Me and Mr. Jones

Mr. Pena,

Respectfully, I believe that you are continuing to miss the big picture here. Those who come to this nation illegally are doing so in violation of the laws of this nation. This is very much an issue of U.S. sovereignity that we cannot afford to retreat from.

We, as an independent nation (for now, at least until the NAFTA Superhighway is started), have the right to determine who comes into this nation and who does not. We have the authority to set our own immigration policy. Your statistics say that illegal immigrants constitute only three percent of the population. That would be interesting if it were accurate. On the contrary, we have no way of knowing how many illegals are here because of our own shabby tracking system.

Estimates show that there could be as many as 20 million illegals in the country, but it is possible that it is even higher.

Pro-amnesty politicians and writers try their best to soften the impact of the problem and make it look like society will collapse if we deport illegals. They tell us that we will pay more for oranges and that nobody will be left to do the jobs that illegals do. This is nothing more than comical fantasy.

We need to do a few things to fix the problem:

1– Institute a five year moratorium on all immigration, legal or illegal, until we can determine who is here and why.

2– We need to place the United States military on the Mexican border to stop the invasion into the US, especially into California and the southwest.

3– There needs to be a much better system of assimilation, which includes English-only policies through all government agencies, English-only ballots for all elections, and English-only policies in all public schools (outside of foreign language classes, of course).

4– Congress needs to guarantee that we build the damn fence. Now. The Shrader plan for ending the Iraq War includes bringing home the troops and placing them on the Mexican border and across the Rio Grande.

5– We ought to radically adjust the immigration policies of the country through a more difficult, rigorous, written test that ensures that only the best and brightest are allowed entry. We should not be taking the intellectual light-weights from around the world, but rather only those who are capable of high performance, social stability, and capable of earning solid wages.

If a national pleblicite were held tomorrow putting my plan as described above versus the Bush/Kennedy/McCain amenesty plan, I would bet you everything that I have that mine would win by a margin of about 70% to 30%.

Nathan, you are completely right that illegal immigration is wrong, but your strategy is COMPLETELY wrong. In response to your plan (each number corresponds with yours):

1. Ending immigration for even five years would be disastrous for our country. They say there is a brain drain in Iraq, but imagine how bad it would be here. Not allowing any new minds to enter the U.S. is one of worst things you could do to the U.S. economy.

2. “Let’s put soldiers on the border to stop the illegals.” Sounds like a good idea, right? It’s not. The army is stretched thin. Even sending the National Guard wouldn’t be right.

3. English only policies would only alienate illegal immigrants and not encourage them to assimilate and become citizens. America is the melting pot. The fact that it is a combination of so many cultures is what makes it beautiful.

4. Will the fence really be effective? Maybe it would be, but maybe it would just waste money and valuable congressional time. A fence is just a fence. It can be broken, climbed over, dug under, or be walked around. The proposed fence would supposedly have no holes. That’s not even plausible.

5. This may be your own only semi-bright idea. But essentially, it’s what the government is already doing.

“English only policies would only alienate illegal immigrants and not encourage them to assimilate and become citizens.”

If someone is an illegal alien, they need to be deported. There’s no incentive among most U.S. citizens to “encourage them to assimilate and become citizens” if and as they’ve already declared their bad character by entering and/or remaining in our nation illegally (and other illegal acts after they’re here to maintain their illegal presence here).

Obviously, the writer of this piece does not “get” what “illegal alien” and “illegal immigration” mean. There’s still a lot of nonsense here in this opinion piece and the added response above that attempts to rationalize the illegalities of illegal immigration, as if there’s “nothing wrong” and these people deserve a “path to citizenship.”

They deserve to be deported. And prevented from re-entering our nation afterward. And if they re-enter, then incarcerated, held accountable for the costs they incur accordingly, and then deported again afterward.

The U.S. has no obligation to allow everyone who can enter our nation to “assimilate and become citizens.” We have every right and privilege to control who enters and uses our nation. Illegal entry and illegal presence in our nation are criminal acts and merit criminal penalties. Not citizenship.

I’d also enjoy reading how our nation (the United States of America) would meet “disaster” if and as illegal aliens were reduced to the point of effective cessation of the problem.

Most of the burgeoning costs for social programs nationwide and “housing crises” especially has been CAUSED by the growing illegal alien population. What “disaster” would result if illegal aliens were deported and further prevented, along with a moratorium on legal immigration for a period of time?

What “disaster”?

ITS ALL SMOKE AND MIRRORS: THIS ALLEGED NEED FOR AMNESTY OVERPOPULTAION FOR THE AMERICAN ECONOMY

Its totally brainless too.

Do you remember when liberals were real environmentalists and not these phoney meat eating blowhards of green house gases overpopulating America, but please recycle? If the Toyota Prius Hybrid Al Gore brags about is so good; why is its EPA MPG way overstated, its price tag way too high, its nickel batteries an environmental nightmare and its 1,000,000 unit recall due to its steering deemed unimportant as a safety issue? How about just stop eating so much meat through depopulation, a FAR more effective way to reduce greenhouse gas and not cause a foreign deficit either. This is too logical, no brainless Democrat would admit it.

Let’s face it, all of the world’s/America’s problems have one root cause: OVERPOPULATION. There isn’t a single Democrat that will even print the word OVERPOPULATION in their agenda. Check it out, I have.

Will America shrink to nothing if we depopulate like Europe and hold immigration to 200,000 per year with a depopulation birthrate set/defined by the Baby Boomers? Hades no. We’ll thrive. We’ll reclaim forrest land. We’ll reduce traffic congestion. We’ll eat less meat producing green house gas. Our incomes will go up. Tiny European Denmark just took over #1 in technology innovation from America in 2006. Pathetic!!!

Will a life without Bill Gates’ globalism, outsourcing and overpopulation guest workers mean no jobs and imminent recession? Hades no, just the opposite. Once we instill hope into America again and depopulate, here come the Edisons, Fords and Einsteins again. Hope and more living space gives time and relaxation for inventions and new thought, rather today’s high stress regurgitation of old technology by reverse engineering with less quality and more pollution and more people; worrying about how to pay for the $500,000 OVERPOPULATION house payment.

Have any of you tried Bill Gates’ new Vista O/S yet, made with the New World Order globalization overpopulation quality? LOL. End of argument.

Mr. Pena,

Your facts appear to be grossly outdated. You’re also transposing the term immigrant with illegal alien. The U.S. government has no idea how many illegal aliens are currently in our country. They “guesstimate” 12 - 20 million. Every state has an appreciable drain on social services due to illegal aliens. if you would like statistics, consult the FAIR website. The recent Heritage Report stated each illegal alien costs American taxpayers approximately $22,000 a year. You also failed to mention the fatality rate of U.S. citizens at the hands of illegal aliens - 4,000 to 9,000 annually. Additionally, you failed to mention the rise of illegal alien gangs in our cities as well as the massive amount of drugs that are being transported across our southern border. The U.S. has the ability to build an impenetrable fence as well as place armed troops on the border. If the U.S. government would untie the hands of the Border Patrol, they could provide effective enforcement. The only “right” illegal foreign nationals have is to be deported.

Mr. Pena,
1. I disagree with your number of less than 3%, the govt. states the number at 12 to 15 million, and using the usual error in govt figures that makes the total at 30 million, or 10 % of our population
2. 1 million legal immigrants and 1 million gaining citizenship have nothing to do with the 1 million plus illegals jumping the border every year.
3. The 80% living in California being a burden is the result of politicians like the gang member that is the mayor of LA, declaring “Sanctuary” and refusing to enforce the laws of this country. The American tax payer have no sympathy for these criminals.
4. State govts complaining about the burden of illegals need to address the problem and remove them, refuse any welfare. 80% of legal citizens want the problem dealt with.
5.Illegals pay very little taxes is untrue. They steal social services from legal residents. (schools, housing, medical, welfare) while being at the low end of the earnings system qualifies them for earned income credit, which gives them thousands of dollars more in refunds than they pay into our system.
6.Money earned by illegals. 18 to 20 billion dollars a year is sent to Mexico, and the remainder is used for living expenses, this 30 to 40 billion dollars a year is money that should be spent in this country, helping our economy survive, and making jobs for our citizens.
7. As for “Shouldering a large part of the entrepreneurial burden” it should read “Forcing legal residents out of business” just like their presence here forces wages down for legal residents.

Solution.
It is calculated that each illegal alien in this country costs the taxpayer a net amount of $22,000 per year over and above their “contribution” to our country.
We could put a bounty of $10,000 per head to local police departments for each illegal deported, and if they return then they be put to work building the border fence for 1 year for each offense.

Dear commmenters:

Thank you for the spirited debate and for taking me to task on my opinion. I apologize for taking so long to join the fray, but I’ve been in a somewhat reflective mood since finding out about the catastrophic events that unfolded in Virginia.

In my attempt to put things into perspective, I decided to watch Michael Moore’s “Bowling for Columbine” yesterday morning. Not only was I struck by the senselessness of the tragedy, but I was also struck by things Moore found out North of the border.

I came away with several interesting insights:

1. While the interviews did not constitute a scientifically managed poll by any stretch of the imagination, it was quite fascinating to see our Canadian neighbors speak about the fact that they don’t lock their doors.

2. One of the people interviewed spoke to the fact that Americans and Canadians look at a locked door in a different way. Americans look at it as a way to keep people out, while Canadians look at it as a form of imprisonment.

3. In a country of 30 million, there are 7 million registered guns. Doing the numbers, there’s approximately one Canadian out of every four who owns a gun. There are 200+ million guns in America, owned by 300 million Americans, meaning that just about 2 out of every 3 Americans owns a gun.

4. Canada averages 165 murders a year for a population of 30 million, while America averages 11,127 murders a year for a population of 300 million. That statistic alone seems to hint that Americans are ten times as likely to commit murder than Canadians are.

By now you’re probably trying to figure out what all the statistics I just cited have to do with the effects of immigration (legal or illegal), right?

Well, let me put it this way. Mr. Moore concludes in his documentary that America is a nation gripped by fear, and that its high propensity to resort to confrontation stems from what appears to be the typical American’s tendency to feed on such fear. In a similar light, it appears to me than not a single one of the comments to my post lacked at least a hint of xenophobia, choosing instead–for the most part–to regard the inflow of immigrants–whether legal or illegal–as an invasion of some threatening horde of barbarians.

It seems to me that five years after the release of Mr. Moore’s documentary, his conclusions about American fear are not only holding up well, but are transcending the realm of guns and violence, and are equally valid concerning the immigration conundrum.

Locking ourselves in with fences, guards, and protectionist immigration and trade policies will not save America, folks. But doing the humane thing by opening our doors just might…

P.S. I wonder: a) what each of you think when you read “The New Colossus”, and; b) how long it will take someone to call me unpatriotic, and/or to tell me that if I don’t like it here, maybe I should either go back to where I came from or move to Canada?

Though my eyesight is nearly perfect, I must have misunderstood when I clicked the “About” tab and read how the “Political Grind” proclaims to have a pretense of ‘bipartisanship’. I mistakenly took for granted that it meant in regard to the articles it dispenses by its contributing writers.
From the very start, the above article is written in such a manner that its author is as intellectually balanced as those that once claimed the the Earth is flat.
The response from “Ella” is far more an accurate assessment than the regressively simplistic intellect used to berate the United States whose economy is overwhelmed by the immigration influx it is currently dealing with. Moreover, it is extremely amusing when reading the drivel put forth to represent Canadian citizens. Whilst it is Canada’s own infrastructure that has long been crumbling (i.e., its inability to pay and uniform its own armed forces; its inability to independently provide long-term quality medical care for extended hospital stay; its inability to independently maintain its public works facilicities, ect., the list goes on), always having to rely upon England and other Western nations to supplement its revenue (via financial and product aid) in order to assure its future subsistence. Those who proclaim Canada’s delusional socio-economic superiority then go on to share their unfounded ability to dictate economic terms on the world’s most powerful Superpower (USA). The displaced French in eastern Canada are certainly nothing if not pretentiously arrogant to patsy along with such nonsensical propaganda. Whilst such baseless rhetoric is amusing, it is rather pathetic to say the least.
Before you can compare either the social or economic standings against that of the U.S. you must first start with comparing other nations’ government structuring and their protected social freedoms to those of the U.S., of which, there are no other nations to remotely compare, much less it be Canada. Interestingly, it was a warped attempt by the author to practice “nonpartisan” (tic) hackery.
As for the illegal immigration burden the U.S. taxpayers are currently dealing with, North America as well as Western Europe would be wise to adopt the Australian immigration solution as the Howard Cabinet has recently put into place. For as long as the U.S. continues to give into reckless immigration policies and unfettered social spending, it will soon have its hand out to the world, begging for foreign aid from other nations. Unfortunately, the U.S. is the world’s primary source for foreign aid. The economic deterioration of the U.S. would result in a total collapse of the Western trade market.
For candid and accurate economic history and information, I suggest searching the web to read “The Grandfather Economic Report” by Michael W. Hodges.
As for Michael Moore, he is a great source for intellectual documentation if you intend to apply a high school dropout education toward collegiate socio-governmental issues. Based upon what I’ve read from the above listed artical’s author, that would be exactly the case.

Dear Bill:

High-school dropout, socio-governmental, Flat-Earth loving, bipartisan hack here.

In deference to the fact that you’re obviously not only my elder but intellectually superior, and in the interest of edifying my clearly inferior intellect, I followed your suggestion of searching the web for “The Grandfather Economic Report” by Michael W. Hodges.

You weren’t kidding when you said he provided “candid and accurate economic history and information”. What I learned was astounding…

1. I read Grandpa’s Federal Government Spending Report, and while he stated the Social Spending is the big culprit behind unchecked government growth, he didn’t say a word about immigration, legal or illegal.

2. I read Grandpa’s report on the 5 Core Threats, and was surprised to find out that he thinks it all boils down to up-to-their-eyeballs-in-debt, SUV-driving Americans with dumb kids turning a blind eye to the electoral process, thus allowing the government’s influence on the economy to grow unchecked. Once again, he didn’t say a word about immigration, legal or illegal.

3. I read Grandpa’s 12 Serious Questions, and while several maladies were added to the ones I’ve pointed out on the two previous paragraphs, once again he didn’t say a word about immigration, legal or illegal.

4. I read Grandpa’s Mega-Trends/Road to Serfdom summary report, and while he once again blasts against the Welfare State, Government’s dominion over the economy and its failure to prioritize according to the four core foundations of a federal government, he didn’t say a word about immigration, legal or illegal.

5. I read Grandpa’s State and Local Government Spending Report, and while he blames their increasing debtloads on “soaring compensation of public employees (and their headcount)”, he didn’t say a word about immigration, legal or illegal.

The coolest thing I came across at Grandpa’s site is that it was endorsed by one of my economic heroes, that greatest of classic libertarians, Milton Friedman. (Some of my best friends are libertarians…) That endorsement alone leads me to believe that, while I have yet to check the remainder of the site (and I will, because I dig numbers), you can pretty much take what Grandpa says to the bank.

But, just as musical geniuses are apt to mention that the pause between the notes are what makes music differ from noise, I will assume that what Grandpa does not expressly mention should not worry me.

Grandpa doesn’t talk about immigration, legal or illegal.

Grandpa doesn’t talk about Canada.

Grandpa does keep harping on and on and on about smaller government and self-reliance. As for a reason why Grandpa must have failed to mention the above referenced items, I can only think of three reasons:

1. Grandpa is old, and might be starting to forget stuff. After all I’ve read, though, I firmly believe that this option is an impossibility. He’s far more on the ball than any of us are.

2. Perhaps Grandpa, fearing the inevitable reprisals from gangs made of illegal aliens with an unquenchable thirst for socio-economic data, chose smartly to leave this component out of the equation altogether for the sake of protecting his life and those of his grandchildren. Rumor has it the above-referenced gangs, because of their superior intellect, have not only been plotting an invasion of the United States for some time, but easily elude fence-challenged border patrols. I do not give credence to this option either, because I suspect that Grandpa, in his own erudite way, simply sees this nonsense exactly for what it is: an unsubstantiated rumor.

3. Perhaps Grandpa believes that great nations fail to learn the lessons of history. After all, being that he’s a Grandpa, he probably recalls another time when another great nation saw itself in deep socio-economic turmoil as a result of starting a pre-emptive war under false pretenses. Rather than doing what had to be done, the great nation chose to blame all its woes on those who were not part of the majority instead. That nation found a solution to its problems, alright. It called it “The Final Solution”.

If I were a more educated, more mature individual, I would probably stay and continue this lively discussion. But us dropout bipartisan hacks are cursed with short attention spans, and at this point in time, I need to give my attention to something different.

I think I’n going to watch Fahrenheit 9/11.

Thanks for the web reference and for your contribution to the discussion.

All the best,

Rod

P.S. I wonder what goes through your mind when you read “The New Colossus”…

Rod,

I digress, I wasn’t aware your proclaimed youth and gross ignorance of the subject matter could be used as an excuse for revising facts and history. Thankfully, because of such a philosophy, we have you here to educate us in your “bipartisan” spirit.
You are obviously much better informed, being educated by the young and ingenious community college dropout better known as Michael Moore. Yes, I erroneously (possibly?) misstated when I referred to your mentor as a highschool dropout. I’m not sure if Michael Moore in fact did drop out of highschool or not (though it would be no surprise). I only know that Mr. Moore found seeking an education within a community college too much of a challenge and quickly dropped out from there. That alone speaks volumes for your “statistics” as well as your argumentative position.
Regardless, progressing to the topic at hand, I still found it interesting you failed to actually read anything beyond a few topic headings within Michael W. Hodges’ “Grandfather Economic Report”. Your suppositions regarding Michael W. Hodges’ personal views are completely erroneous (I’m using “big” words, I know…it simply means that you’re “full of $#it”). You seem to proclaim Mr. Hodges has written opinions he hasn’t and you failed to read the facts he has written. Perhaps, just as your proclaimed mentor, you’re simply suffering an inability to face educational challenges. You certainly appear to “document” current cultural issues in such a manner. At least here that would definitely appear to be the case in point.
If you had actually bothered to read in depth any of the “Grandfather Economic Report” (yes, it uses “big” words on more than one page and the multiple links provide the researched sources), you would have indeed read his included studies showing the effect that immigration (legal AND illegal) has on the U.S. economy (via education and social services: medical, housing, etc.). It’s understandable how you may have missed all of it due to the fact that Hodges uses substantiated data as opposed to any imaginary numbers (I should reference your original article here).
Lest you wish to blissfully continue wallowing in prideful ignorance, I recommend that you take the required time to read the “Grandfather Economic Report” throughout its entirety. If you oppose any of its data then attempt to discredit Hodges by using documented and SUBSTANTIATED sources (emphasis put on “substantiated”, it being a key word) and then write a researched article in which to retort. Simply giving your opinionated word as fact on issues you obviously know very little about isn’t good enough for those of us that do know and understand the subject matter.
Otherwise, truly educated people will likely have the impression that you’re a propagandist* working for Karl Rove & Co.. You certainly seem to be sleeping in President Bush’s bed whereas immigration is concerned.
[*On the matter of Moore, the jury is still out on whether or not Michael Moore is in bed with Rove. Moore definitely seems to politically assist the current Administration more than lend any real opposition. Personally, I believe Moore is a ringer from the far Right, a persona designed to easily dupe the far Left and appear much more intellectually deficient than it actually is.]
Meanwhile, I hope you enjoy watching Michael Moore fantasy films during your effort to pursue an (oxymoronic) education. Hopefully, the fact that you would attempt to elevate Michael Moore to the level of being an intellectual proves that you have a great sense of humor.

Most sincerely,

Bill

Rod,

As a postscript, to further exhibit your lack of reading comprehension, I never stated the Grandfather Economic Report mentions Canada, did I?

And, to respond to your irrelevant query regarding “The New Colossus”, I believe the poem offers Emma Lazarus’ personal and romanticized definition for her subject’s symbolism.
In a warped attempt to undermine what it truly represents, one may erroneously imply the author’s belief was to allow unfettered access of people with convoluted ideologies to live in unity, being this nation. Such twisted philosophy was used during the construction of Akkadian Babilu, too. We all know how that turned out, don’t we? Completely chaotic, to say the least.

A free nation requires not only a defined civil structure but also an economic system that is designed to allow free market trade. This concept can only successfully function if the ratio of profit is at least two times greater* than the cost of the nation’s expense of operation [*rule of thumb] (i.e., social/civil/public service operations are national costs). If the expense of a nation’s operation [government spending] begins to exceed one-third of its overall production, its infrastructure begins to deteriorate. One reason for this is because a nation must account for only a percentage of its population being able to contribute toward its overall production (ex: children and most elderly cannot contribute much toward the system’s overall generated revenue).
This fact places the burden of costs upon those who are contributing [the private sector/labor force]. As long as the mathematical ratio accounts for no more than a third of costs against productivity, the economy remains stable. If, however, the cost of government begins to exceed the one-third ratio rule against overall production, the economy begins to stagnate [due to the private sector then having less money to support overall production and instead having to contribute more funds toward government spending].
When there is an uncontrolled influx of immigration (legal or illegal) and a lack of increase in overall production, the economy weakens as this can only result in there being more people in line to fill the same amount of jobs within the private sector. Therefore, in order for immigration to be successful, there must first be an increase in overall production. An increase offers more positions in production to the private sector [meaning more employment opportunity]. If there are no production increases, the government is still forced to increase its obligatory spending in order to provide its services to more people. The result of this being the same amount of overall production having to lower its prosperity in order to support the government’s spending [meaning the private sector…that being you and me…must work harder to maintain our personal economic standing].
Eventually, mismanagement of the economy [the balance of greater production over government expense] results in a complete economic collapse of said nation.
A simplified parallel being:

You are a salaried worker, married but have no children, you earn $18.00/hr., you give your spouse one-third of it to run the household ($6/hr), and place the rest into your checking account ($12/hr).
However, you and your spouse begin expanding your family. You have one child and find it now requires an extra $2/hr to operate your household. You haven’t received a pay increase, so this means you now only have $10/hr being put into your account.
Now you have twin children. You still have not been given a pay increase but your household costs have risen from the previous $8/hr to $12/hr. This results in your ability to only being able to place $6/hr into the bank.
You find you need a larger home to provide an adequate environment for your family so you purchase a new home. You haven’t received a pay increase but your domestic [private sector] operational expenses have just increased by $6/hr for thirty years to pay for your new purchase. You now no longer have any money to place in the bank and must rely upon what you have already put into the bank in order to afford unexpected expenses. If you are fortunate, you may receive a pay increase during this time or possibly able to carry the burden of the extra costs until the children become independent. However, a great hardship clearly exists and the future is unclear at best. Hopefully, you’ll not lose any employment during this time.

The government must approach the overall economy in the same way an individual must operate their household. If caution is rarely exercised in expenditures, economic collapse is inevitable.
Current immigration figures are approximately 1.5m annually in the U.S. each year (w/approx. 2% ann. icrease), based upon current U.S. Census Bureau data. Job creation is currently 1.4%/ann.avg., based upon U.S. Department of Labor statistics, giving a legitimate cause for concern.
Domestic production is not increasing to meet the demand, though it is holding steady. The government has begun printing more currency which will eventually result in inflation. Even a third-grade elementary student can realize the potential for eventual economic hardships on a grand scale, when looking at the factors and numbers at their current standing.
The economy may not collapse today or tomorrow but if prudent policies are not soon put into force and government spending is not made responsible, an economic collapse is definite.
Immigration is only a factor regarding the current state of the U.S. economy (we’ll not start on offshoring, government expansion, etc.) but it is a large factor that continues to grow. Unless the government begins to put policies into place that will greatly increase the nation’s productivity, there will be little left to plunder or exploit.
The problem the nation currently faces is not necessarily immigration (legal or otherwise) alone, it is its inability to increase overall production in order to sustain its expences.
Do you think if the U.S. were creating vast amounts of production as it did post WWII that anyone would be discussing immigration? It is highly doubtful. But when we include individuals willing to view Michael Moore’s moronic rhetoric as intellectual fodder, we are quickly reminded why some cultures are forever doomed to repeat poor fates.

Most sincerely,

Bill

Why are you so afraid?

Rod,

If that is your assessment of what I’ve stated, your reading comprehension is far more deficient than previously noted.
I’ve stated the situation as it is and what must be done in order to address that situation. If your last summation is the best you have to offer, any serious intellectual exchange on the matter is completely wasted on you. That too is okay, we had presumed that was indeed the case.

Wishing you continued bliss,

Bill

You’re finally returning to your pseudo-ivory tower, I take it.

What a shame. It was just starting to get interesting…

Despite your xenophobia, I wish you nothing but the best.

All the best,

Rod

Bill…

P.S. Would you at least allow, in your infinitely compassionate grandeur, asylum to the millions of Iraqis displace by a pre-emptive conflict we started?

Rod,

Au contraire, any amount of ‘compassionate grandeur’ on my part would be minuscule compared to your pious self-righteousness.
Obviously, we observe events far differently. I see the reality of the situation within daily events and you,…well, let us simply say you consider Michael Moore to be an intellect.
I have wasted far too much of my valuable time in giving you the least amount of consideration. I found your gross ignorance regarding the subject matter to be quite droll for a short time, before you simply became boorishly monotonous. The only thing interesting thus far has been your ability to happily continue embarrassing yourself. You have lost tragically any plausibility and the best you can retort is that I am an ivory-towered xenophobe. Obviously, your gross ignorance can only be matched by your gross hypocrisy.
You have offered absolutely no contest when you are given substantiated facts. Instead, you merely respond by diverting the topic.
Your regressive debating skills are equally matched by your regressive education, presumably pre-school.
Remain bliss, it is the one thing you appear to be quite good at.

Most sincerely,

Bill

Bill,

It’s interesting that despite your attempts to remain above the fray, you keep coming back to attack what you have deemed my “self-righteousness.”

Are you afraid of answering the question?

P.S. Is your name really “Bill”?

Rod,

Again, the interesting issue is your inferior reading comprehension and your penchant to divert the topic after you have blatantly lost all credibility.
As for any attacks upon your self-righteousness, I’ll simply retreat into the xenophobic ivory tower in which you’ve continually placed me. Hypocrite.
I have clearly answered your question but I’ll again refer to your lack of reading comprehension.
Remain forever bliss.

Sincerely,

Bill

PS, Yes, my name is “Bill” (the nickname for “William”). ‘Is your name really’ “Rod”? If so, you are pitied, “Rod”.

Bill, Bill, Bill…

I only asked about your name because I wanted to know if you’re using a pseudonym. After all, your writing style is somewhat similar to Nathan Shrader’s, one of the Grind’s staffers.

Sometimes those who seek to protect their public personae tend to vent their true feelings under pseudonyms. Even worse, they do so without any reference for direct contact, further proof of their lack of intestinal fortitude.

As you continually seek to remind me–or maybe yourself at this point–the fact that yours is the superior intellect has never been in question. It’s your lack of courage that leaves something to be desired.

As to whether or not you seek to confirm who I say I am, simply click on the hypertext link with my name on it, and follow it wherever it leads you. I have no doubt that with your peerless research prowess you will soon find me, wherever I might be. You’ll soon come to see that, as opposed to you, I neither hide behind nomes de plume, nor do I seek to spin statistics in order to justify bigotry.

Ball’s in your court now, Bill-The-One-Name-Wonder. Once again–and for the benefit of those bipartisan Americans who are following this thread and anxiously awaiting your next thrilling display of data-fueled acumen–should displaced Iraqis be allowed to emigrate to the United States???

Blissfully yours,

R

Rod,

Bill/William and Nathan are two completely different people. Our staff stands firm in their beliefs and will post as their name, not someone else.

1 from the east coast and 1 is not, I will not go into any further detail (and yes, I have proof to back this up).

Also Guys… Feel free to continute/expand the debate into the forums: http://politicalgrind.com/forum

Thanks for stepping in with the clarification, Grind.

All the best… R

Rod,

Your own responses demonstrate that my fortitude is obviously much greater than you can possibly match. Since you are expressing frustration over your inability to intellectually debate, your calling my courage into question is easily viewed as a veiled threat. Why should you desire direct contact with me? My ‘direct contact’ information serves no legitimate purpose to you. This forum should be quite sufficient for your humiliation without your desire to engage in direct contact.
Simply stated, you have no need to contact me directly nor are you worth my time to have direct contact with. However, if you continue feeling the need to be further humiliated, I’ll arrange for you to contact my receptionist so you may book an appointment and be seen in my xenophobic ivory tower.
My fee requires a $15,000.00 retainer, plus $650/hr. consultation, billed in half-hour increments. Otherwise, do not waste my time.
As for my having any desire to research and verify your identity, why should I bother? I have absolutely no interest in knowing anything more about you. Your pontificating self-righteousness has been absolutely nothing more to us than pure entertainment value. You’ve successfully molded yourself into an object of ridicule.
As for your sending a ball into my court, that feat is impossible as you have repetitiously demonstrated not having any balls to send into anyone’s court.
I have found it interesting that you have chosen to take issue with the ‘Grind’, the very source that allows you to freely espouse your maniacal and (often) incoherent drivel. In so doing you have demonstrated extreme signs of delusion and paranoia as your personal attack upon the ‘Grind’ shows a belief that the “powers that be” must be against you. It’s classic textbook to say the least.
Regardless, the exchange with you has surpassed being droll. You’ve failed miserably to support your original contention when you were called to task and your boorish behavour has spoken volumes for your character (or obvious lack thereof).
You, “Rod”, will do well by returning your focus to Michael Moore films and comic books, abstaining from further making a clown of yourself. At least you appear to have come to terms with your one true talent of remaining bliss.

Sincerely,

Bill (the xenophobic ivory tower dweller)

Dear Mr. Pena,

Thank you for such a well written editorial. Such reasoned postings help to advance the debate and I am pleased to respond, even though I disagree with most of what you said.

The US constitution doesn’t say anything about the US having an obligation to take in immigrants. There is a clause in Article 1, Section 9, granting states the exclusive power to regulate immigration; unfortunately for open borders advocates, that clause expired in 1808. Like the expired portions of the constitution, the Emma Lazarus poem is an artifact of the past, with little relevance to our 21st century world.

You advocate increased immigration as a means of economic revitalization, but economic research doesn’t support your thesis. It is true that increased numbers of young workers would provide a temporary boost to the Social Security system, but there at least two problems with that. One is that low skill, poorly educated workers are an economic drain on the taxpayer, in programs other than Social Security, in the amount of $22,000 a year. 50% of illegal aliens fall into this category, along with 25% of legal immigrants. (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/sr12.cfm). Secondly, even the Social Security program would eventually feel the burden as immigrants began to retire and draw benefits.

I don’t know why Professor Kruger cites theoretical studies about depression of wages by low wage workers , when there are so many real world examples. Take for example the aftermath of the ICE raids on meatpacking plants.  After the raid at Swift & Co. in December the company raised wages and the line of legal applicants for jobs stretched out the door http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5215724,00.html).  Your assertion that Americans won’t take jobs that pay slave wages is to point out the obvious, but your assertion that “American wages are disproportionately higher than those of the rest of the world” is meaningless and irrelevant.  Wages are only relevant to the cost of living in a given area.  A concentration of wealth in a certain geographic area tends to increase both prices and wages.  One could live like a king in India, be middle class in the USA or live near poverty in Japan on exactly the same wages.  So what?  Wages are set to compete for talent in a given job market, where workers expect to live there on that income; at least they were before illegal alien workers took those jobs and starting sending their earnings to foreign countries.   

My insistence that amnesty not be granted to illegal aliens stems from our experience with the 1986 amnesty.  It promised amnesty for current illegal aliens in exchange for border security that would stop illegal crossing once and for all.  Its sponsors promised the American people that there would be no more amnesties!  Instead it inspired a new generation of border crossers and we now have at least four (perhaps ten) times as many illegal aliens now as we had then.  I have reached the sad conclusion that nobody, not Americans nor foreigners, will take our immigration laws seriously until we show that we have the will and the means to enforce them.  That means retrieving that which has been stolen, or in other words, deporting those who work in this country illegally and jailing those who hire them.  That doesn’t mean that I have no sympathy for illegal aliens; I do.  They have been lied to by corrupt politicians like Ted Kennedy for years.  In my plan (http://politicalgrind.com/2007/03/21/a-plan-to-solve-illegal-immigration/) I also include a provision to allow former illegal residents to apply for legal residency in the US, after the illegal workers have been deported and the border is secure.  It is the humane thing to do.  You may think that enforcing US immigration law is draconian but I see no alternative.  I’m sorry that it has come down to this; I really am, but we cannot allow this illegal activity to continue.  No country can allow its most basic laws to be violated by foreigners and continue to call itself a sovereign state.  The practice of rewarding people for violating the law leads to anarchy, which is what another amnesty will mean.

I don’t understand your question about immigration becoming a potential source of revenue to the federal government. Do you actually propose providing job training and education to anyone who invites himself into our country? As I explained above, current low skilled immigrants already cost the US taxpayer $22,000/year apiece. How is that a source of revenue to the government? In any case, even if the question made sense, my answer would be ‘no’. US residency should not simply be sold to anyone who asks for it. Massive numbers of unskilled, uneducated foreigners may increase crowding in in our cities, our schools and our emergency rooms but they aren’t going to revitalize our economy.

Once we get illegal immigration under control, I would not advocate an increase in legal immigration. In the first place, we already take in more immigrants annually than all other countries combined. Besides that, the question goes beyond economics, culture or language; the threat is overpopulation. In short, I think this country is too crowded already. Do the traffic jams not last long enough where you live? Are the roads, the schools and the DMV office not crowded enough? Where does it all end? When is it enough? When our cities look like Calcutta? Overpopulation leads to environmental disaster. Too much wildlife habitat and too much wetland have been lost already. To answer Bill’s question: yes we would certainly still be having this discussion if the US economy were more productive. There may be unlimited economic theories but we only have a limited amount of land.

I see where, in the end, you raise the issue of racial discrimination. As though the only impediment to amnesty for illegal aliens is racial prejudice against Latinos. Time and time again advocates for illegal workers reduce the debate to a matter of racism. For me this issue has never been about race. Thousands of Irish have overstayed their visas and are living illegally in the US. I’m just as adamant about the need to deport the Irish as I am the Mexicans or the Chinese. As a practical matter, the issue involves Latinos more because, while we may have thousands of illegal Irish in this country, we have millions of illegal Mexicans. In my involvement in the border security movement I have never encountered racism against Latinos, which isn’t surprising considering so many in the movement are Latino! (http://www.steinreport.com/archives/009206.html) For me the most important racial dimension to this issue is the way that black people are getting cheated out of opportunities to improve their lot in life, by waves of immigrants, just as they were 100 years ago.

The bottom line is this: the USA only makes up about 4.5% of the world’s population (that’s including illegal residents). About 50% of the world’s population lives in poverty and many (if not most) of them would love to come to the US. We obviously can’t accommodate everyone who wants to come here. Illegal immigration is dangerous and overpopulation degrades our quality of life. This is absolutely a question of national sovereignty, the most serious question we have faced since the 1860’s.

In my writing I have tried to be rational as opposed to emotional. Still I hope I have answered your question as to what I am afraid of.

Sincerely,
Stuart

PS: Your posted comments reminded me of the tragic engineering school shooting that left more than two dozen dead of gunshot wounds at a University. Why did your comments remind me of a school shooting ? Because it happened in Canada where “they don’t lock their doors”.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/mass/marc_lepine/

So the Canadians tightened their gun laws, and the same thing happened again!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/14/ap/world/mainD8K4IIQG0.shtml

Did Michael Moore mention any of this in his film or was he too busy telling us how hateful, violent, xenophobic and backward Americans are?

‘To answer Bill’s question: yes we would certainly still be having this discussion if the US economy were more productive. There may be unlimited economic theories but we only have a limited amount of land.’-Stuart

Stuart,

Yes, I agree with your assessment, of course. However, in the sake of keeping the debate at an oversimplified level to accommodate “Rod”, I refrained from overloading his potential thought processes with such an issue.
You happen to be absolutely correct in your eloquent statement. I’m very happy to have such intelligent neighbours dwelling within my xenophobic ivory tower.

Sincerely,

Bill