee did -- is mathematically and logically insolvent.
I'm not anti-poor, but I am opposed to providing incentives to bring millions of poor people into the United States. I'm also opposed to looking the other way on wage laws so that these folks stay poor.
You may disagree but it is my opinion that a nation has a primary responsibility to protect the interests of its citizens.
... Sorry, forgot to address a couple of things...
How many of them use emergency room services? Actually, quite a large number of them. I'm not sure if you paid much attention the socialized health care debate Hillary and Barack had earlier in their campaigns, but one of the core issues was the use of emergency room services in place of general care practioners by those who don't have insurance. The vast majority of illegal immigrants do not have health insurance, so they must turn to the emergency room as an alternative to general care. If an illegal has a strep infection, for example, he can't go to his normal doctor, so if he can't afford to go to a walk-in clinic, he is forced to wait (often 15 or 16 hours) for care at an emergency room. Emergency rooms are obligated to treat them, and the cost is passed on to those who have insurance.
You call my citation of birth rate statistics laughable. I don't see how that's the case, unless you havent been paying attention to how massivley underfunded our public school system is. Additionally, these children won't be part of the workforce (and therefore won't be paying taxes) until they're at least 14 or 15, so they present an additional burder not only on schools, but also on health care, law enforcement, transportation services, etc.
Once again, if you want to argue that the U.S. should shoulder that burden, fine. That's your opinion. I don't agree with it, and I'd like to think that few citizens would agree with it either.
I so am the permissive uncle! hehehe. For sure Joe,we disagree. My grasp on the stats is also somewhat weak. What I feel however is that if you start assimilating the present generation of immigrants, their children are eventually going to grow and contribute to the betterment of the nation.
The children of immigrants have traditionally been among the best citizens - highly motivated, law abiding and extremely hard working. These children who you complain are not paying into the tax coffers today, if given a good education and inculcated with a sense of belonging in this country will grow up to become exemplary citizens.
On the other hand if laws are enacted to make them feel unwanted and alienated from mainstream society, it will only end up creating a huge population of disenfranchised and disgruntled youth who are too jaded to buy into the (sub) working class values of their parents and too angry to want to contribute to democratic values - unwilling to vote, to be taxed, to participate in society's wider dialogue.
What America has is a unique opportunity to turn a civic problem into a fount of future ideas, work and entrepreneurship. Utilising this opportunity does not have to mean being soft on crime or betraying it's citizen's interests.
maybe a permissive uncle somewhere got laid in freshman civics so he is very supportive of it. Don't see what your problem is, especially since you are participating in said dialogue. Go settle your own internal conflicts about whether you want to be a part of society or not before you shoot your mouth off.
joeverkill,
your numerical analysis overlooked a fewimportant points.
Wow, Worker Bee. Your failure to think critically continues to amaze me.
You cite an article from a clearly biased source. That's fine. It doesn't necessarily mean the numbers can't be trusted.
These numbers, however, can't be trusted, especially with regard to the debate in question. I could find flaw with virtually every bullet point in the so-called article you cited, but here are a few choice ones (quotes in bold):
-- Many older workers return home to Latin America when they reach retirement age. (BusinessWeek)
Stuff like this is not statistical in nature, and really, it means nothing at all. It's like saying that many American citizens commit murder. It's a misleading waste of time.
-- Most immigrants have health insurance. (The American Journal of Public Health)
Why doesn't the article say that most illegal immigrants have health insurance? because it's not true. So they quote a statistic on an unrelated matter to obfuscate.
-- 84% of undocumented immigrants are 18-to-44-year-olds, in their prime spending years, vs. 60% of legal residents. (BusinessWeek)
Is the article trying to imply that illegals spend more than U.S. citizens? Really? If so, why not just say that? Because it's intrue.
-- Hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrant households earn enough to qualify for $95,000 mortgages. (National Association of Hispanic Real Estate Professionals)
Income is not the only facotr in obtaining a mortgage. Credit history is a large factor as well (not to mention that the article doesn't specify whether these illegals would require co-signers or not). Aso, to qualify for a $95,000 mortgage, you only need to be making about $17,000 per year. Unless you have a co-signer, in which case it is much less.
I could go on, but I really don't get paid enough (read: zero) to address every bullet point in every fatally flawed, propagandist document loating around the internet. Publications like the one in question employ qausi-statistical techniques in order to further their agendas. It's rather sad that anyone takes documents like the one you cited seriously.
Additionally, the article does nothing to refute the claim that illegals take far more out of the system than they put in. Do some simple math and you will see that it would be completely impossible for that to be the case. Our system is set up so that those with higher incomes shoulder more of the tax burden. Arguing that a group of extremely poor individuals put more into the system than they get out is mathematical insanity. The exception to this is social security -- there are institution factors that prevent illegals from collecting benefits. For example, the article you cite claims the following:
Immigrants accounted for 10.4 percent of the U.S. population but only 7.9 percent of total health spending and 8 percent of government health spending. (The American Journal of Public Health)
First of all, this statement disregards the institutional costs of providing free care that are passed along to consumers via insurance companies. Secondly, these numbers show that illegals do indeed receive more benefits than they pay for. They receive 8% of the benefits while providing only about 1.4% of the income tax revenue.
Once again, if you want to argue that it's our responsibility to provide social welfare, transportation, education, health care, etc. to illegals, that's fine. I would respect that, though I wouldn't agree with it. But arguing that they're not a burden on the programs in question idiotic.
there's no need to get personal, guy. all i did was post a link.
There' nothing personal about it. I'm not saying anything about you as a person; I'm saying why your argument doesn't hold water. Nothing personal there, and I hope you don't take offense.
Also, sorry for all the typos, everyone. I guess I rattled these responses off a bit hastily and forgot to proofread. A bit embarassing -- my apologies.
Surprisingly enough I agree with joe here that the list of statistics cited look a little suspect - short on hard facts. I still don't agree philosophically with Joe and with his figures either. I think they tend to present a more alarmist perspective that is not representative of reality.
The truth is all the facts do not exist. These people are undocumented, which means they aren't sitting around waiting to answer a statistician or social worker's question. Both sides of the immigration debate are taking advantage of this information grey zone(I can formulate nomenclature like the best of them to make myself sound like a pro!) to forward emotional analyses and quasi racist spin.
The anti immigration pundits overemphasize the crimes committed by illegal aliens. They often harp on the same isolated incident and express the kind of moral indignation typically reserved for far more serious crimes committed by legal residents or citizens. The human tendency towards crime does not run any deeper in someone just because he or she crossed a border.
On the other hand pro immigrant groups harp on the alleged racism of every anti immigration activist. I am gonna post about an interesting article I just read that will make it clear that racism is not always a factor -sometimes it is more of a cultural disdain that even 2nd or 3rd generation immigrants harbour for their newly arrived countrymen.
Btw, worker bee don't take critism like joe's too personally. Showing disdain for someone's cited facts is fair game around here. It doesn't mean that you are being personally attacked.
Post a Comment