Immigrants; Who Cares?

If illegal aliens paid taxes, even more than citizens, would we care that they are here? If we could effectively screen the drug smugglers and potential terrorists, and immigrants paid proportionately more taxes than the services they consume, the only objection to their presence would be bigotry or xenophobia. So I’m sure there’d be few complaints.

I support the proposals for abolishing the 16th amendment, and eliminating all income and payroll taxes in favor of a system of consumption taxes. The "fair tax," most actively advocated by Americans for Fair Taxation, would reorder many economic incentives and would serve to level the playing field in international trade. But the implications for immigration policy might dramatically transform that public debate.

Under a consumption-based tax system everyone who shops pays taxes. Illegal aliens shop. They buy groceries, gasoline, and fast food. One of the criticisms of a consumption tax is that it tends to be regressive by taxing more heavily the lower income individuals who must spend more of their income on necessities. The "fair tax" proposal would provide rebates to Americans to offset the taxes paid on subsistence level purchases. Illegal aliens would not be eligible for that rebate.

Therefore, an illegal alien would be taxed at a significantly higher rate than a citizen. Their incentive would be to become legal or leave. A rational American might even welcome more illegal aliens - they pay higher taxes than the services they can legally access.

I think the most compelling reasons for the fair tax are the ways it creates a more level footing for American products versus imports, and the way it would create incentive for savings rather than debt. The way a fair tax might defuse the current immigration debate is just a bonus.

Michael Smith, Republican Candidate for President

Posted by Michael Smith at October 15, 2006 12:34 AM
Comments
Comment #188252

Michael,

You appear to be a moderate Republican - good luck with that. There might be a way to make a consumption tax fair, but by the time the $$$special interest$$$ had their way with it, the poor and working class would be screwed again.

Posted by: Ray Guest at October 15, 2006 12:51 AM
Comment #188256

That doesn’t sound like much of an incentive for illegal aliens to leave. It sounds more like hanging a big “come to America” sign out for them.

At most, it sounds like an incentive for illegals to minimize their shopping habits and send more of their money home and out of our economy, shop on the black market, or shelter their purchases from any taxation at all through their network of legal friends and associates.

It’s not as if the illegals here don’t know any legal residents who’d be willing to do their now tax-free shopping for them. Perhaps for a fee, a cut lower than paying taxes would be, you and I could make a nice profit shopping for illegal aliens?

The loopholes and the potential for abuse here and for effectively creating whole new classes of illegal behavior is staggering.

I have a better idea. Let’s enforce the laws on the books and make being illegal illegal.

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at October 15, 2006 1:10 AM
Comment #188259

Ray,
Corruption exists in the current system, and would also occur in a consumption tax system; true enough, but that does not address the argument put forth by Michael.

Good article, by the way!

One logistical problem is dtermining which products fit the definition of substicence.

But a more important consideration is the effect upon consumption. We are a consumer driven economy. A consumption tax would deter consumers, and encourage savings & investment.

Because of cultural values, whether they intended to or not, the Japanese pursued an economic philosophy which favored savings. The eventual result was a real estate bust of epic proportions.

The Bush economic plan cut tax rates for the wealthy, cut taxation of dividens, and generally favored large corporations. This policy favored savings and investment, much like a consumption tax would do. Unfortunately, the Bush plan failed to make provisions for the usage of savings or capital investments. As a result, the money left the US. Large corporations recorded great earnings, and outsourced jobs. Without job formation inside the US, consumers in the bottom 80% of the population were never in a position to contribute or save or invest.

The end result of a consumption tax might very well resemble the current one created by the Bush administration: great corporate earnings, greatly increased wealth for those already wealthy- as if they needed the breaks!- little job creation- and, without increasing real wages for most consumers, we see relatively flat equity markets.

Michael, there is a fundamental fairness to your proposal. As a person who makes a very adequate income & who spends very little, your idea makes sense. I am so far outside the mainstream on immigration, I will not bother to comment- basically, I say “open the door”…

… But you need to address the idea of a savings driven economy as opposed to a consumer driven economy. While interesting, the debate over immigration is an economic side dish compared with the larger implications of consumption taxes.

Posted by: phx8 at October 15, 2006 1:19 AM
Comment #188260

Here’s a proposal RE: illegal immigrants…

Make it law that illegal immigrants shall not receive pay higher than what is paid for the same work in their own country. Impose stiff fines on employers who pay wages in excess.

Sit back and watch the illegals swim back home.

Posted by: Don at October 15, 2006 1:20 AM
Comment #188261

Where do you crazy people live? It’s certainly not Los Angeles!

1. It’s not about taxes!

2. Illegal aliens suck the life out of a city! They clog your emergency rooms for free health care (causing many of them to go bankrupt and close). They clog your freeways, causing your commute time to double (not to mention higher fuel consumption). THEY DO NOT ADAPT TO THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE. They bring their language and their culture with them. Thirty years ago, Van Nuys, CA was the “new, hot, trendy place to live”! Now it looks EXACTLY like Tijuana. And I am NOT exaggerating. It is dirty and it is crowded. The crime rate in greater Los Angeles has tripled in the last 30 years. A vast majority of the perpetrators are either illegal aliens or the children of illegal aliens.

3. The federal government is responsible for three things (as a Libertarian, you should know this!): a) policing the streets, b) securing the borders, and c) delivering the mail. Anything beyond that is the responsibility of the state, county and local government. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the US Govt to make sure no one who can do harm to this country (economically or physically) is allowed to cross the borders of this country.

Yes, illegal aliens provide the cheap labor necessary for the US to compete in a global economy. But, it is not worth the problems and heartache they bring with them.

When your area is overrun with them (and it will be if this nonsense doesn’t stop), you’ll be the ones crying out like you hear Los Angeleans crying out now.

I have lived in border states all my life. And illegal immigration has killed the American way of life I once knew.

Posted by: James Hays at October 15, 2006 1:34 AM
Comment #188263

BTW - otherwise I’m in favor of a consumption tax with no loopholes and no exceptions, not even for the poor. EVERY American should contribute to the cost of running this government. Every visitor should contribute to the country they are enjoying. No goods or services should be exempt from taxation. Every person would pay precisely according to their own consumption.

This is the best because it is simple and 100% fair. It is efficient and effective (how un-government-like). The poor already have programs in place that “help” with the costs of living, so they won’t need a tax rebate form.

Posted by: Don at October 15, 2006 1:38 AM
Comment #188268

Mexico is one of our top ten creditors. They loan us a lot of money. They can afford (barely) to do so, because many of their poor come here and do work. Work our industries depend on and that not enough Americans want to do (like pick fruit).

The U.S. has looked the other way when immigrants come here illegally, because we need them. We need them, but can’t afford to pay them a legal wage, give them health care, etc.

If you don’t want illegal immigrants to come here fine businesses that hire them heavily. You don’t need a wall. Just impose a $20,000 fine and then stick with it. On top of that though, recongnize we need this cheap labour. The plan to have the immigrants that are here work under a 10 year plan to become citizens is a good plan. Yes, it’s a forgiveness of sorts, but also realistic and win win.

US businesses that hired illegals did what they needed to to compete and thrive. Illegals did what they needed to to put food on the table. I can understand both of those motivations. There’s no need to punish them (and ourselves) by instituting some draconian and horrendously expensive system for tracking them all down and sending them back. They’ll just come to the US again.

When we consider this issue, we really need to consider what’s best for both our countries instead of just thinking of the letter of the law. There was too much wink wink nod nod on our parts to claim we ever meant the law to be taken totally seriously in the first place.

Posted by: Max at October 15, 2006 5:55 AM
Comment #188269

Dear Mr. Mehlman,
A lot of us are very concerned as to why you and the party we have wholeheartedly supported for many years has chosen to ignore or keep quite about the secretive unconstitutional undertakings that our president in cohoots with the Council on Foreign Relations are doing to bring about the end to U.S. sovereignty as we have always known it with this so-called North American Union. We are beginning to understand why this president doesn’t want border security because he wants open borders and now we wonder does the Republican Party also desire this in defiance of the constitutional process for such treaties. I want you to be honest with me about this because we are disillusioned by your lack of action this and border security and I fear we will conclude we have no reason anymore to support you by voting, which I know will be tragic and hasten this country’s demise. Is it because things have progressed to the point that congress has no say about what is taking place or is it that the Republican led congress agrees with the president and the Council on Foreign Relations? Please respond!

Posted by: David L Lamon at October 15, 2006 6:43 AM
Comment #188278

Michael,

I have difficulties with your article on several points. First, how to we effectively screen illegal immigrants for terrorists and criminals? If they enter the country illegal, there is no screening.

Second, using sales taxes exclusively is regressive. It means the poor and middle class pay a much higher percentage of their income than the wealthy. It shifts the tax burden in a very dramatic way, but wouldn’t corresponding shift political power.

Posted by: Trent at October 15, 2006 9:39 AM
Comment #188281

Dear Michael,

In trying to reform the tax system you are on the right track. But Trent is right, the straight sales tax is regressive. The necessities of life should not be taxed, such as food, gasoline, electricity, water, natural gas, tuition, medical care, insurance, etc., so that those earning less will not overpay taxes proportionately to their incomes. Another problem is that with a comsumption tax is that to save money, people will use underground methods to buy goods: barter, yard sales, etc. Having said this, the concept of a sales tax is so much better than an income tax. It gives people an incentive to earn more, save and invest more, spend less on luxury goods, excercise thrift in other words. We need something like what you describe.

As for the illegal alien issue, it has to be seen separately from the tax issue. Most illegals have at least one job, either under the table, or with a fake ID, and many pay income taxes. The global economy is a fact of life today. We need to make a sharp distinction between those who come here for economic reasons and are a boon to the economy, and those who come here to destroy our society and its free institutions. In real terms that would require a lot more border patrol work, but would cause them to focus exclusively on criminals and people alligned with terrorist groups. This is an extremely important matter ignored by the politicians of both parties.

Posted by: monimac8 at October 15, 2006 10:10 AM
Comment #188285

Michael,

The immigration issue has become untenable for various reasons. You raise some interesting aspects in association with that but we must first of all re-acquire control of immigrant flow. I have read Neil Boortz’s book about the Flat Tax, by the way.
Recently,I put some of my own thoughts together which you might find useful. Here they are:


It would appear that during the mid term elections the topic of immigration will finally be a national hot button for many voters. Because I was an immigrant for 9 years before I became a naturalized US citizen, this subject resonates with me.

Most of us know that for people in the US West and Southwest immigration has been a bone of contention for many years already, but increasingly its growing impact is affecting some very fundamental national parameters, such as secure borders, sharp increases in healthcare expenditures, agribusiness labor issues and the sanctity of laws, to name a few. Maybe the basic reason this issue has reached this fever peak now has to do with the fact that a large percentage of Hispanic immigrants, mostly illegal ones, appear to have no interest in assimilating into the American cultural environment. They may not even try to learn to speak much English, are not eager to get much of an education but do increase the level of petty and serious criminality, wherever they settle down in substantial numbers.

If this observation, for argument’s sake at least, might be considered reasonably accurate, then it behooves us to make sure we understand the reasons for this dismal attitude among so many who frequently and sometimes repeatedly risked life, limb and treasure to get here.

They came because economic conditions are supposedly much better north of our border with Mexico. Once they get here, mostly illegally, they manage to get a menial job somewhere through the large network of established, Spanish speaking, earlier immigrants. No questions asked. Before long they have secured an array of false documentation, giving them access to all kinds of public services, including schooling. With fake driver’s licenses, but no training and no insurance, they are more likely to become a menace on the highways in California and elsewhere, while a certain percentage of them ends up with police records, if not jail time. While they earn cash money, in many cases, they do not pay taxes, yet expect the use of public services they need, including medical.

For a long time now a large number of Americans have been promoting illegal immigration because they feel the USA owes our Hispanic immigrants for perceived past sins, such as taking large parts of the Southwest away from them years ago. These Americans frequently believe the USA to be but a brutal and undeserving country and consequently they justify their expiatory conduct for these national sins by aiding and abetting illegal immigration. Their counsel to immigrants may include not to try to learn English because they won’t need it where they work, nor should they make any efforts to try to assimilate into the American culture because it isn’t worth it. What with bilingual laws still on the books, resulting in Spanish being spoken in educational and public services as well as in stores, telephone companies and other businesses, there is no serious need to even think about assimilating. They are just here for the “easy” money, for which they nevertheless work hard.

These revelations may strike new immigrants as a bit strange but why should they argue with whatever is said as long as they are being cuddled by those misguided, guilt ridden and often very liberal individuals among our American citizens.

As a result, today millions of immigrants form an alien worker contingent in our country that by sheer numbers represents a very serious cultural and political problem. After 30 years or so of this, the sheer size of this alien population in the southwest of the country, often uninterested in and unwilling to assimilate except possibly at no cost or sacrifice to them, yet costing the country billions every year, has reached crisis proportions.

In the relevant local areas our own American culture, loud, yet basically friendly, helpful and economically exciting, is in danger of being overwhelmed by them. Many schools have a majority of Spanish speaking students, many of whom may have little interest in learning to begin with, to the detriment of the few local American students who want an education.

When I decided to leave Europe, 8 years after the end of WW II to emigrate to the USA, the American Consulate put me through all kinds of hoops and checked me out thoroughly, including FBI background checks, medical records, education, ability to communicate in English and fingerprints.

So today, I must admit, I certainly detest the fact that millions of people can just breach the border with relative impunity, get jobs here and live reasonably well, at least compared to where they came from. These people have been breaking our laws for years but WE have let them do that. Since the 1950-ies, as far as I know, only one successful program at immigration control was executed under President Eisenhower. But after he retired the effort was pretty much abandoned. We know the results.

The most illuminating and persuasive analysis of this whole problem, that I am familiar with, is contained in a small tome, titled “Mexifornia” written by Victor Hanson Davis, Ph.D. It should be must reading for every thinking American, and every one of our politicians.

The why of this immigration fiasco is now basically irrelevant. The question is: “what do we have to do to regain control of our own borders and regulate this enormous influx of immigrants”.? Simultaneously we need to modify our approach in order to convince those immigrants that becoming US citizens is both in their best interest as well as our country’s. We should also explain to them that immigration implies a desire to become a citizen and requires special effort to assimilate in the culture of the USA. Temporary work-visas would answer very nicely for those who do not wish to become American.

But one of the first things to help young immigrants along is to remove bi-lingual education from all schools. Instead we should offer free English language lessons in those schools during evening hours with the objective of passing minimum proficiency tests as a requirement for obtaining permanent driver’s licenses for instance. American driver’s licenses should not be handed out to anyone who does not speak enough English to read and understand road signs or is incapable of understanding the rules of the road. As a visitor to the USA in
1950-1951, I acquired a US driver’s license but I certainly spoke enough English to qualify on that score. Why not today’s visitors and immigrants?

The idea of bi-lingual education has done immense harm to those prepared to learn a new language after their arrival, but denied that opportunity by well-meaning but disastrous educational methods. This idea of bi-lingual education is now finally being phased out I believe, but many of its proponents are not yet prepared to admit to its failure.

As we now know, the dogmatic, utopian approach of dealing with these “poor”, but enterprising immigrants has been a complete failure far beyond the realm of Hispanic immigration.

In other words, to get our immigration process back on track it needs to contain an effective educational component. For those who work during the day it will mean night school, heavy on language and less so on ways to teach the participants how the country works on a day-to-day basis.

For children of school age who do not speak any English, immersion courses would be desirable and as soon as they can communicate they should be put in grades consistent with their prior schooling. This might well create some problems because of older immigrant pupils in the same classes with younger American kids.
But over time these changes should have a beneficial impact on young immigrants as well as our own children who will find in the schools what they expected this country to be all about in the first place. Later on it will be natural and desirable for them to become good US citizens.

It goes without saying that teachers should refrain from opinionating in school about the political aspects of this process. They should be instructed to teach their subjects and to leave their personal biases at home.

We should agree that as a country we have, in effect, basically caused this current Hispanic immigration problem, through misguided policies and philosophies in the past. Hence, we should realize that some concessions, in law, attitude, immigrant processing and politics, need to be made.

Consequently and to get back on track we should be magnanimous and extend a one time dispensation for all illegal immigrants already here and employed and invite them to register and receive legitimate entry visas and papers. Fingerprinting etc. should be very much part of the registration process. All illegal immigrants might be invited to pick up forms at the nearest post office to establish their name, date of original registration and personal particulars to be sent to the State’s immigration authorities. The whole process will probably take many months but that is to be expected.

At the same time, special legislation should be passed to tell all “illegals”, without police records, that they will not be deported but need to be properly registered over a period of time. They may have to pay a fine and be required to enroll in special classes to learn English and re-take driving tests. When applying for driver’s licenses or renewals they will have to submit to a basic language test. We should issue them green-card equivalents but with the stipulation that they can make only a very limited number of short duration trips abroad every year. If they end up in jail they will forfeit their cards and be deported, for ever.

What we should not do in my judgment, under any circumstances, is to hold businesses responsible for determining whether a job applicant is legal or illegal. That is grossly unfair and irrelevant to a business’ responsibilities and it would put a very expensive and time consuming and unreliable burden on the economy that could have nasty consequences.

I believe that a prospective immigrant employee, if offered a job, should be required, as a condition of employment, to get a current statement from the local police department, that would confirm his immigration bonafides. But let’s not burden businesses with what is clearly a governmental responsibility.

These recommendations are necessary to re-establish the basic self-help approach and attitude to life and personal development that made this country the envy of the world and which still is the reason why so many want to come here and escape their current unattractive circumstances wherever they live now.

As a former immigrant myself I can only hope that our politicians will get their act together soon and resolve an issue which has become an embarrassing and national nightmare.

Fred




Fred

Posted by: fred at October 15, 2006 10:45 AM
Comment #188287

Michael, I have to disagree with you on both your major points.

First even if we could screen out terrorists and criminals while maintaining illegal immigration (which of course, we can’t), there is still the issue of whether the United States is a nation of law or men. If we are to continue our proud and great history as a nation of law, then, the laws must be enforced which negates anykind of illegal immigration.

Sales tax will bankrupt America. It will shrink the middle class which will be asked to bear the greatest burden, pushing more into the sub-middle class especially when the next recession comes, and it exempts and perserves the concentrated wealth from being redistributed and recycled through our U.S. Economy. There are some positive aspects to the sales tax especially when value added taxes are added to it for production and corporations. But, in the end, it just raises the cost of doing business in the U.S. and promotes the already huge exodus of American jobs to foreign nations. So, its promise to increase corporate revenues is an empty one in the long run.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 15, 2006 11:00 AM
Comment #188295

For the sake of brevity, let’s save the Fair Tax issues for another day. For now I recommend the American for Fair Taxation website.

To those that argue “illegal is illegal:” Well, yeah. I’m suggesting that we change the standard, change the process, and yes - make it easier to admit, document, and track immigrants. We have something like 12 million illegals right now; it’s obvious that the current approach isn’t working. If we can at least structure a working gateway process it gives a point at which to try to control the drug smugglers and terrorists. A big fence is a placebo. It makes for good symbolism, but it ain’t gonna work.

To those who argue that the immigrants ruin our cities and bankrupt our services: That’s the point of capturing some tax revenue. If they’re paying for services, even over-paying, your complaint is negated. If you simply object to hearing Spanish at the bus stop, or seeing “foreigners” at the mall, you’re a bigot. Present a sound economic argument and we’ll talk.

Regarding the possible, even probable black market and schemes for tax evasion: What? It couldn’t be much worse than the current situation. And how will a neighbor or black marketer circumvent the sales tax? If an immigrant comes to me and says, “Hey, can you buy me some groceries? I don’t want to pay the sales tax?” What am I going to do? Buy the groceries, pay the tax, and then resell them at a discount? Sure, there will be some back-door economy in homegrown vegetables, black market cigarettes, and yard-sale handmedowns; but that’s no different than now.

And yes, some immigrants send their money home. But what they do spend would generate taxes, and what they send home helps keeps a family at home.

Mexico is one of our top creditors? That has to do with our insane deficit spending. Immigrants sending money home are not doing so to invest in international debt.

The current debate on immigration has been little more than pandering to the “illegal is illegal” mindset, and has been, for lack of a better word, unsporting. It puts all the blame on the immigrants who have no substantial voice in our process and are guilty of little more than leaving desperate poverty to fill jobs across an unsecured border. I support better border security, but let’s hear the politicians and talk-radio blowhards talk about the employers that subvert the law to improve their profits. Let’s hear about the corrupt, life-threatening conditions that pervade Mexico and Central America. And let’s skip the xenophobic whining about English as “our” language. If a community is paying its taxes, they can speak pig-latin for all I care.

Several cited concerns about the regressive nature of the sales tax. That’s absolutely valid, and I feel the rebate system developed by fair tax advocates is a sound response to that concern. Check out their site, and we can perhaps discuss their proposal in more detail another day.

Michael

Posted by: Michael Smith at October 15, 2006 1:01 PM
Comment #188296

Micheal, If the illegals did all that you mentioned they would still be here illegally. If we give in now as we did in the 80’s when do you think the influx of illegals will cease?

Fred, One of the main reasons for people to enter this country illegally, we hear, is for jobs. The businesses that hire the illegals are already required to check the status of newly hired people.They dont. To enforce this negligence, on the part of the self surving bussiness that violate the law, is the only fair way to create a healthy business climate for those that obide by the rules.

Posted by: j2t2 at October 15, 2006 1:08 PM
Comment #188303

We need real tax reform.
The tax system we have only needs a few simplificaitons.
Get rid of ALL deduction tax loop holes.
Tax everyone a flat 17% on all income that exceeds the poverty level. Likewise with gifts adn inheritance income. NO more clever trusts, estate plans, and other such crap all designed to get around paying taxes.

Importing illegal aliens, massive numbers of the impoverished, and uneducated, will not solve our economic problems. It will only make it worse. Already, 32% to 46% of illegal aliens receive welfare. 29% of all incarcerated in state and federal prisons are illegal aliens. The net losses to U.S. tax payers is over $70 billion per year (that’s AFTER including the value of their work and taxes paid). Only about half of all illegal aliens pay income taxes.

Of course, wishing for tax reform is like wishing for any reform (e.g. campaign finance reform, term limits, election reform, etc.). Irresponsible incubments of neither party will ever pass any of these badly-needed, common-sense, no-brainer reforms. They like things just the way they have perverted them.

And neither party will enforce the existing laws.

So why obey any laws?

If the government is going to cheat, and refuse to enforce existing laws, why should I continue to pay taxes or obey any laws ?

But WE keep re-electing them (Democraps and Republicrooks) ! ? ! ? !

Bad Voters = Bad Politicians = Bad Government

Posted by: d.a.n at October 15, 2006 1:42 PM
Comment #188305

The SOLUTION for the illegal alien problem.

The SOLUTION for the ridiculous tax system problem.

The SOLUTION to make the other two SOLUTIONS possible.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 15, 2006 1:48 PM
Comment #188309

An illegal alien is an illegal alien whether they pay taxes or not. Just being here illegally makes them criminals, and as such they need to be deported. Our immigration laws need to be enforced. And our borders secured to keep illegals out.
If you start making illegals pay taxes at a higher rate than US citizens and legal aliens they’ll start demanding to have the same rights US citizens have. It’s bad enough that they want them now. Just start making them pay higher taxes and watch what happens.

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 15, 2006 2:13 PM
Comment #188314

Ron Brown

Did you know that several incubment politicians want to give illegal aliens Social Security?
Man Oh man on man … Is there anyone in D.C. and Congress that are not complete ignoramuses?

Most voters want the problem resolved.
Most voters want a lot of problems resolved.

Well, re-electing irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for, look-the-other-way, do-nothing incumbent politicians won’t resolve those problems.

Even though recent polls show 50% of voters say they are not going to voter for incumbents, watch … I’d love to be wrong about this, but it is a very, very, very difficult to get people to overcome the blind party loyalty and brainwashing. Regardless of the massive reasons for not re-electing irresponsible incumbents, that’s what voters keep doing.

Voters are culpable too, and they will eventually reap what they sow. Voters will eventually feel the consequences for their own negligence. The fiscal picture (despite the Rosy spin that things are “good”, “very good”, and “just fine”) is an illusion financed with massive debt, borrowing, spending, and money-printing. The potential for an economic melt-down is not far fetched. Not at all. Look closely. A few cherry picked stats don’t tell the whole picture.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 15, 2006 3:38 PM
Comment #188315

Ron
If we deport all the illegal immigrants in this country or even try California will collapse. Probably there will be massive riots all over the country. Like, say, all the garden workers in Los Angeles putting Hollywood and Malibu and Newport Beach to the torch. Mass deportation is a recipe for disaster. Even if we did it California’s economy especially would die.

Michael
“The current debate on immigration has been little more than pandering to the “illegal is illegal” mindset, and has been, for lack of a better word, unsporting. It puts all the blame on the immigrants who have no substantial voice in our process”

did you miss all the big protests? The nationwide boycott? Illegals have a voice. Legal immigrants also speak for them. When they demand rights usually reserved for citizens, since they’re doing jobs americans don’t want to do, they are commiting economic blackmail. “You need us, so give us what we want.”

It is time for:
1)plan for long-term legalization of immigrants already here. English proficiency required.
2)The end of all public services to illegals: hospitals, schools, welfare, etc. Also get rid if bilingual government services. This includes ballots.
-2 will ensure immigrants go along with 1. Protests should not be widespread because immigrants will be legalized, thus no more illegals to penalize
3)harsh penalties for businesses that knowingly employ illegals. Like $20,000 per worker
-No jobs means no more illegals
4)Latin American-only special immigration policy. Basically guest worker program but only for latinos-no terrorists.
5)some sort of partnership to reduce Central and South American poverty.
6)Put national gaurd on border, with authority to arrest attempted immigrants. This is better than a wall. No wall will keep immigrants out if no one or not enough people gaurd it.
7)If illegals commit a crime we charge their home country for cost of legal defense, incarceration and payment for damages.

Posted by: Silima at October 15, 2006 3:58 PM
Comment #188336

Silma,
I like items (2) and (3).
Number (3) mentions a $20,000 fine. What ever the fine is, the amount of the fine should double with each separate violation. Repeat violators will get the message as the fines increase (e.g. $20K, $40K, $80K, $160K, $320K, $640K, $1280K, etc.).
Number (1) is a bad idea, because it lets illegal aliens that have already disrespected our laws, to jump to the front of the legal immigration line. That is not fair to those that play by the rules, and it will cause a massive influx as soon as that becomes policy. Massive deporation is not necessary either. Illegal aliens will leave when there’s no jobs here for them.
Number (4) is yet another Guest Worker program. All of those are not necessary. Guest worker programs are merely a way for some employers to exploit an under-paid, under-class.
Number (5) is OK, depending on how it is done. Massive U.S. tax dollars should not be used to finance it though.
Number (6) is about securing the border. A fence (not a wall) would be useful, because it provides a time-delay that is very important in apprehending illegal trespassers. Without any barrier, their is nothing to slow them down at all. The fence serves a useful purpose.
Number (7) won’t work. Foreign nations won’t pay damages or legal costs. They’ll laugh and throw the bill in the trash.

Former mayor Ed Koch has the right idea.
Mass deportation is not necessary.
Simply stop employing illegal aliens and fine the employers, and the illegal aliens will leave. Perhaps we can help by providing $500 (per person) and pre-paid transportation to each illegal alien volunteering to leave the U.S. (details).

Posted by: d.a.n at October 15, 2006 6:35 PM
Comment #188345

Michael Smith - Republican candidate for President,

If these are the things you support, I sorry to tell you that you will not receive my vote for President. That FairTax thing as it is currently written has some serious flaws. But it creates a lot of questions and fails to answer several, so I have some issues with it:

  • the FairTax.org recommends a 23% sales tax rate (23% inclusive, but actually, it is a 30% sales tax on the price of the item purchased). That is, if you buy a $100 item, your tax is $30, which is 30% of $100. It is a bit dishonest to call that a 23% sales tax, when most people understand sales tax to be a percentage of the item purchased. Fairtax.org calls it a 23% tax by calculating $30 on the sum of $130 ($30 / $130 = 23%). Either way, 23% or 30%, it is very high sales tax.

  • Such a high rate (23% inclusive, 30% exclusive) will almost guarantee blackmarkets and tax evasion.

  • There is less transparency of sales taxes collected, versus income tax (especially if you consider the number of sales to the number of people with income). Less transparency will breed more corruption.

  • There is insufficient proof to show that all will be taxed equally (based on income). Since most people insist that the objective is to tax income equally, (except the poorest below the poverty level), how does the fairtax plan prove that income will be taxed equally ? That is a very interesting point. If the main question about any tax system that is continually asked is “Will everyone (excluding the poor) pay their fair (or equal) percentage of tax related to income?”, then what does that tell you? It seems many people still want the end result of any tax system to be that everyone pays their fair (or equal) percentage of income (excluding those below the poverty level, which would pay zero tax). Therefore, if we are continually tasked with proving that any tax system, in the end, must fairly tax income the same percentage (excluding the poor who pay zero tax), then why not simply retain the income tax (but greatly simplified)?

In my opinion, the FairTax.org plan will let the wealthiest evade more taxes than ever before. If the goal is to tax income equally (as most people want), then why complicate it by trying to place the tax on sales (on the other end of the spectrum)? Also, we might end up with both a federal sales tax, and federal income taxes. All that is required is a simplification of the existing system. Make it a flat 17% rate income tax, eliminate all the tax loop holes, and don’t tax anyone until their income exceeds the established poverty level.

OBJECTIVE: design a tax plan where all pay the same percentage of income ( except the poor, which pay nothing ), and satisfy the following:
(01) has a sufficient probability of actually taxing income equally;
(02) retains Social Security and accounting for it (currently 12.4% on first $90K gross income);
(03) retains Medicare and accounting for it (currently 1.9% on gross income;
(04) defines the tax collection methods;
(05) has a sufficient probability of compliance;
(06) does not increase tax evasion;
(07) does not increase black markets;
(08) does not driveup the cost of all products and exports;
(09) does not tax the poor and truly needy;
(10) resolves question of whether corporations should be taxed?
(11) adequately integrates and/or replaces old systems with new systems;
(12) does not double tax: for example, with the fairtax plan, the vastly wealthy get double taxed, since they already paid income tax on much of their money? That will go over like a lead balloon.

The obvious question, is: since the objective is to tax income equally, (except the poorest below the poverty level), how does the fairtax plan prove that income will be taxed equally ?

Also, here’s a very interesting point. One question about any tax system that is continually asked is:


Will everyone (excluding the poor) pay their fair (or equal) percentage of tax related to income ?

Interesting isn’t it? What does that tell you? It seems many people still want the end result of any tax system to be that everyone pays their fair (or equal) percentage of income (excluding those below the poverty level, which would pay zero tax).

So, if we’re continually tasked with proving that any tax system, in the end, must fairly tax income the same percentage (excluding the poor who pay zero tax), then why not simply retain the income tax, except make it a flat tax rate of 17%, eliminate all loop-holes, deductions, subsidies, which will also mean little or no changes for accounting for Income tax, Social Security tax, and Medicare tax.

Also, your position on the illegal immigration bothers me. It is also a slap in the face to immgrants that come here legally, and U.S. citizens being forced to pay the costs ($70 billion per year), and all of the guest worker plans and schemes are clever ways to disguise a the preservation of a stream of cheap-labor; to exploit an under-paid, under-class. Greed is behind it, and those behind it don’t care that 32% to 46% of illegal aliens receive welfare. Our prisons consist of 29% illegal aliens. The net losses to American voters is over $70 billion per year, and the government still refuses to enforce the existing laws. And that does not even address the costs of crime, disease, and 2.4 million displaced American workers. Also, those saying the U.S. will crumble without illegal aliens is a farce. You can pick a whole LOT of lettuce for $70 billion per year.

Michael Smith wrote: I think the most compelling reasons for the fair tax are the ways it creates a more level footing for American products versus imports, and the way it would create incentive for savings rather than debt. The way a fair tax might defuse the current immigration debate is just a bonus.
Michael, you’d better take a long and careful look at the Fairtax. What proof do you have that the Fairtax can create a level footing for American products versus imports? Also, asserting that the fairtax can defuse the immigration debate is quite a stretch. Should that be a goal for the design of any tax system? That’s a strange assertion.

Michael,
If you really want to do something about taxes, SIMPLIFY the current tax system, and get all the tax loop holes removed (that are vastly abused by the wealthy).

If you want to do something about illegal immigration, how about just enforcing the EXISTING laws? No amnesty. No guest worker programs. No mass deportation by force. Help them leave if necessary (for those that volunteer), and start heavily fining employers that illegal employ illegal aliens.

Here’s some other badly-needed, common-sense, no-brainer reforms to consider.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 15, 2006 7:36 PM
Comment #188359

d.a.n
Did you know that several incumbent politicians want to give illegal aliens Social Security?

Now why don’t it surprise me any?

Man Oh man on man … Is there anyone in D.C. and Congress that are not complete ignoramuses?

NO!

Silima
Well gee golly, lets just put the welcome mat out and invite more illegals here. After all we don’t want those poor babies out in LA LA Land to suffer any. Just think they just might have to do their own yard work for a change. Maybe even (shutter) clean their own houses.
ALL illegals need to need to be deported ASAP. If they start rioting then we have good reason to shoot them and then we won’t have to worry about them trying to sneak back in.
Fact is illegals are hurting this country and it’s economy. Not helping it.
If all y’all far left coasters want to let them use your hospitals, schools, welfare system, fine, invite them there. Just don’t ask me to foot the bill for y’all. And make sure they stay there. We sure as hell don’t want them here on the right coast.


Posted by: Ron Brown at October 15, 2006 9:21 PM
Comment #188387

OK, I’m not going to try to refute every xenophobic rant, but James Hays said:

3. The federal government is responsible for three things (as a Libertarian, you should know this!): a) policing the streets, b) securing the borders, and c) delivering the mail. Anything beyond that is the responsibility of the state, county and local government. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the US Govt to make sure no one who can do harm to this country (economically or physically) is allowed to cross the borders of this country.

There’s no excuse for getting the Constitution wrong. There is general language about providing for the common defense, but there’s no mention of “policing the streets.” Article 1, section 8 includes post offices and post roads, but also includes naturalization, regulating currency, patents, commerce, foreign debt, and establishing army and navy.

Please don’t use the Constitution to support your narrow-minded cleansing of Los Angeles.

Michael

Posted by: Michael Smith at October 16, 2006 12:38 AM
Comment #188388

Michael

Yes he made a mistake on the “police the streets”

But pretty much everything else he wrote was spot on. I don’t know where you live, but I also live in LA. The changes here in the last 20 years are amazing and not for the better.

Posted by: Keith at October 16, 2006 12:43 AM
Comment #188396

Are the problems of LA, if they weren’t conveniently attached to a hispanic population, any different that the problems of poverty in Chicago, New York, or any other large urban area? I think the debate on immigration detracts from the tough work that should be done on an American economy that is excessively burdened by debt, losing wages overseas, and excluding whole segments of the population from opportunity.

The only foreigners that I fear are the Chinese (natonally, not ethnically), whose economy is draining US wages and eagerly gobbling up much of the $30k-worth of debt for American man, woman, and child. If I had 5% interest on the $120k debt my family of four carries, I could use that $6k for health insurance or a good chunk of my kids’ higher education.

Our government “leaders” need to really address the issues at hand, rather than scapegoating those at the bottom of the political pecking order.

Posted by: Michael Smith at October 16, 2006 1:11 AM
Comment #188419
Michael Smith - Republican for President wrote: OK, I’m not going to try to refute every xenophobic rant, but James Hays said: 3. The federal government is responsible for three things (as a Libertarian, you should know this!): a) policing the streets, b) securing the borders, and c) delivering the mail. Anything beyond that is the responsibility of the state, county and local government. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the US Govt to make sure no one who can do harm to this country (economically or physically) is allowed to cross the borders of this country.

What would you call the net loss of $70 billion per year? (that includes the taxes that half of all illegal aliens pay, and the value of their work; but does not include the loses due to crime, murders, disease, and 2.3 million displaced American workers).

So, anyone who disagrees with you is a xenophobe, eh ?
How lame.
It has nothing to do with xenophobia, or race, or color, or any of those commonly used EXCUSES.
You would rather resort to the same old, tired excuses than debate the PROs and CONs, and the fact the EXISTING laws are being selectively ignored. Why? Greed. Employers of illegal aliens are profiting from cheap labor, but don’t give a damn about the costs to U.S. citizens.

Michael Smith - Republican for President wrote: There’s no excuse for getting the Constitution wrong. There is general language about providing for the common defense, but there’s no mention of “policing the streets.” Article 1, section 8 includes post offices and post roads, but also includes naturalization, regulating currency, patents, commerce, foreign debt, and establishing army and navy. Please don’t use the Constitution to support your narrow-minded cleansing of Los Angeles.

Michael, You just said above that the federal government is (1)supposed to protect the border, and (2)protect the people from economic harm. $70 billion per year in net losses qualifies.

Michael Smith - Republican for President wrote: Are the problems of LA, if they weren’t conveniently attached to a hispanic population, any different that the problems of poverty in Chicago, New York, or any other large urban area?
Who cares? It doesn’t matter where they come from. You’re trying to play the race card. Another lame tactic.
Michael Smith - Republican for President wrote: I think the debate on immigration detracts from the tough work that should be done on an American economy that is excessively burdened by debt, losing wages overseas, and excluding whole segments of the population from opportunity.
Then why did you write this article ? ! ? ! ? !

Besides, illegal immigration is an important topic, because it is costing the U.S. citizens $70 billion per year in net losses, and those losses are more concentrated in some states than others (which explains the disinterest of those in states that are not heavily impacted).

OK, let’s do as you ask. Let’s discuss federal DEBT .
$8.6 trillion of National Debt.
$12.8 trillion of Social Security Debt.
$450 billion of Pension Benefit Guaranty Debt.
$hundred$ of billions of unfunded Medicare and Medicaid liabilities.
$hundred$ of billions of unfunded Iraq war liabilities.
$hundred$ of billions of unfunded hurricane Katrina/Rita liabilities.
A total of about $22 trillion of federal debt.
Then, add $20 trillion of personal debt, nation-wide.

Now, as a Republican, explain how your party increased the National Debt by $3 trillion since year 2000 ?

Michael Smith - Republican for President wrote: The only foreigners that I fear are the Chinese (natonally, not ethnically), whose economy is draining US wages and eagerly gobbling up much of the $30k-worth of debt for American man, woman, and child.
Why? Sounds sort of xenophobic? We benefit from lower cost products from China. China is competing in a global economy. Nobody is forcing us to buy from China. How do you propose to stop that? Want to be mad at someone? How about US, because our own corporations moved to China, India, Malaysia, etc. Our corporations have NO loyalty to the U.S. citizens. You are blaming China for the wrong reasons. Look at companies like DELL that shipped jobs to India. The quality of many things suffered. Especially tech-support. The problem is the greed of owners of Corporations. Many U.S. corporations lack scruples, and will simply descend upon any nation with cheaper labor. When the cost of labor increases, it moves to a new place. There’s always somewhere else to find cheap labor. If U.S. citizens don’t like it, then they should not support corporations that show no loyalty to U.S. citizens. But that won’t happen, because the U.S. citizens are greedy too. They like the cheap prices at Walmart. So, your economic fear of China is misplaced. Besides, China is buying our national debt. China is a huge investor in the U.S. National Debt. So, again, who is to blame for that? Did we foolishyly and irresponsibly hand over a portion of the control of our monetary system to China? Government increased the debt by $3 trillion since 2000. This illusion of a “good” economy is being funded with massive debt, borrowing, spending, pork-barrel, and money-printing. There will be consequences, and it is not China’s fault.

Likewise with illegal aliens. Who can blame illegal aliens merely looking for work? The real problem is the irresponsible government that ignores the law, and refuses to enforce existing laws, to exploit a under-paid, under-class.

Michael Smith - Republican for President wrote: If I had 5% interest on the $120k debt my family of four carries, I could use that $6k for health insurance or a good chunk of my kids’ higher education.
Michael Smith, This nation is swimming in debt. $20 trillion nation-wide in personal debt. $22 trillion in federal debt. $42 trillion in total nation-wide debt (maybe more by some estimates). I’m not wealthy, but have no debt. Too many Americans are living way beyond their means. Foreclosures have been rising for over a year. Median wages have been falling since 1999. And debt has been rising. And the next economic down-turn may be harder than usual to recover from … especially with so much fiscal and moral irresponsibility within government, and slumbering voters that keep re-electing them.
Michael Smith - Republican for President wrote: Our government “leaders” need to really address the issues at hand, rather than scapegoating those at the bottom of the political pecking order.
Illegal aliens should NOT be mistreated. But, they should NOT be rewarded either. No amnesty. No mass deportation by force. Have you forgotten the amnesty of 1986 which quadrupled the problem? Illegal aliens must get in line behind everyone else in the waiting list. If you give them amnesty, watch the problem quadruple AGAIN, from 12 million to 48 million illegal aliens.

But, you are right about one thing.

Irresponsible politicians created this serious problem, and now they are despicable, by pitting U.S. citizens and illegal aliens against each other, rather than simply enforce the EXISTING laws.

Politicians are bought-and-paid-for.
They don’t want to lose the big-money-donors.
They don’t want to lose votes either (yes, illegal aliens are voting in our elections too).
In fact, some politicians want to buy votes by giving them amnesty. Hopefully, this despicable behavior will not go unnoticed by U.S. citizens. Voters had better wake up before they are over-run by millions and millions of more illegal aliens (some that vote too). Importing millions of impoverished and uneducated might be good for profits for some greedy employers, who make fat campaign donations to incumbent politicians, but it is bad for America. Massive, uncontrolled illegal immigration creates societal disorder, resentment, increased crime, burdens on schools, prisons, law enforcement, border patrol, healthcare, Medicaid, welfare, hospitals, and voting systems. You can pick a lot of lettuce for $70 billion per year.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 16, 2006 10:15 AM
Comment #188430

Michael,
I have read with interest what you had to say about taxes and I am still mulling it over, however, I do see potential problems that others have addressed.

I think, however, that your comment to James Hayes showes just how uncaring politicians are in regards to the border issue that faces many of us southern states. Someday our problem will be a USA problem but my then it will be to late to make the changes that need to be addressed now. We are all xenophobic in your eyes because we see a problem that will change the face of our country politically and economically, but heaven forbid that we should voice our concerns in this free democratic country, but the illigals can rally, burn our flag and make demands and the politicians roll over. Why is that???

David, you are right on spot with the Noth American Union thing and I am afraid we USA Americans are blindly being led to suck it up and join the party.

Fred,
Your comments were the best of all in my opinion. We need to remove bi-lingual education. As a reading specialist in education I know the problems it has caused and will continue to do unless changes are made. I am not for the pig-latin thing. Our common language gives us a common bond as a country no matter what country you come from. No child left behind is a joke as well. Teachers are teaching to have children pass tests not teaching to learn anymore because their jobs are on the line. Children are being exempt from taking the tests for various reasons as well.

Oh, FYI they alread are getting Social Security benifits.

I can understand a person wanting better for themselves and their children, but does that mean that the USA should be the ones to do that for them? Where is the responsiblility and standard their own governments should provide for them. They need to inact change within their own countries governments. Is it fair to those who have done the right thing (abided by our laws) and entered this country the right way? Is it fair to say to one group of people we are not holding them to this high standard that we expect from everyone else? Is it just that because they have a river to cross and not an ocean that they should expect that our laws are somehow different for them? Should the USA tax payer have to pay medical, educational and other benefits for someone who has broken our laws and that should be reserved for own citizens? Fred, I am going to buy that book you mentioned today.

Here is my suggestions:
1. No amnesty-in my opinion the first one is what got us in this mess in the first place.
2. If you are here and want to stay go home, apply and be willing to serve in our military for 4 years first. If you do then you have earned the right to be here (with your immendiate family) if you are willing to put your life on the line to defend us.
3. No criminals need apply. You won’t be accepted.
4. No benefits period for you or your children unless you have gone through the above process.
5. It’s time we put the jail inmates to work for their keep. Have them pick the produce, cotton etc. with armed guards, and those that do get privileges or insentives for doing so.
6. It’s time to stop with the mentality that we need them (the illigals) because it appears they need us much more. Let’s show them that we are a self sufficient country.
7. It’s time we put God back in our country because he is what has made us great.

Posted by: willag1 at October 16, 2006 11:41 AM
Comment #188431

d.a.n.

I agree with a lot of what you say. However, business is not fully to blame for moving some of their operations overseas. Big labor has a lot to do with it. For too many years they had a free reign at raising wages on unskilled workers. What happened is they priced themselves right out of the market. The days of a line worker making 25 - 35 dollars an hour with full benefits are gone. They were an inflated wage to begin with and helped to skew the market toward the international markets. Detroit in particular had trouble competing since labor was such a large percentage of the cost of making their cars.

Also the 450 billion in unfunded pensions is way low. In California alone with the new accounting rules that say the states have to show what their unfunded libilities are, low estimates are around 400 billion with the high estimate around a trillion. All those good years in the 90’s whn the pols in California were making sweetheat deals with the unions will come back on us much faster then the netional debt will.

Posted by: Keith at October 16, 2006 11:51 AM
Comment #188450

Keith,

You are absolutely right about that. Big labor unions (most of which have Democrat incumbents in their pocket) helped bring about their own demise. I could tell you stories about working as a non-union software developer at General Dynamics F16 factory (which had a union) that perfectly exemplified the problem. Yes, they screwed around and put themselves out of a job, and bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians helped them do it. I don’t blame corporations for shipping those jobs overseas.

Regardless, the outsourcing is tough to stop. What should be discouraged are corporations that are running sweat shops, using child labor, extremely long work hours. U.S. corporations can’t control everything that happens in the factories of their offshore suppliers, but they also don’t have to do business with offshore supply factories that are doing such things. Walmart freely admits to the fact that some of their suppliers are doing such things, and makes the excuse that Walmart can’t control it, but it can … stop using that supplier. Otherwise, Walrart is complicit.

Workers coming out of GM plants are not wearing GM T-shirts. They are wearing UAW T-shirts. So, there’s been a lack of loyalty on both sides. Many of this nation’s problems are due to US as a whole. Likewise with government, since we elect it (over and over).
There was a place for Unions, and may still be someday. However, Unions have lost their power, and they have themselves to thank for it too.

Keith wrote: Also the 450 billion in unfunded pensions is way low.
Yeah, maybe. I was going off this article. Also, this article (www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6426&sequence=0) estimates total potential underfunding may be as high as $1.2 trillion. Yes, some people will feel the pain of NO pension faster than the National Debt. But, all these factors combined is a recipe for disaster. Massive debt, borrowing, and money-printing, and the federal govenment is still over-spending like crazy, with annual deficits for many years (or decades) to come (if that’s even possible; a melt-down may occur first).
  • Posted by: d.a.n at October 16, 2006 3:01 PM
    Comment #188452

    willag1 wrote:
    Here is my suggestions:

    • 1. No amnesty-in my opinion the first one is what got us in this mess in the first place. [Yes, no amnesty. The amnesty of 1986 quadrupled the problem. The U.S. gave amnest to 3 million and they thanked us by inviting their 4 closest relatives. However, pre-requisite military duty is too much, and wide open to abuse by government that is already full of corruption, starting wars based on flawed intelligence, and trumped up reasons. Thus, immigrants simply need to get in line, no cutting to the front of the line, and wait their turn, which may never come, which is tough. The U.S. is not for the public use of the rest of the world no more than your home is.]

    • 2. If you are here and want to stay go home, apply and be willing to serve in our military for 4 years first. If you do then you have earned the right to be here (with your immendiate family) if you are willing to put your life on the line to defend us. [Agreed]

    • 3. No criminals need apply. You won’t be accepted. [Agreed]

    • 4. No benefits period for you or your children unless you have gone through the above process. [Agreed]

    • 5. It’s time we put the jail inmates to work for their keep. Have them pick the produce, cotton etc. with armed guards, and those that do get privileges or insentives for doing so. [Agreed]

    • 6. It’s time to stop with the mentality that we need them (the illigals) because it appears they need us much more. Let’s show them that we are a self sufficient country. [Agreed]

    • 7. It’s time we put God back in our country because he is what has made us great. [It already is there for those that choose; no need to force it on others; remember, not everyone has the same religion, and some have no religion. Tolerance and respect is all that is required there. Most Americans understand this, and respect the 1st Amendment.]

    The Problem
    The Solution

    Posted by: d.a.n at October 16, 2006 3:27 PM
    Comment #188462

    d.a.n.

    Sorry it was national not just California. But the numbers are still staggering.

    Governments set to be shocked

    Posted by: Keith at October 16, 2006 5:55 PM
    Comment #188469
    Keith wrote: Sorry it was national not just California. But the numbers are still staggering.

    Thanks for that link.
    Yes, the numbers are disturbing.
    Yet, some in the “IN PARTY” always want to spin things as Rosy. This very minute, some are trying to tell us how good things are going in Iraq. It’s a classic case of psychological denial.

    Look at what Americans think about population growth …

    Hopefully, this will translate into votes to stop re-electing the despicably irresponsible incumbent politicians (which is most of them) that are causing it. The politicians don’t care about Americans anymore. Just profits, and new ways to shift costs to the slumbering U.S. taxpayers.

    Posted by: d.a.n at October 16, 2006 6:34 PM
    Comment #188525

    willag1
    thanks for your comments. You raise some interesting options once the will is there that we need to get immigration control back in place. Indeed we do not owe any immigrant a permanent living. They come of their own free will. What they need to understand real quick is that they will not become permanent residents, with all the attributes thereof, if they cannot make it economically on their own and reach a qualifying status to want to become citizens. I do have a problem with your idea of enlisting them in the military first of all. It’s a tempting thought but would we want a lot of “foreigners” without adequate language and cultural skills in our military. The military is a band of brothers, all people you can really rely on in a firefight. I don’t know if I would care for having somebody who doesn’t speak the language well enough in my team. But the idea of public service is interesting, realizing of course that you immediately put them on the public payroll. Do you think that will help or hinder their interest in and ability to qualify as prospective selfsupporting citizens? You have some interesting ideas about what to do with those that don’t.
    Fred

    Posted by: fred at October 17, 2006 5:57 AM
    Comment #188544

    Fred,
    I think that if we put them in our military the first class they should be taught is English. Then other assesments would be done to see what other skills they might possess that will be usefull to help them while serving our country. I am not saying they all need to be put on the front lines just to be shot at to get them out of our hair, but in whatever capacity would be benificial to us and them. My hope is that “the band of brotherhood” would be instilled in them, and a bond of love for this country, over the one they are wanting to leave.
    I am not saying that we need to have ALL 12 million accepted either. We could pick the best, brightest.
    d.a.n.,
    I knew someone would have a problem with me throwing in God but I had to. I am not a holy-rolly but I believe.

    Posted by: willag1 at October 17, 2006 9:37 AM
    Comment #188676

    Sounds like a Mexican plan.

    Posted by: Zena at October 17, 2006 9:15 PM
    Comment #188810

    A Polling Station Poll asked:
    President Bush wants amnesty for illegal aliens. Do you agree with the President?

    N = 9,174 Margin of Error +/- 1.0%
    ……. Yes …… No …. Undecided
    Dem ….. 27.6% …. 60.1% … 12.3%
    Ind …. 16.5% …. 72.5% … 11.0%
    Rep …. 10.9% …. 81.3% … 7.8%

    Overall Percentages:
    18.4% believe amnesty is a good idea
    71.2% do not
    10.4% were undecided

    So, the voters are united against the idea of giving amnesty to illegal aliens.

    The Polling Staiton has asked that very same question over, and over, and over, and over, and asked it in different ways, and the answer is still the same, STOP

    So, Michael Smith, there you have it.
    You ask “who cares?”
    That’s who cares!

    So what the hell is up with do-nothing, bought-and-paid-for, irresponsible incumbent politicians?

    Well, there’s just one little problem.
    It’s the blind-party-loyalist voters.
    They are so afraid of the OTHER party, they have failed to notice that not only is THEIR party corrupt; BOTH parties are corrupt, and politicians love it! They love their cu$hy 90% re-election rate.

    Politicians have learned that they can ignore the voters and do what ever they please, and the voters will STILL RE-elect them, over and over, which is why they enjoy a 90% re-election rate, regardless.

    Tenure corrupts.

    Most Americans say Congress is corrupt, but what do those very same voters do on election day?

    So, voters … you get what you vote for,
    If you don’t like it, then perhaps you ought to quit voting for worthless, do-nothing, arrogant, bought-and-paid-for, look-the-other-way, incubment polticians, eh?

    Posted by: d.a.n at October 18, 2006 3:52 PM
    Post a comment