Ryan Rodrick Beiler: More on Immigration and Family Values
Katie Barge at Faith in Public Life has done a great job of rounding up comments (including GP's post by Rev. Derrick Harkins) on the religious community's advocacy on behalf of family reunification in the immigration debate. Her comments:
Ryan Rodrick Beiler is the web editor for Sojourners/Call to Renewal.
The current immigration deal under consideration in the Senate needs a family values fix. Right now, there are "an estimated 1.5 million legal immigrants in the United States who have been waiting as long as seven years to bring husbands, wives and small children to live with them." The current immigration bill does NOTHING to fix this, and in fact, reduces the number of family reunification visas available each year. This means that the backlog of families waiting to be reunited will only continue to grow. ...Read her full post, including statements by faith groups.
[S] houldn't there be a lot more noise on this from the faith community, from the left and right? Shouldn't all groups who claim to be pro-family be firing up their constituencies in support of this family values fix? Here are the statements from religious leaders and organizations that we have seen so far ... anyone seen any more?
Ryan Rodrick Beiler is the web editor for Sojourners/Call to Renewal.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Is family reunification prudent, though?
Posted by: Ben Wheaton | June 1, 2007 6:49 PM
It's ridiculous how long it takes to immigrate legally. There's no reason why it should take seven years to bring your spouse or children into the country. One question though about this Clinton amendment, I wonder if it would it apply only to those who are legally here now (before the amnesty) or would it also apply to those who potentially would be given amnesty should the bill pass? If it's the second scenario the amendment could defeat the bill as they'd lose some of the Republican supporters. The end to chain immigration was one of the sweeteners to get more Republicans on board.
Posted by: Ross | June 1, 2007 7:28 PM
The only question is why must this be done as an amendment to the comprehensive immigration bill? Legal immigration is a whole different matter from illegal. Present this as a seperate bill and I'd probably support it. Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | June 1, 2007 9:28 PM
I agree with Wolverine. Lets get the biggest part of this done now while there is a chance and then work on the rest.
Posted by: wayne | June 1, 2007 10:43 PM
Wolvernine and Wayne, I have to disagree with you on the waiting until the bill is passed to fix this problem approach.
After this bloody process comes to a conclusion, there will be little or no political will to take up this issue and it will be relegated to the pile of festering problems that nobody wants to resolve. That's how the legislative process works. One bit of perspective here, though. Once a person becomes a citizen (after 3 or 5 years of being a permanent resident, they can apply for naturalization) their spouse, parents (assuming the citizen is 21 or over) and minor children become classified as "immediate relatives" and they are permitted to come here immediately. There are no quota limitations on those immigrant visas. Hence it could be argued that the system has somewhat of a self-correcting mechanism in that it encourages citizenship and greater family reunification benefits once a person takes the step of acquiring U.S. citizenship.
Posted by: Sarasotakid | June 2, 2007 12:11 PM
I completely concur with Sarasotakid. After all, the supporters are calling the proposal "comprehensive immigration reform." The term "comprehensive" means that the entire immigration and naturalization process needs to be reviewed and reformed where necessary. If we cannot or will not deal effectively with *all* immigration, border security, and naturalization issues now, how can any legislation passed be called "comprehensive"? Peace,
Posted by: Don | June 2, 2007 3:18 PM
"After this bloody process comes to a conclusion, there will be little or no political will to take up this issue and it will be relegated to the pile of festering problems that nobody wants to resolve. That's how the legislative process works." Off topic, but this bill promises a number of enforcement efforts and et al... Down the road. Part of this bill is a promise to tackle this issue down the road from an enforcement standpoint.
If you believe that this bill will be relegated to the "do nothing" pile, then your previous defenses of this bill are dissonant with your cynicism.
Posted by: Kevin S. | June 3, 2007 6:13 PM
Sarasotakid and Don Believe me I hear you both and have deeply appreciated both of you and your input on this matter! Nothing would make me happier than to see a truly comprehensive bill pass. But legislation is also the art of compromise and I think this may be the best compromise that can be worked out. The opposition to the idea of "chain immigration is strong and will be opposed. On the good side there seems to be a willingness to see how this bill is going to work out. Those who are against any reforms, except ones that are about punishment and security at all costs, have bent some with this current bill. If those of us who want the real and just reform of our immigration laws won't bend, we may end up with nothing. This is going to be a problem we have to live within for some time and it will require the ongoing attention of the nation if it is to be worked out. My hope is that this bill allows us to manage our border, bring unlawful entries to a halt, and in doing so still much of the fear. If that happens, perhaps groups like the Minutemen, (I still like to call them mynoote men ) will fade into the woodwork. If all the fear mongers fade away, then maybe we can do even better. Eventually all Americans are going to have to deal with the fact that we need these people at least as much as they need work. The fact that this current bill contains inequities in its treatment of hardworking people is, I hope, tomorrow s work.
Posted by: wayne | June 3, 2007 6:47 PM
If you believe that this bill will be relegated to the "do nothing" pile, then your previous defenses of this bill are dissonant with your cynicism. Kevin S. Not in the least bit. What we were discussing was a problem (i.e. families being separated) that has been identified that is not at all covered in the bill. That is what I was speaking about. There will be no legislative will to take any actions to further correct or change the immigration laws once comprehensive immigration reform is enacted. That is clearly what I was referring to. The enforcement measures that are "down the road" as you call them are actually written into the bill so they would be on the books. I was not positing an opinion as to whether or not they would be enforced. The solution to problem we were discussing is not in any versions of the law. Nice try, Kevin. The only dissonance was in your perception of what I said.
Posted by: Sarasotakid | June 3, 2007 10:20 PM
Wayne, I agree. I am not sure if we're better off letting this initiative die and hope for a post-2008 Democratic President and Democratic Congress to actually put this bill together right. Or do we get what we can and try to fine tune it later? The one thing I'm pleased with is that the debate has actually shifted from focusing on ways to ship all the undocumented aliens out to how do we deal with them equitably? Did you see the recent NY Times Poll where 2/3 of the American people favor some form of legalization? The right wing is clearly out of the mainstream on this issue.
Posted by: Sarasotakid | June 3, 2007 10:27 PM
That's interesting, and quite relieving, Sarasota. From all the noise coming from the right, one would think that they have the consensus on this issue. The only ones we seem to hear from are those who want to send them all back. Thanks,
Posted by: Don | June 4, 2007 1:54 AM
The twenty-ton elephant in the room is Mexicans that have no desire to become Americans becoming Americans. What "family values" is it that desires to lie about becoming an American citizen? Mexicans come here illegally, never learn English, live in purely Mexican enclaves complete with their own spanish-only newspaprers and spanish only TV channels and flying the Mexican flag for real. There is little to no honesty in the real immigration issue real Americans are dealing with.
Posted by: Curtis Washington | June 4, 2007 4:40 AM
"Did you see the recent NY Times Poll where 2/3 of the American people favor some form of legalization? The right wing is clearly out of the mainstream on this issue." Most Republicans favor some form of legalization. That is a vague term that can be used to achieve any result you like.
Posted by: Kevin S. | June 4, 2007 5:12 AM
Curtis wrote: "The twenty-ton elephant in the room is Mexicans that have no desire to become Americans becoming Americans." Absolute nonsense, Curtis. A scientific poll of undocumented immigrants that was taken in October 2005 by Bendixen and Associates for the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research revealed the following: 1. 60% of the people polled were Mexican; 18% were from Central America; 19% were from South America; 3% were from the Dominican Republic. 2. 92% work at least part time; 75% work full time 3. Only 23% said they could speak English "well" or "very well," but 98% WANT TO LEARN English 4. 94% would have entered the US LEGALLY if legal entry had been available to them; 98% would legalize their status if they could 5. 81% said that if they could legalize their status in the USA, they would stay here and live as permanent residents 6. 90% would like to become US citizens 7. 87% would enroll in English classes as part of a legalization process, if it were available to them. Most were also willing to pay fines and/or back taxes as part of a legalization process. It doesn't sound as if these individuals want to live here without "becoming Americans." (The Bendixen poll is available on the National Immigration Forum Web site: http://www.immigrationforum.org/) Curtis also wrote: "Mexicans ... never learn English, live in purely Mexican enclaves complete with their own spanish-only newspaprers and spanish only TV channels and flying the Mexican flag for real." Substitute Poles, Italians, Germans, Hungarians, etc., for Mexicans, and this statement is identical to what was being said about those immigrants 100 years ago: They don't want to learn English, they live in their own communities, they have Polish- (or German-, Italian-, Hungarian-, or whatever-) language newspapers and fly their own flags. Of course, they didn't have their own TV channels back then because TV didn't exist, but otherwise the accusations are the same. The last century proved the "nativists" who were saying these things wrong; they'll certainly be proven wrong again this time. Curtis, you might want to spend some time learning the facts about immigrants and immigration before posting inaccurate, pejorative, outdated, and misleading information. The National Immigration Forum Web site would be a good place to start; also the Catholic bishops' www.justiceforimmigrants.org site is also a good source for the truth about immigrants and immigration. Peace,
Posted by: Don | June 4, 2007 1:49 PM
Most Republicans favor some form of legalization. That is a vague term that can be used to achieve any result you like. Kevin S.
So I guess you're part of the fringe of the party that wouldn't blink an eye at sending them back and splitting up families.
Posted by: Sarasotakid | June 4, 2007 3:04 PM
"So I guess you're part of the fringe of the party that wouldn't blink an eye at sending them back and splitting up families." There are a host of positions in between what you are suggesting and what this bill represents. I would be willing to wager I'm with the majority of Americans on this issue, your petty comments aside.
Posted by: Kevin S. | June 4, 2007 3:36 PM
In the past ten years i have learned, working beside Mexicans,some companies will put three or four together as so they can comunicate better as to what they are doing. I myself later on had to do all the same work by myself. Of which the line got faster and faster,with even more to do then they. It was killing me. But when i learned they were givin a dollar more an hour as a raise doing easier jobs,i asked for only 50 cents more then they was paying me. They denied me to get it. So therefor i finally quit after three years. Also,most every one of them had about three social security cards to show when getting jobs. Of course they had their own system from someone they paid to have them made up. And along with drivers licence at the time. But the fact is,the companies had to know this when checked upon. Most would put down up to nine dependents as to not pay any taxes in all that period of time.I meen whoes to know,not having any real residental address. As they move around.I was in my sixties having to take their place on a moving fast line. What i want to know is,how many billions did the government get out of these people? You all know who had to make up the difference.
Posted by: Jim | June 4, 2007 3:37 PM
There are a host of positions in between what you are suggesting and what this bill represents. I would be willing to wager I'm with the majority of Americans on this issue, your petty comments aside. Kevin S.
I guess that you haven't expressed them in this forum. My bad.
Posted by: Sarasotakid | June 4, 2007 3:51 PM
I heard one of the conservative nationwide radio leaders exclaim angrily that Mexicans don't pay taxes. He was also angry with President Bush. I ask why do the conservatives have to lie about this? I see Mexicans pay taxes when they buy diapers and everything else at the grocery (sales tax). I see them pay gas taxes when they buy gas for the truck. I see them pay property tax if they own a condo or personal property (vehicles). My Republican relative tried to clear me up on this and shouted they mean income taxes! I replied, but that is not what the radio barker said. Anyway, who pays your income taxes? Your employer actually makes that happen by deducting taxes from your payroll check. If the employer refuses to make the deductions from the employees check and chooses to pay cash instead, why doesn't the employer (business) get any blame? Are you angry at the business too? Corporations can't be part of the solution in this situation?
Posted by: Steven Riggs | June 4, 2007 4:16 PM
I ask why do the conservatives have to lie about this? Steven Riggs Because in the minds of people who do this, the ends justify the means and they harbor a great deal of ill will.
Posted by: Sarasotakid | June 4, 2007 4:19 PM
Ther truth is that illegal immigrants cost this nation a fortune in wasteful social handouts spending, and an amnesty will only increase the demand. We should build a fence and patrol it with the National Guard and every available hi-tech security device. Having said that, we should eagerly encourage accomodate EDUCATED and PRODUCTIVE immigrants and their families. A strict ID system, and heavy fines against companies hiring illegals will dry up the job market and send most of the current illegals back home.
Posted by: Phana24JG | June 4, 2007 4:55 PM
"Ther truth is that illegal immigrants cost this nation a fortune in wasteful social handouts spending, and an amnesty will only increase the demand." Another blatant falsehood. Here are the facts (from the Catholic bishops' site--http://www.justiceforimmigrants.org/myths.html, along with their sources: Myth: Immigrants don t pay taxes Facts: Immigrants pay taxes, in the form of income, property, sales, and taxes at the federal and state level. As far as income tax payments go, sources vary in their accounts, but a range of studies find that immigrants pay between $90 and $140 billion a year in federal, state, and local taxes. Undocumented immigrants pay income taxes as well, as evidenced by the Social Security Administration s suspense file (taxes that cannot be matched to workers names and social security numbers), which grew by $20 billion between 1990 and 1998 (Source: http://www.immigrationforum.org/about/articles/tax_study.htm Immigrants come here to take welfare Facts: Immigrants come to work and reunite with family members. Immigrant labor force participation is consistently higher than native-born, and immigrant workers make up a larger share of the U.S. labor force (12.4%) than they do the U.S. population (11.5%). Moreover, the ratio between immigrant use of public benefits and the amount of taxes they pay is consistently favorable to the U.S. In one estimate, immigrants earn about $240 billion a year, pay about $90 billion a year in taxes, and use about $5 billion in public benefits. In another cut of the data, immigrant tax payments total $20 to $30 billion more than the amount of government services they use. (Source: Questioning Immigration Policy Can We Afford to Open Our Arms? , Friends Committee on National Legislation Document #G-606-DOM, January 25, 1996. http:www.fas.org/pub/gen/fcnl/immigra.html) Check things out before you write untrue and inflammatory information, Phana. Peace,
Posted by: Don | June 4, 2007 5:13 PM
Fundamentally I've got nothing against open borders. I just believe it is the CHURCH who should be caring for the poor, the weak, the widowed, the orphaned, and the *alien.* The Church is fueled voluntarily by God's People. The degree to which the Church helps those who can't help themselves is a function of the charity of the individuals within it. Don't trust the State to care for the poor or the alien. It funds itself with coercive force (a.k.a. Theft), and as it collects, it only creates more poverty and chaos. The government is deliberately ignoring its own laws and refusing to control the southern border. I imagine they want blanket amnesty in order to inject more bodies into the "legal" workforce to pay for the Social Security ponzi scheme. The problem is not immigration. The problem is the welfare state.
Posted by: Ben | June 4, 2007 6:53 PM
" I ask why do the conservatives have to lie about this?" If a CEO of a major oil company didn't pay income taxes, and a radio "barker" was angry because he didn't pay taxes, would you call him a liar? Probably not.
"My Republican relative tried to clear me up on this and shouted they mean income taxes! I replied, but that is not what the radio barker said." I love that, in the minds of liberals, Republicans never talk. They just shout, bark or screech. I have been accused of screaming on this blog more times than I can count. It is an interesting way of discrediting those with whom you disagree.
At any rate, your Republican relative is essentailly correct. The radio "barker" was clearly referring to income tax, which many illegal immigrants do not pay.
"Anyway, who pays your income taxes? Your employer actually makes that happen by deducting taxes from your payroll check." This is not relevant to the broader point, and I think you know that.
" If the employer refuses to make the deductions from the employees check and chooses to pay cash instead, why doesn't the employer (business) get any blame?" If you are referring to employers who deduct taxes from their employees' checks, then refuse to remit payment to the IRS, you can bet they get blamed.
If you are referring to employers who pay cash instead of paying taxes, I think there are a number of conservatives who believe we need to crack down on businesses that utiliizing this method to hire illegals. I also think this bill was entirely crafted with their interests in mind.
"Corporations can't be part of the solution in this situation?" Who said they couldn't?
Posted by: Kevin S. | June 4, 2007 7:00 PM
"Because in the minds of people who do this, the ends justify the means and they harbor a great deal of ill will." And liberals support amnesty because they don't care about our economy, or the rule of law. They want to assuage their guilt at the expense of the greater good, and they aren't intelligent enough to look at issues as anything other than the ultimate battle of good vs. evil.
See how productive the pejorative game is? Shall we just continue like this instead of discussing the actual issue? Whatever makes you feel better, dude.
Don, While I agree that Phana's comments lacked nuance, correcting her with "facts" from an advocacy site doesn't really illuminate the subject either.
That there are many illegal immigrants who are placing a strain on their communities by using services that they do not pay for is fact.
Posted by: Kevin S. | June 4, 2007 7:10 PM
"Because in the minds of people who do this, the ends justify the means and they harbor a great deal of ill will." Sarasotakid And liberals support amnesty because they don't care about our economy, or the rule of law. They want to assuage their guilt at the expense of the greater good, and they aren't intelligent enough to look at issues as anything other than the ultimate battle of good vs. evil.
See how productive the pejorative game is? Shall we just continue like this instead of discussing the actual issue? Whatever makes you feel better, dude. Kevin S. The point was carefully written and addressed to a particular situation- a misrepresentation of facts. Notice how I did not use the term "conservatives" (because it would be unfair to label of them that way) when I talked about people who misrepresent the facts surrounding immigration. Mr. Riggs did, but I cannot choose his words for him. If you take umbrage at this post and take it personally (though it was not addressed to you) that is your problem, not mine. You have stated that you are with the majority of Americans on the legalization issue yet you have led me to believe that it does not matter to you if our laws forced the mass departure of undocumented aliens and families were separated. Please do tell me what your position on legalization is, and articulate a position if it is other than favoring mass deportation which would result in the division of families. And yes, if some Conservative talk show hosts lie about the facts pertaining to undocumented aliens, I feel that I am not doing anything wrong when I say they harbor ill will. No apology required nor will it be offered, "dude."
Posted by: Sarasotakid | June 4, 2007 7:34 PM
"That there are many illegal immigrants who are placing a strain on their communities by using services that they do not pay for is fact." Got examples? Got data? Just repeating an oft voiced canard doesn't make it true. At least I'm trying to back up my statements with data, even if you take issue with my sources. And in case you didn't read my "advocacy site" sources carefully, undocumented immigrants DO pay income taxes. The taxes they pay are far greater than the cost of government services they use. I'm sure you could confirm these stats from unbiased sources.
Posted by: Don | June 4, 2007 8:57 PM
I do believe that we must deport those who are here illegally. That does not mean it does not "matter" to me, just that it is a reality. Even if we grant amnesty to every single illegal immigrant, there will be deportations if we make any serious effort to enforce our immigration laws.
I believe that we should start with a program to crack down on businesses that are employing illegals. Increase the penalties until it is no longer worth it.
We should follow this by cutting off public services for those who are not here legally. And, yes, we follow this with deporations. The deportations are accompanied by a process that allows more legal immigrants to enter the United States.
That is my position, and it is not forged of racism or heartlessness. I think if you asked the average American if that about summarizes their position, you would see more than 33% agreement.
Posted by: Kevin S. | June 4, 2007 8:57 PM
"'Anyway, who pays your income taxes? Your employer actually makes that happen by deducting taxes from your payroll check.' 'This is not relevant to the broader point, and I think you know that.'" I think it's entirely relevant. Employers withhold employee income taxes. Whether an employee is a legal resident or undocumented, his or her tax withholdings are still withheld. So undocumented immigrants who are working do pay income tax money withheld from their wages. Moreover, my guess is that a lot of undocumented immigrants don't file tax returns out of fear of being 'discovered.' Therefore any tax refunds they might be due go unrefunded. Another tax boon for the government. Later,
Posted by: Don | June 4, 2007 9:14 PM
That is my position, and it is not forged of racism or heartlessness. I think if you asked the average American if that about summarizes their position, you would see more than 33% agreement. Kevin S.
The polls suggest that you're on the fringe as you are not for any form of legalization. It kind of makes me wonder, though, about your cryptic and ambiguous posts earlier today that initially led me to believe that you might favor some form of family unification. As for you being heartless or not, that is not for me to tell. I do thank God that the majority of Americans do not share your views.
Posted by: Sarasotakid | June 4, 2007 9:52 PM
Kevin You keep coming up with ideas that are heartless and sure look like they are forged in racism, then state over and over that this is not true. I guess we are supposed to think you mean well and that justisfies your thinking, or is it that the punishment of people who violate misdemeanors is paramount to the defense of the rule of law? God help us if we just fined them thousands of dollars and didn't really make them pay for their crimes! Let's see.. the forced deportation of 12,000,000 people is not heartless(?) Well, I don't want to hurt your feelings, but...I disagree.
Posted by: wayne | June 4, 2007 9:55 PM
kevins : "And liberals support amnesty because they don't care about our economy, or the rule of law. They want to assuage their guilt at the expense of the greater good, and they aren't intelligent enough to look at issues as anything other than the ultimate battle of good vs. evil." kevens, i am sensing so much hostility from you dude.
Posted by: Ernest Ainsley | June 4, 2007 11:05 PM
Frankly, kevin scares me.
Posted by: Phillip Gillis | June 4, 2007 11:07 PM
kevin is going postal.
Posted by: Ernest Ainsley | June 4, 2007 11:08 PM
"kevins : "And liberals support amnesty because they don't care about our economy, or the rule of law. They want to assuage their guilt at the expense of the greater good, and they aren't intelligent enough to look at issues as anything other than the ultimate battle of good vs. evil." kevens, i am sensing so much hostility from you dude." Kevens? I was being tongue-in-cheek. We could go back and forth with presumptions about motivations, but those presumptions say nothing about what is right. I remain surprised that this issue generates more empty charges of racism, Nazism, and all that crap... But whatev, as the kids say.
Posted by: Kevin S. | June 4, 2007 11:18 PM
Kevin " I remain surprised that this issue generates more empty charges of racism, Nazism, and all that crap" There is plenty for you to argue with Kevin. You do not have to hide behind counter claims that I/we are being mean to you when you are called on the carpet for advocating mean things. Your assertion of being treated unfairly is the only one that qualifies as "empty". You really have no right to being surprised when it's this simple; the deportation of 12,000,000 people is not, and cannot be, right. You're just walking like a duck again.
Posted by: wayne | June 4, 2007 11:49 PM
*Quack!! Quack!!*
Posted by: Ernest Ainsley | June 5, 2007 12:50 AM
You really have no right to being surprised when it's this simple; the deportation of 12,000,000 people is not, and cannot be, right. You're just walking like a duck again. wayne | 06.04.07 - 5:54 pm | #
Well, Wayne here is a famous Kevin response to that charge:
"Translation: Tsk Tsk, families will be split, innocent children harmed and we will be inhumane but ah well, somebody must pay the price." Sarasota kid Innocent children will be harmed either way. If we create policies that incentivize further illegal immigration, we will have a bigger problem on our hands. I'm advocating doing what is best in the long term rather than what feels good now. kevin s. Homepage | 05.21.07 - 1:33 pm |
In Kevin's mind, harming 12 million undocumented aliens many of whom have U.S. citizen kids is just the price we have to pay. But of course it is easier and more convenient to lament the labels that were *allegedly* ascribed to him than to deal with the utter inhumanity of the policy he advocates. And of course, when he throws epithets and labels around, it is done "tongue in cheek" but when somebody does it to him, well, that is just awful.
Posted by: Sarasotakid | June 5, 2007 3:27 AM
Ther truth is that illegal immigrants cost this nation a fortune in wasteful social handouts spending Phana24JG Is that your opinion or a fact? If it s a fact, what s your source for that information?
That there are many illegal immigrants who are placing a strain on their communities by using services that they do not pay for is fact. Kevin S. Source?
Foreign-born adults in Los Angeles County, California, constituted 45 percent of the county's population ages 18-64 but accounted for 33 percent of health spending in 2000. Similarly, the undocumented constituted 12 percent of the nonelderly adult population but accounted for only 6 percent of spending. Extrapolating to the nation, total spending by the undocumented is 6.4 billion dollars , of which only 17 percent (1.1 billion dollars) is paid for by public sources. The foreign-born (especially the undocumented) use disproportionately fewer medical services and contribute less to health care costs in relation to their population share[.]
Goldman, D. P., Smith, J. P., Sood, N. (2006). Immigrants and the cost of medical care. Health Affairs, 25(6), 1700-1711.
Immigrants accounted for $39.5 billion (SE=$4 billion) in health care expenditures. After multivariate adjustment, per capita total health care expenditures of immigrants were 55% lower than those of US-born persons ($1139 vs $2546). Similarly, expenditures for uninsured and publicly insured immigrants were approximately half those of their US-born counterparts. Immigrant children had 74% lower per capita health care expenditures than US-born children. However, ED expenditures were more than 3 times higher for immigrant children than for US-born children. Conclusions: Health care expenditures are substantially lower for immigrants than for US-born persons. Our study refutes the assumption that immigrants represent a disproportionate financial burden on the US health care system. Mohanty, S. A., Woolhandler, S., Himmelstein, D. U., Pati, S., Carrasquillo, O., Bor, D. H. (2005). Health expenditures of immigrants in the United States: a nationally representative analysis. Journal of Public Health, 95, 1431-1438.
Posted by: neuro_nurse | June 5, 2007 3:29 AM
"While I agree that Phana's comments lacked nuance, correcting her with "facts" from an advocacy site doesn't really illuminate the subject either." kevin s. Fair enough, but at least Don cited his source.
Posted by: neuro_nurse | June 5, 2007 3:36 AM
"In Kevin's mind, harming 12 million undocumented aliens many of whom have U.S. citizen kids is just the price we have to pay." We have to pay some sort of price. As the bill is presently constituted, we deal with enforcement later. As you concede, once this issue is out of the public eye, the issue vanishes. The enforcement will never come, and we will be in the same spot years from now.
At some point this situation is untenable. You remember the game Tetris? Remember the nasty little 'S' shaped pieces? Some player plug that in wherever there is a gap. The smart play is to put those pieces on their side over existing gaps, thereby turning a potentially big mess into a little mess. My friends always made fun of me for that play, but I always won. Right now, we have a big mess, and what you are proposing will create a much bigger mess, on both a policy and a humanitarian level. If you disagree, that is fine. But do not pretend I do not care about people.
"But of course it is easier and more convenient to lament the labels that were *allegedly* ascribed to him than to deal with the utter inhumanity of the policy he advocates." You have called me ignorant, and you have accused me of supporting policies that would lead us to another holocaust. Don't pretend you haven't said what you have said.
"And of course, when he throws epithets and labels around, it is done "tongue in cheek" but when somebody does it to him, well, that is just awful." I think you know that my post was not serious, but rather a parody of your hyperbolic comments about conservatives. They were completely out of character from the rest of my posts.
Posted by: Kevin S. | June 5, 2007 6:05 AM
"Fair enough, but at least Don cited his source." Should I cut & paste from the National Review? Would that be worth our time?
Posted by: Kevin S. | June 5, 2007 6:06 AM
We have to pay some sort of price. As the bill is presently constituted, we deal with enforcement later. Kevin S. Totally inaccurate.
If you changed the "we" part to "they", then it would be accurate. To wit, "They have to pay some sort of price." Also as the bill is constituted we have enforcement triggers. No legalization happens until the triggers are met. Some conservatives may not like that the measures are not strong enough but enforcement does come first. As you concede, once this issue is out of the public eye, the issue vanishes. The enforcement will never come, and we will be in the same spot years from now. Kevin S. Again an inaccurate portrayal of my position. I was speaking of comprehensive immigration reform and if we don't address a problem now during this process, it will fall out of the public eye. I specifically did not address the enforcement being carried out or not. Again, you twist my words but that is typical of your argument style so I'm not surprised. At some point this situation is untenable. You remember the game Tetris? Remember the nasty little 'S' shaped pieces? Some player plug that in wherever there is a gap. The smart play is to put those pieces on their side over existing gaps, thereby turning a potentially big mess into a little mess. My friends always made fun of me for that play, but I always won. Kevin S. I don't doubt the words "I always won". You rarely, if ever, concede a point no matter how clearly what you have said is proven wrong. So I'm somehow not surprised about the game incident. Right now, we have a big mess, and what you are proposing will create a much bigger mess, on both a policy and a humanitarian level.Kevin S. That's you're opinion. You advocate the wholesale displacement of people so yeah, we get our backs up a bit about that, Kevin. You have called me ignorant, and you have accused me of supporting policies that would lead us to another holocaust. Don't pretend you haven't said what you have said. Kevin S. I have challenged about what you know about the issue, yes. If you take that as being called ignorant, so be it. It is your interpretation of the exchange and I have no inclination, based on what I've seen, to now come back and tell you I think you're knowledgeable about it. I brought up the holocaust issue and facism in two contexts: 1) the massive deportation of people; and 2) the draconian H.R.4437 which would essentially had made felons out of people who associate with undocumented aliens. Never did I say that you were a facist or a nazi. I stated that such policies resembled facist and nazi policies- a fair depiction. It is you, Kevin, who have come out and openly used the Nazi epithet against me. Shall I remind you?: "Sarasotakid, Are you comparing Wolverine to the Nazis? Just checking." Half-seriously, of course. You need to lighten up. Geez, quit being such a Nazi. kevin s. | Homepage | 05.18.07 - 3:47 pm | #
So please, Kevin, cast it as you may- as humor, as self defense, as Christian charity and love. But you did it. I'm sure that you have a perfectly rational explanation for it. I'm sure that you will find some way of saying that it was taken out of context or that it was humourous. But you did say it. That went much further than me saying that policies that you advocate resemble the policies of 30's Germany. You came out and called me that name. So, Kevin, I have precious little sympathy for you when you play the victim. Especially when the policies you advocate would hurt 12 million people. I think you know that my post was not serious, but rather a parody of your hyperbolic comments about conservatives. They were completely out of character from the rest of my posts.Kevin S.
Yeah, I'm still laughing all the while one of Don's previous comments echoes in my head: "Kevin doesn't argue fair."
Posted by: Sarasotakid | June 5, 2007 12:02 PM
"Should I cut & paste from the National Review? Would that be worth our time?" Certainly, if you found anything there that supports your assertion. The fact that you haven't tells me that you didn't. You take issue with my sources because they were biased, but you don't provide any support for your opinion, not even from a similarly biased source like the National Review. Sorry, Kevin, but you can't demonstrate the validity of your opinion without data to support it. This topic is academic now anyway, because neuro_nurse has provided us with data that is clearly unbiased and that equally clearly demonstrates that your and Phana's notion that undocumented aliens are a burden on social services is false, at least so far as health care is concerned. Peace,
Posted by: Don | June 5, 2007 12:53 PM
*Quack!!! Quack!!!*
Posted by: Ernest Ainsley | June 5, 2007 6:17 PM
"Should I cut & paste from the National Review? Would that be worth our time?" No, just disclose where you get your information - a web link would be nice, but I know one can't always be provided.
I also know you have an academic background, so you know the standard is to provide the author's name, date of publication, title of the article or book, and journal, newspaper, or website in which it was published. Is it worth our time? It might save some time that would otherwise be spent gainsaying. Peace!
Posted by: neuro_nurse | June 5, 2007 10:03 PM
""Sarasotakid, Are you comparing Wolverine to the Nazis? Just checking." Half-seriously, of course. You need to lighten up. Geez, quit being such a Nazi. kevin s. | Homepage | 05.18.07 - 3:47 pm | # " I was responding to Jesse. I was calling Jesse, with whom I agree on this issue, a Nazi. If you are pretending that you do not understand that this was meant in jest than you are simply lying.
This is beyond pedantic.
Posted by: Kevin S. | June 5, 2007 11:55 PM
Thank you for rationalizing. I knew you would. I won't stoop to your level and call you a liar.
Posted by: Sarasotakid | June 6, 2007 12:57 AM
I have a question. Among the 12 million illegal immigrants who may or may not be deported depending on which politicians succeed, are many who are adults now but were brought here by their parents when they were small children. They have grown up here through no fault of their own. And now they face deportation to a country as foreign to them as it would be to any American born citizen. Can this possibly be fair or just or right? Does anyone know if ANYONE is making the case that these "illegals" should be treated differently from those who made their own choice to "break the law" to come here? My conscience tells me that, at the very least, these adult illegals MUST be offered a means of legalizing thier position. But I haven't heard anyone say anything about it.
Posted by: p2ehling | June 6, 2007 8:06 PM
When I asked this same question to Legislators in my home state the response was "When making omelettes you have to break a few eggs". the indifference to problems like this in palpable. If it does not equal hatred it sure looks like its cousin. The bill currently before the senate does address this issue with a high degree of dignity and logic.
Posted by: wayne | June 7, 2007 12:28 AM
There is something called the DREAM Act, which was designed to assist the kids who did not come here out of their own volition. It is my understanding that it has been incorporated into the Senate bill.
Posted by: Sarasotakid | June 7, 2007 3:39 AM
"Thank you for rationalizing." Are you suggesting that I really meant that Jesse was a Nazi? "I knew you would." As well I should.
"I won't stoop to your level and call you a liar." Calling one who has not lied a liar does not put you on the same level as one who has correctly identified a liar. You took a joke aimed at Jesse and pretended that I called you a nazi. Call that whatever you want.
Posted by: Kevin S. | June 7, 2007 5:13 AM
*Quack!! Quack!!*>
Posted by: Ernest Ainsley | June 7, 2007 6:51 PM
The bill that is now limping its way through our government is, for lack of a better term, putting the cart before the horse.
How can any immigration bill work if the tide of illegal immigrants is still continuing unchecked? Before any reform about citizenship or guest worker programs is implemented shouldn’t the flood of illegal immigrants be stifled? A bill that addresses the problem of illegals in the country will only work after there are no more people illegally coming into the country. Everything that is being discussed and fought over right now is null and void if there is no way to stop illegal immigration. Neither citizenship nor work programs will fix the problem. If anything it will only multiply it.
If there are no punishments for hiring illegal workers, why would businesses want to hire the new citizens or use guest workers? If the flood of illegals is allowed to continue unchecked how does the citizenship program work and how will a guest worker program work?
Before we can address the illegal immigrant problem of the country we must fist deal with the borders. If there is no way to stop illegal immigration what good will the new laws do. Citizenship and work programs are not ways to stop illegal immigration they are ways to deal with illegal immigrants. This grand idea is not an illegal immigration fix all it is a poorly placed Band-Aid that will do little to fix the problem and in the long run only cause it to fester and grow.
Posted by: Worm5j1 | June 8, 2007 10:39 AM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?