« Photo Of The Day | Main | Photo Of The Day »

Thursday, June 21, 2007

Comments

There is an abundance of valid and highly credible evidence all over the internet on what the previous amnesty "plans" did in 1965 as well as in 1986. The current Shamnesty Bill will increase our country's total population by 60%!

Find out for yourself how your life has been directly affected no matter where you live and how much more we can expect if this nonsense is made law:

Economic costs

* 40-50% of wage loss among low-skilled Americans is due to immigration of low-skilled workers.
* 1,880,000 American workers are displaced from their jobs by immigration. The cost for providing welfare and assistance to displaced Americans is over $15 billion/year.
* The net annual cost of immigration is between $67 and $87 per year.
* The National Academy of Sciences found the net fiscal drain on American taxpayers is $166-226 per year for each native household. Even studies showing modest economic gain from immigration ($1-10 billion per year) find it is outweighed by the fiscal cost of $15-20 billion per year.

Drugs

* 80% of cocaine and 50% of heroin in the U.S. are smuggled across the border by Mexican nationals.
* Drug cartels spend a half-billion dollars per year bribing corrupt Mexican army and police officials.

Hospitals

* Dozens of hospitals in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California have been forced to close or face bankruptcy because of providing coverage to illegal aliens. ( Is anyone trying to figure out why healthcare costs so much and your benefits at work covers less and less every year? )

Anchor babies

There are 287,000-363,000 children born to illegal aliens each year.

Prisons

Taxpayers pay half a billion dollars per year incarcerating illegal alien criminals.

Transfer of wealth

$60 billion earned by illegal aliens in the U.S. each year.
$10 billion are sent back to Mexico annually, equal to the amount Mexico earns from tourism which does not include the drug trade.

For those people misinformed or otherwise curious about the claims made by protesting Mexicans recently in California and Chicago;
Nations Originally Controlling the Western United States
* In the Adams-Onis Treaty of 1819, the U.S. ceded to Spain the possession of Texas, California and New Mexico (lands included present-day Nevada, Utah, Arizona parts of Wyoming and Colorado). Other territories, including the Oregon territory, were ceded to the U.S. by Spain.
* Mexico was not an independent nation until 1821.
* By 1836 the Republic of Texas had established itself separate from Mexico and by 1846 Mexican control of California was in considerable question. Except (arguably) for the Civil War, Texas has been part of the United States since 1846.
* In the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the U.S. paid Mexico approximately $20 million for all of present-day California, Nevada, and Utah, and parts of present-day Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Wyoming. The nation of Mexico by then had officially controlled California and the mentioned territories for less than thirty years.
* Los Angeles was named by Father Juan Crespi, a Spanish Franciscan priest and missionary who was born in Palma. He hailed from Europe.
* San Antonio was named "San Antonio de Padua" by Spaniard Domingo Teran de los Rios in 1691. Teran, remembered today as the first provincial governor of Texas, was a member of the Spanish military who previously had spent twenty years in Spanish service in Peru.
* San Francisco was named by Portuguese explorer Sebastian Rodriguez Cermeno, who claimed it for Spain.

Other Resources:

**NumbersUSA has read the immigration bill, has your Senator?**
http://www.numbersusa.com/PDFs/WhatIsInS1348.pdf

**Trust Teddy Kennedy, again?** by William Federer
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/25980.html

**A Closer Look At The Amnesty Bill** by Candis Strasbourger
http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20070617/COLUMN/106170089

U.S. Border Control ( Not 12 million, try 20+ million. )
www.usbc.org

Immigration by The Numbers - Roy Beck
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4094926727128068265&q=roy+beck&hl=en

Center For Immigration Studies concludes that over 33 million legal immigrants and illegal aliens now live in the United States
http://www.cis.org/

When you've seen enough to be motivated into action -

**Numbers USA FREE Fax and Email!**
( Senators AND the President )
http://www.numbersusa.com/actionbuffet

Trouble is, there are people on the other side of the issue who will generate their own list of advantages associated with immigration and many of them will argue, with equal enthusiasm, that the issue is a no brainer supported by the data.

Dr. X wrote:

"Trouble is, there are people on the other side of the issue who will generate their own list of advantages associated with immigration and many of them will argue, with equal enthusiasm, that the issue is a no brainer supported by the data."

Such as on the matter of employment and wages.

The most credible pessimist on the employment question is Harvard's George Borjas. Borgjas calculates that wages for native-born high school dropouts are 7.4 percent lower than they would have been without immigration. But UC Berkley's David Card has compared wage patterns across cities, concluding that high school dropouts in cities with high immigration rates are faring no worse than those in low-immigration cities. In low-immigration cities, says Card, employers don't necessarily respond to a paucity of low-skilled workers by bidding up wages to attract more of them. Instead, they may respond by investing in machinery that allows three low-skilled workers to do what six might do in a high-immigration city.

Wingnut also says that "1,880,000 American workers are displaced from their jobs by immigration. The cost for providing welfare and assistance to displaced Americans is over $15 billion/year."

Many researchers would disagree with that figure for "displaced" (not unemployed) workers and there is no evidence that displaced American workers have swollen welfare rolls by $15 billion.

This Cato Institute paper reports on research that finds a negligible impact or no impact on employment of natives. http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/pr-imnative.html

I could go on, but I won't belabor the obvious. It isn't the open and shut case people on both sides might wish it to be. People on both sides selectively cite statistics without regard for the credibility of data, contrary data and the dynamic nature of economic activity (it isn't a zero sum game).


There is an abundance of valid and highly credible evidence all over the internet on what the previous amnesty "plans" did in 1965 as well as in 1986. Find out for yourself how your life has been directly affected no matter where you live and how much more we can expect if this nonsense is made law.

Okay, so I found this. Immigrants will pay $5 trillion more in payroll taxes than they will recieve in payments over the next 75 years.

"Taxpayers pay half a billion dollars per year incarcerating illegal alien criminals."

That's $12.5 billion over the next 25 years. The estimated cost of building and maintaining 700 miles of wall over the next 25 years is $60 billion. If we really want to do the job, it would be far more expensive to "incarcerate" all of Mexico by building a wall to cover the entire border.

Hey Drivel;

First, you can not provide stats on people who are mostly paid in cash and protected from discovery in other ways in using healthcare as well as other services and entitlements living out of garages. Further, you can not mix legal immigrants with illegal aliens which is EXACTLY what open border and Liberal activists do to fluff the numbers of return in comparison to our support in actual burden. This makes you a fluffer Drivel, you've heard of that slang term before, haven't you.

Unlike you, I bring these few facts and direct links in my study of this subject as proof that I'm actually searching for the closest possible truth that can be gleened, where you merely cherry-pick what you think you need to swing sentiment towards your view....take your "many researchers" and have a fluffer party.

Until people can discuss illegal immigration without branding those who favor secure borders as racists xenophobes opposed to all immigration, the dialogue can't even begin.

Someone just explain to me why enforcing our laws and asking people not to cut in line in front of people who are complying with our immigration requirements is racist.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Photos

Photography