Why are we, as conservatives, so against immigration reform?

I'm not a conservative, but what are you talking about...treated like animals? What is that?

Of course, if they are illegals, they may be and should be, treated like lawbreakers, which they are. You can be a human being and be a lawbreaker at the same time, you know.

But I think most conservatives think that we probably need to integrate the ones who are here, BUT THEY HAVE TO ASSIMILATE AND SPEAK ENGLISH!!!!,
and also that we also need to CLOSE the borders so we get no more illegals.

Legal immigrants fine of course, our country is based on that.

It's all common sense.

And I think you're wrong if you think cons are against immigration reform. Or are you just a liberal who is dishonestly trying to make a point? (I'm not a liberal either, by the way)

 

Did it matter, if Crazy Horse was engaged in a common defense against foreign invaders? In my opinion, our Founding Fathers wisely enumerated that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State.

 

No one is claiming that open markets are worse than black markets.

 

MY line of reasoning ? LOL. More like every sane person's line of reasoning. Those who have some vested interest in bringing foreigners into a country badly overpopulated with serious UNEMPLOYMENT and DEFICIT/DEBT problems, don't qualify as "reasoning" supporting their positions. GREED would be the more applicable word.

As for Malthus, he's not unemployed in America right now, or facing a budget crisis here, so no need for him in this discussion. Adam and Eve ? A fairy tale.

 

Not having a rational argument is not an "excuse" to claim forms of sanity.

In my opinion, simply solving our social dilemmas on a permanent basis via Commerce that is well Regulated instead of resorting to the coercive use of force of a State is sufficient "vested interest". What is your excuse for not having a permanent solution that can help defray the cost of government for your "vested interest"?

 

Let's just call it what it is. 'Immigration reform' means 'how should we deal with the over-abundance of Mexicans leaking into this country'. Not Lithuanians, or Greeks or Canadians. Mexicans. Not highly skilled Mexicans whose contributions to tax revenue comes even close to the cost of educating their young, food stamps and ER health care. What 'immigration reform' will cover these costs to the taxpayer? We're not being inundated with a glut of Mexican engineers, research scientists or skilled medical practitioners. 10's of thousands mediocre roofers and drywall installers and strawberry pickers. 100's of thousands of second rate gardeners and motel maids. Immigration is a political buzz word and serves to fill in fodder for political sound bites. It doesn't actually exist.

 

In case you haven't been paying attention to some rational arguments; we could be solving our illegal problem on a permanent basis via Commerce that is well Regulated among the several States, that can also function as a public sector means of production which can defray the cost of government and potentially fund some social welfare spending that be used to improve the efficiency of our modern and global, political-economy.

 

Nice rhetoric. Got any specific ideas ?

 

What gives you the idea that I have a "vested interest" ? I don't know of one.

As for your vague talk about "Commerce", what commerce ? Who ? What ? Where ? How ?

And what gives you the idea that i don't have a permanent solution ? I have lots of solutions, all banded together creating one overall solution.

1. Raise taxes on the rich - restore the normal top bracket taxation of the past, and cut wasteful spending.

2. Hire more ICE and CBP agents.

3. Create more immigration courts and jails, and start arresting illegals who break into the country illegally, and JAIL them for that crime.

4. Create a national biometric ID system.

5. Enforce IRCA - jail illegal employers.

6. Abolish birthright citizenship and make it retroactive 20 years.

7. Require use of E-verify nationwide.

8. Build the Mexican border double fence mandated by the Secure Fence Act of 2006. (Obama's idea of a moat with alligators might be helpful too-I mean really)

9. Prohibit states from granting in-state tuition benefits to illegal aliens.

10. Assist local municipalities in the enforcement of federal immigration laws.

11. Pass HR 1196 - the LEAVE Act (the Loophole Elimination and Verification Enforcement Act)

12. Cancel free public education for illegal aliens.

13. Establish US residency law for eligibility for welfare (minimum 2 years).

14. Establish a moratorium on work visas until unemployment is eradicated or near zero.

15. Abolish chain migration based on family ties. Establish a point system (which for now, would be strictly limited to 1. immigrants bringing large amounts of capital to open businesses and create decent jobs - for AMERICANS, and 2. immigrants bringing skills high in demand)

16. Pressure Mexico to clean up its awful act of monopoly control over its economy, so as to allow Mexican small businesses to compete and create jobs. Make our immigration rules as strict as Mexico's.

 

I have good propaganda, too.

A market friendly work visa could solve our illegal problems on a permanent basis while functioning as a public sector means of production that can generate revenue to defray the cost of government and help fund a social safety net that could ameliorate poverty at the same time.

It could function on the same and proven business model as the amusement park sector of our economy with it's "market friendly entry visa". You may have noticed that they don't seem to have much of an "illegal" problem and potential "foreign" labor can easily gain admittance to apply for jobs. And, that "foreign" labor does not mind paying the fee for such market friendliness, rather than have to try to accomplish the same thing, illegally.

 

We are discussing a very specific topic regarding Commerce that is well Regulated among the several States.

How much revenue will your public policy choice cost? Will it raise revenue to defray the cost of government? Will it also raise revenue to help fund social welfare spending that could improve the efficiency of our economy?

 

We don't have an "illegal" problem. We have an immigration problem. It doesn't matter if migrants are legal or illegal. The problem is they are HERE, taking jobs from Americans, extracting hundreds of Billion$$$ out of the US economy (remittances), as WELL AS all these harms to Americans.

1. Job Loss.

2. Wage Reduction.

3. Tax $$ Drain to welfare as illegals use false IDs and the anchor baby racket (and more welfare $$ are going to them than to Americans).

4. Hundreds of Billion$$$$$$$$ lost in remittances (money sent out of the US to immigrants home countries - $25 Billion/year to Mexico alone). There's part of out economy problem right there.

4. Overcrowding in hospitals (and overuse of emergency rooms)

5. Overcrowding in schools (and problems with kids who don't speak English).

6. Overcrowding on roads and highways.

7. Overcrowding of recreational facilities.

8. Overcrowding of government offices.

9. Additional crime.

10. Increased disease.

11. Increases Pollution and other environmental degradation.

12. Loss of scarce resources (energy, oil, fresh water, etc)

13. Cultural erosion - I'm sick to death of hearing Spanish on an answering machine every time I call a government office. (frankly, I'm sick to death of answering machines period, in any language).

 

Of course it would raise revenue AND reduce wasteful spending as well. You don't know how ? Hmmmm. Didn't I already explain this ? Well anyway, a mass deportation program together with increased IRCA enforcement (deportation b attrition) would force employers to pay normal American wages to Americans replacing the deported immigrants. The higher wages pay higher taxes > more revenue. Also, the previous off the books jobs (where no taxes were paid) are replaced by taxpaying Americans.

Our economy will be improved by eliminating the loss of hundreds of Billion$$$$$$$$$ due to remittance spending ($25 Billion/year to Mexico alone).
Our US treasury will benefit immensely by no longer having to shell out hundreds of Billion$$$ more in welfare to illegals using phony IDs and the anchor baby racket.

 

Plus, Americans on Unemployment will no longer be collecting that Unemployment after replacing the Illegals in the jobs that should've gone to Americans in the first place.

 

I live surrounded by ignorant and impoverished Mexicans who came to America in violation of American law. They have changed my world. I don't even feel like I live in the US any more. I hate Mexicans. There will never be peace with them. Resist these ignorant people. They have transformed much of California into the third world.

Does DanielPalos want to be a Mexican? It sure seems that way.

 

Also true conservatives are not AGAINST change. Many honest conservatives, like you it sounds for instance, are in favor of change that is small and gradual. But the people who say they want radical change are not conservative. You're either a libertarian, anarchist, socialist, or communist, but the likes of the Tea Party that wants to cut spending (which idk what specific programs that refers to, and many of them are on medicare and SS so i guess cut spending for OTHERS besides myself) also says they want to go back to the good ole days, which would be a radical change.

But I want to go back to the small gradual change point. A conservative does not mean you are a capitalist. You can be a conservative socialist. Or you can be a conservative in the U.S. that likes the idea of universal health care, so you would support gradual change towards that goal, but not an overnight change. Modern discourse in America usually pits a conservative as someone in favor of low taxes, low regulation, etc. And that is simply inaccurate. Conservatism is all about how much you should look to the past for guidance and not change too quickly. The low taxers, low regulation people would be more accurately described as radicals (in the sense that we always have an obligation to question the present state and see if it is justified. It is NOT an attack that is trying to delegitimze the position, but more of a philosophical position point. A liberal that wants to implement a universal health care plan next week would also be considered a radical) or reactionaries, which are just people who don't know how to deal with a changing world.

 

An illegal receiving $3100 a month in taxpayers dollars while I am underemployed working 30 hours a week making $1200 take home. What's wrong with that picture. Unemployment is 13.8% in the county where I live.

 

Can you explain how immigration is harming the one of the largest economies in the world, without resorting to special pleading due to the current state of our economy, at present? In other words, would you be saying the same thing, if we had an economic boom instead of our current economic bust? Immigration both legal and illegal has occurred during both economic times.

Simply claiming that we have an immigration problem that is not also an illegal problems seems disingenuous.

 

Can you explain how immigration is harming the one of the largest economies in the world, without resorting to special pleading due to the current state of our economy, at present? In other words, would you be saying the same thing, if we had were experiencing an economic boom instead of our current economic bust? Immigration both legal and illegal has occurred during both economic times.

Simply claiming that we have an immigration problem that is not also an illegal problem seems disingenuous.

 

"Would" I be saying it ? HA HA HA. I've been saying it for over 30 years, including all through the 90s, when the US economy was doing great. The reason why our problem is an immigration problem, regardless of the legalites involved, is because our legal immigration is just as much a problem as our illegal one. It is allowing too many people into the country who shouldn't be coming in, and generally, they are bringing most of the same problems as the illegal immigrants (which I itemized in post # sixty-eight, which also answered you first question).

 

Where unemployment is high (almost everywhere in America), obtaining jobs is often done through nepotism ("It's not what you know it's WHO you know"). In this job market, immigrants are at an advantage. They come from very large families 10-15 kids per family, and the new arrivals can get right into a job by having their brother or sister already working here set it up for them, while millions of Americans, without any connections, remain unemployed (or underemployed).

 

So, how much more are you prepared to spend with our tax payer dollars, without actually solving the problem of illegal immigrations, without also denying and disparaging individual liberty in the process?

In other words, how much are the Great Walls of America going to cost, versus an opportunity cost that could solve our illegal problem on a permanent basis via Commerce that is friendly toward its markets in our republican form of government and its requirement for a private sector and rights in private property?

Why do you believe we need more central planning of nationalized and socialized public policy choices that what is specifically and wisely enumerated by our Founding Fathers in our federal Constitution; to merely and only provide the general welfare and common defense of our republic?

 

I guess my point is, why do you believe the US had an immigration problem when there was immigration that included illegal immigration and we had the lowest unemployment rate in the US, in thirty years; as was the case under a previous democrat administration?

 

That doesn't seem to be an immigration problem to me, but merely a problem that could be solved, by simply providing for the general welfare of the United States and solving for a natural rate of unemployment.

 

Take away their ability to get legitimate jobs with phony or stolen social security numbers. The SSA and IRS are all too well aware of multiple people using a single social security number. One lady from California had 81 people in 17 states using hers and this isn't a unique story. With modern computer databases, it wouldn't be hard to pluck out all the duplicate, non issued and under age users excepting the original issuee. Then send notices to their employers the duplicate users payments are coming from that there appears to be an error and they must verify the social security number within 30 days or face massive fines and jail time. Enforcement had a ripple effect back in 2006 when IFCO (wooden palette maker) got caught in a Government sting. A local area electronics maker fired 88 employees that couldn't produce a valid SSN and they weren't under scrutiny by ICE. The jobs were quickly filled with citizens. E-Verify must become manditory, no exceptions and used to verify citizenship for any government benefits as well. Take away their ability to get legitimate jobs and government benefits with forged paperwork and they will go home on their own.

This is a simple cost effective way to open up to 5 million existing jobs to citizens out of work. It will also save Billions in Government benefits going to those who circumvented the legal immigration process.