Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] [MLUG][Politics]The great immigration wash-out

[Rick <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

Mike Miller wrote:
> I just don't think you guys understand the nature of the problem.
>
> (A) we want cheap illegal workers

Who's "we" roundeye?

The only thing "we" want that I'm aware of is cheap goods/services. I 
lack easily accessible empirical evidence, but I believe that removing 
the excess drain on our schools, hospitals, and social service programs 
would more than offset the impact of a 200% increase in the cost of 
lettuce, especially as the impact continues to grow exponentially 
through multiple generations.

> (B) it is impossibly expensive to round people up and ship them off to 
> other countries

I think you overstate this cost because it supports your belief.

> (C) no matter how 'tightly' you 'seal' the borders, people can *easily* 
> get into the country.  Example: tourist visa or student visa.

With adequate resources, any border is porous, but these people aren't 
coming across because they have a huge amount of disposable income. 
However, if you make the environment hostile to people that do not 
belong because they've overstayed their visa or entered illegally, then 
it is going to result in either a massive decrease in those willing to 
stay, or a massive increase in black market services. Either way, I pay 
less to maintain them.

> (D) once they get in via C, and they decide to overstay their visits, 
> you have to deal with A and B:  we don't want them to leave and it costs 
> too much to kick them out.

This bullet makes no sense.

> Thus, I conclude, again, that you have to deal with the problem on the 
> demand side.  If you don't want "illegals" hanging out here, you have to 
> stop giving them jobs.  Believe me, if there were no work, they would 
> not come here.  I know enough of these people to tell you that I am very 
> sure of this.  I also have heard enough expert opinion to convince me 
> that I am right.

If there were no work here, it would be Mexico. I do agree that we need 
to stop employing them.

> I'm not as sure about what would work, but I think harsh penalties for 
> hiring illegal aliens would do the trick.  Is that what we want? 
> Obviously, it isn't what the employers want.  Would a reduction in the 
> size of our cheap labor force help you and me?  Hell no!  So why do we 
> want it?  Are these "illegals" really costing us so much in education, 
> medical treatment, etc., that it would be worth our while to round them 
> up?  I don't think so.  Prove it.  Besides, if that was the problem we 
> could just stop providing services to them and see where that leaves us.

Yes, it's what "we" want. Perhaps it's not what "you" want. I still 
disagree with your analysis of the costs involved in maintaining 12 
million illegal persons within our borders.

> I know it seems simpler than it is:  "Illegal" means "illegal" after 
> all. But we have many years of policy that encourages people to do what 
> they have been doing.  The occasional amnesty proclamation tells them 
> "hang in there."  Isn't it ironic that the same people who talk about 
> rounding them up and shipping them out are also considering giving them 
> amnesty?  What are these poor immigrants supposed to think?  What is the 
> message they are hearing?

Get the hell out?

> Listen, I really don't care about these people and I have no problem 
> with you shipping them all back to where they came from.  It isn't an 
> emotional thing for me.  I just know that you aren't understanding how 
> this works.
>
> Mike

Is that because you're smarter than us? Or because you have some super 
duper evidence that you're not sharing with the rest of us? How does you 
 patronizing poor, dumb persons like myself help your argument?

Rick
--
We simply can't idiot-proof everything. Sometimes the idiots just have 
to suffer and die.
--http://www.overheardintheoffice.com/

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion