The real cost of illegal immigrants is huge and serious

[Fremont]

Here are some good comments about the real cost of illegal immigrants from the US Senate.

We certainly do not see many of the bleeding heart liberals who support illegals offering to help pay for the real costs or to help clean up the mess. They just pontificate and then expect others pay up.

1. Some of the real dollar costs and some other costs to the welfare of our society:

“ . . .a study by the U.S.-Mexico Border Counties Coalition estimated that hospitals in Arizona were required to provide a whopping $100 million to $200 million a year in uncompensated health care for illegal aliens.

Think what that means to health-care delivery in Arizona. A mother about to deliver her baby may encounter clogged emergency rooms and long wait times because hospitals must devote scarce resources to also treat illegal aliens. Since they are not compensated for the care they are required to provide, hospitals have only a few choices: pass on the costs to paying patients (usually American citizens); absorb the costs; or limit (or eliminate) services they provide to the community.”

Now that is scarry. Reduced medical care for US citzens and legal residents who are ready and willing to pay so illegals who refuse to pay can be treated. How can this be just?

“Aside from uncompensated health-care costs, communities are also required to bear the costs of arresting, prosecuting, and jailing illegal immigrants who commit other crimes. According to a study by the University of Arizona, those costs amounted to as much as $125 million per year – and that was just in the 28 southwestern border counties in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas.”

1. Costs to the environment: (even the tree huggers should be upset by this)

“Our natural environment is damaged by many thousands of illegal border crossers, who trample sensitive lands and leave tons of trash behind them. Local governments are forced to devote an increasing share of scare resources to deal with illegal immigrants . . – which in turn diminishes the ability of local governments to provide improved resources for their own citizens.”

1. Amnesty of any type is not an acceptable answer.

“Turning a blind eye to illegal immigration, or sanctioning such behavior, undermines the rule of law in our country. It mocks those who wait patiently, sometimes for years, to enter the U.S. through legal channels. It encourages more people to immigrate illegally with the expectation that they, too, might benefit from some future amnesty. Any reform of our nation’s immigration laws should be careful to avoid amnesty by any name.”

Read more:

kyl.senate.gov/print_page.cfm?File=legis_center/border.cfm

 

[Karin]

Hmm…interesting…think it will make any difference though?

 

[Fremont]

Hmm…interesting…think it will make any difference though?

I certainly hope so. There seems to be some very smart and powerful people working on this issue.

Just as with other important issues like abortion, euthanasia, etc. we have to keep pushing for the right outcome. To give up is to fail, not only fail ourselves but fail others as well.

 

[Karin]

I certainly hope so. There seems to be some very smart and powerful people working on this issue.

Just as with other important issues like abortion, euthanasia, etc. we have to keep pushing for the right outcome. To give up is to fail, not only fail ourselves but fail others as well.

Well I can only hope it makes a difference.
I honestly dont think it will though as some of this stuff is not breaking news but stuff that had been known for years.

 

[Fremont]

Well I can only hope it makes a difference.
I honestly dont think it will though as some of this stuff is not breaking news but stuff that had been known for years.

Yes, the comments by Senator Kyle as well as many other instances of the enormous costs to the US community have been ongoing for some time. These show a horrible situation.

A key point here is that many such instances cause real harm.

Violation of a secular law is one thing but harm to the innocent is evil.

Church teaching has consistently held that the ends do not justify the means. Immoral or evil means cannot justifiably be used to achieve an end or result no matter how desirable. This is the basic principle used to condemn abortion, euthanasia and many other acts.

Any illegal immigrant who causes harm to the innocent, such as the behaviors described by Kyle and others, use of a stolen social security number that harms the legitimate person assigned that number, etc., is acting immorally and contrary to Church teaching.

Seeking and/or securing a job to better provide for one’s family may be a desirable end but if harm to others is caused in the process the behavior is immoral. Church teaching is very clear on this point.

We should all condemn such behavior. It is not moral for us to ignore such matters or to “look the other way” and it is certainly wrong for anyone to attempt to justify harm to the innocent by an illegal immigrant, be that to an individual or to society, with the ends they view as desirable

 

[Ituyu]

QUOTE]Seeking and/or securing a job to better provide for one’s family may be a desirable end but if harm to others is caused in the process the behavior is immoral. Church teaching is very clear on this point.

Sure if someone causes harm to another in the process. What harm is really caused to another in the process of crossing the border or in the process of working for a living? Usually none!

Church Social Teaching is that the use of false documents is a function of their “illegal” status and for the majority of them this does not constitute any harm to others unless they are used as ID theft or to commit a crime. The Church does not see “WORK” as illegal but rather as a necessary obligation and right of every individual. To deny the people crossing our borders admission to the south with the pretext of making us more secure is a false pretext. The Church does not condone our intentional attack on the poor who come here to work and are otherwise law-abiding citizens. The Church does recognize reasons to screen applicants and refuse admission to criminal elements. The Church does acknowledge that it is not possible to allow everyone in the world in. However, we are talking about people who have already found jobs that hurt no one.

We should all condemn such behavior. It is not moral for us to ignore such matters or to “look the other way” and it is certainly wrong for anyone to attempt to justify harm to the innocent by an illegal immigrant, be that to an individual or to society, with the ends they view as desirable

Well crossing our border is not currently a “criminal act”. It’s an infraction. Now if they were to sell drugs or rob banks then you have a legitimate cause against the offenders. Most of the people here do not violate any serious laws.

I find it particularly offensive that we would embark on a one-sided approach that punishes the people that are in reality the victims of exploitation. They’ve come here in answer to our need for workers, as they’ve always done. We limited our “legal” entries to levels far below our actual needs. They worked for less and we ALL benefited. Why don’t we strip those that gave them jobs “illegally” or knowingly allowed them to work here legally of their citizenship and exile them? That would include the vast majority of the CEO’s of our businesses as well as most of our politicians and millions of our citizens. Why not? Because it would be the wrong thing to do. All we need to do is to bring our quotas up to a realistic level and accept applications from those already here and prospective newcomers. Any action or inaction will cost us something but in this case doing nothing is a better course to follow than the wasting 7 billion dollars on a fence and tens of billions on the trainng and staffing of additional agents. Since all of the previous 9/11 offenders came here legally, how much additional “security” would we have bought? ZERO! Face it. Justice will not be served by our proposed actions and there is no reason to believe that it will work. Let’s focus our attention on REAL criminals and terrorists and not waste our resources on some guy that wants to push a broom, take care of our children/elderly, fill our water glass, harvest our crops or make our meals in order to put food on the table. The time we spend punishing people for that is time away from the people we really want to catch.

 

[Ituyu]

quote=Fremont;1514838]Here are some good comments about the real cost of illegal immigrants from the US Senate.

We certainly do not see many of the bleeding heart liberals who support illegals offering to help pay for the real costs or to help clean up the mess. They just pontificate and then expect others pay up.

1. Some of the real dollar costs and some other costs to the welfare of our society:

“ . . .a study by the U.S.-Mexico Border Counties Coalition estimated that hospitals in Arizona were required to provide a whopping $100 million to $200 million a year in uncompensated health care for illegal aliens.

Think what that means to health-care delivery in Arizona. A mother about to deliver her baby may encounter clogged emergency rooms and long wait times because hospitals must devote scarce resources to also treat illegal aliens. Since they are not compensated for the care they are required to provide, hospitals have only a few choices: pass on the costs to paying patients (usually American citizens); absorb the costs; or limit (or eliminate) services they provide to the community.”

Now that is scarry. Reduced medical care for US citzens and legal residents who are ready and willing to pay so illegals who refuse to pay can be treated. How can this be just?

Well first of all let’s put the blame where it belongs, on the Federal Government. Our government is the beneficiary of the economic growth and resultant tax income that immigrants have created in this country. The government has made much more than the costs and it should simply reimburse the hospitals.

“Aside from uncompensated health-care costs, communities are also required to bear the costs of arresting, prosecuting, and jailing illegal immigrants who commit other crimes. According to a study by the University of Arizona, those costs amounted to as much as $125 million per year – and that was just in the 28 southwestern border counties in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas.”

1. Costs to the environment: (even the tree huggers should be upset by this)

“Our natural environment is damaged by many thousands of illegal border crossers, who trample sensitive lands and leave tons of trash behind them. Local governments are forced to devote an increasing share of scare resources to deal with illegal immigrants . . – which in turn diminishes the ability of local governments to provide improved resources for their own citizens

Again put the blame on those who have repeated kept our immigration quotas under what we actually required. Had we a viable “legal” option there is no question that they would have taken it. It would have been cheaper and safer to do so. Instead thousands have died coming here.

Our natural environment would not be a problem either had we opened the door of “legal” immigration to fit our needs. AND, a freaking high fence will do wonders for our environment? Please using the “environment” is a bogus argument.

What difference does it make in terms of costs had a low wage “legal” had been the one that needed the care and could not pay for it? Wouldn’t the costs have been the same? The problem is that we don’t have sufficient workers so we take them when they come.

1. Amnesty of any type is not an acceptable answer.

“Turning a blind eye to illegal immigration, or sanctioning such behavior, undermines the rule of law in our country. It mocks those who wait patiently, sometimes for years, to enter the U.S. through legal channels. It encourages more people to immigrate illegally with the expectation that they, too, might benefit from some future amnesty. Any reform of our nation’s immigration laws should be careful to avoid amnesty by any name.”

Read more:

kyl.senate.gov/print_page.cfm?File=legis_center/border.cfm

Actually, this is another bogus argument. What motivates people to come here is “JOBS”. The simple fundamental laws of Supply & Demand are at work here. If we fail to supply the demand for workers legally, then our demand for their labor will bring them here. It has always been the case that they come and go according to our need/demand for workers.

NOBODY, is proposing amnesty. These people will have to pay fines and fees as well as back taxes. The entire program will be handsomely underwritten revenues they generate now and the monies they will pay in taxes in the future. Monies that we would not have collected. There is no need to be reactionary or so anti-immigrant in our zeal to mete out PUNISHMENT, especially when their actions are in answer to OUR needs as well as theirs. There are costs on both sides. We need only be fair. They are here, we need them here and to make them leave will only hurt us.

 

[fiat1122]

Well first of all let’s put the blame where it belongs, on the Federal Government. Our government is the beneficiary of the economic growth and resultant tax income that immigrants have created in this country. The government has made much more than the costs and it should simply reimburse the hospitals.

Again put the blame on those who have repeated kept our immigration quotas under what we actually required. Had we a viable “legal” option there is no question that they would have taken it. It would have been cheaper and safer to do so. Instead thousands have died coming here.

Our natural environment would not be a problem either had we opened the door of “legal” immigration to fit our needs. AND, a freaking high fence will do wonders for our environment? Please using the “environment” is a bogus argument.

What difference does it make in terms of costs had a low wage “legal” had been the one that needed the care and could not pay for it? Wouldn’t the costs have been the same? The problem is that we don’t have sufficient workers so we take them when they come.

Actually, this is another bogus argument. What motivates people to come here is “JOBS”. The simple fundamental laws of Supply & Demand are at work here. If we fail to supply the demand for workers legally, then our demand for their labor will bring them here. It has always been the case that they come and go according to our need/demand for workers.

NOBODY, is proposing amnesty. These people will have to pay fines and fees as well as back taxes. The entire program will be handsomely underwritten revenues they generate now and the monies they will pay in taxes in the future. Monies that we would not have collected. There is no need to be reactionary or so anti-immigrant in our zeal to mete out PUNISHMENT, especially when their actions are in answer to OUR needs as well as theirs. There are costs on both sides. We need only be fair. They are here, we need them here and to make them leave will only hurt us. I am totally in favor of MORE securing our borders. We are literally being invaded my ILLEGAL immigrants, and some have criminal histories. The worse of all is they don’t assimilate, and get angry when WE don’t speak spanish here, but they at times seem to HATE english. I am of hispanic background, my parents came from Puerto Rico in the early 195-'s yes PR has been an AMERICAN territory since 1898, and those born there have been CITIZENS since 1917. I am an AMERICAN, and am a proud one. I love his country, and the ONLY flags I fly here are the great US Flag and at times the VATICAN flag. We must urge our lawmakers to end the ILLEGAL immigration nonsense.

 

[Fremont]

QUOTE]

Church Social Teaching is that the use of false documents is a function of their “illegal” status and for the majority of them this does not constitute any harm to others unless they are used as ID theft or to commit a crime. The Church does not see “WORK” as illegal but rather as a necessary obligation and right of every individual. To deny the people crossing our borders admission to the south with the pretext of making us more secure is a false pretext. The Church does not condone our intentional attack on the poor who come here to work and are otherwise law-abiding citizens. The Church does recognize reasons to screen applicants and refuse admission to criminal elements.

The point is that the Church teaches the ends do not justify the means, and that it is wrong to make use of immoral means to achieve any end no matter how desirable.

I know of no Church teaching that proclaims it is proper to utilize acts such as lying, cheating or stealing to acquire material gains. Use of false or stolen credentials is certainly such behavior.

All illegal immigrants, as well as anyone else, who present bogus credentials to gain a job, or to gain any other secular benefits, they are not otherwise entitle to is guilty of such behavior. While always wrong there may be degrees here and harm to the innocent is likely the worst. There are numerous reports of innocents suffering major harm via the IRS from the fraudulent use of their social security number by illegal immigrants.

Turning a “blind eye” or otherwise ignoring such practices is not in concert to the intent of the Church teaching in my opinion. Trying to justify such practices with obtuse reasoning is even worse, a direct defiance of the message.

 

[Fremont]

Well first of all let’s put the blame where it belongs, on the Federal Government. Our government is the beneficiary of the economic growth and resultant tax income that immigrants have created in this country. The government has made much more than the costs and it should simply reimburse the hospitals.

Again put the blame on those who have repeated kept our immigration quotas under what we actually required. Had we a viable “legal” option there is no question that they would have taken it. It would have been cheaper and safer to do so. Instead thousands have died coming here.

Our natural environment would not be a problem either had we opened the door of “legal” immigration to fit our needs. AND, a freaking high fence will do wonders for our environment? Please using the “environment” is a bogus argument.

What difference does it make in terms of costs had a low wage “legal” had been the one that needed the care and could not pay for it? Wouldn’t the costs have been the same? The problem is that we don’t have sufficient workers so we take them when they come.

The point of this thread was to further point out the huge costs to our country by illegal immigrants. The damage is a fact and ongoing.

This shows how bogus the claims those illegal immigrants actually a benefit is.

If you reject the statements by Senator Kyle I am sure he would be happy to hear from you.

It might be good for you to demonstrate your credibility, lack of bias and sincerity by including some of your more colorful arguments like “Europeans unleashed a brutal murderous conquest that resulted in the most devastating genocide known to mankind.” and how the indigenous peoples who have been living in Mexico for numerous generations have no place to call their “homeland” except the geography that is the current USA.

Actually, this is another bogus argument. What motivates people to come here is “JOBS”. The simple fundamental laws of Supply & Demand are at work here. If we fail to supply the demand for workers legally, then our demand for their labor will bring them here. It has always been the case that they come and go according to our need/demand for workers.

NOBODY, is proposing amnesty. These people will have to pay fines and fees as well as back taxes. The entire program will be handsomely underwritten revenues they generate now and the monies they will pay in taxes in the future. Monies that we would not have collected. There is no need to be reactionary or so anti-immigrant in our zeal to mete out PUNISHMENT, especially when their actions are in answer to OUR needs as well as theirs. There are costs on both sides. We need only be fair. They are here, we need them here and to make them leave will only hurt us.

I agree with Senator Kyle that no form of amnesty or legalization is acceptable.

I support the current discussions in congress that will eliminate all jobs for illegal immigrants by making it uneconomical and impractical for any employer to hire or retain employment of any illegal immigrant. These plans have been covered pretty well in another thread of this forum.

 

[Fremont]

Well first of all let’s put the blame where it belongs, on the Federal Government. Our government is the beneficiary of the economic growth and resultant tax income that immigrants have created in this country. The government has made much more than the costs and it should simply reimburse the hospitals.

Again put the blame on those who have repeated kept our immigration quotas under what we actually required. Had we a viable “legal” option there is no question that they would have taken it. It would have been cheaper and safer to do so. Instead thousands have died coming here.

Our natural environment would not be a problem either had we opened the door of “legal” immigration to fit our needs. AND, a freaking high fence will do wonders for our environment? Please using the “environment” is a bogus argument.

What difference does it make in terms of costs had a low wage “legal” had been the one that needed the care and could not pay for it? Wouldn’t the costs have been the same? The problem is that we don’t have sufficient workers so we take them when they come.

The point of this thread was to further point out the huge costs to our country by illegal immigrants. The damage is a fact and ongoing.

This shows how bogus the claims those illegal immigrants actually a benefit is.

If you reject the statements by Senator Kyle I am sure he would be happy to hear from you.

It might be good for you to demonstrate you credibility, lack of bias and sincerity by including some of your more colorful arguments like “Europeans unleashed a brutal murderous conquest that resulted in the most devastating genocide known to mankind.” and how the indigenous peoples who have been living in Mexico for numerous generations have no place to call their “homeland” except the geography that is the current USA.

Actually, this is another bogus argument. What motivates people to come here is “JOBS”. The simple fundamental laws of Supply & Demand are at work here. If we fail to supply the demand for workers legally, then our demand for their labor will bring them here. It has always been the case that they come and go according to our need/demand for workers.

NOBODY, is proposing amnesty. These people will have to pay fines and fees as well as back taxes. The entire program will be handsomely underwritten revenues they generate now and the monies they will pay in taxes in the future. Monies that we would not have collected. There is no need to be reactionary or so anti-immigrant in our zeal to mete out PUNISHMENT, especially when their actions are in answer to OUR needs as well as theirs. There are costs on both sides. We need only be fair. They are here, we need them here and to make them leave will only hurt us.

I agree with Senator Kyle that no form of amnesty or legalization is acceptable.

I support the current discussions in congress that will eliminate all jobs for illegal immigrants by making it uneconomical and impractical for any employer to hire or retain employment of any illegal immigrant. These plans have been covered pretty well in another thread of this forum. I can post them again here if you wish.

 

[a_cermak]

How many illegal immigrants actually work for large corporations? I was under the impression most of them were self-employed or worked for small businesses or contractors.

My neighborhood has seen a large upsurge in inhabitants as immigrants have discovered the area. This has had the benefit of raising our property value and increasing rents in the occasional three and four flats. Many of the immigrants work as nannies and housekeepers, at reasonable prices, which enable many families to have two incomes coming in. Other immigrants are willing to work on rehabs, building or refurbishing decks, lawn care, etc. again at reasonable prices such that folks can afford to have these projects done. So there are also benefits to the immigrants (and I don’t know who is illegal and who is not, it is not my business to know) in my community.

The question, as always in politics, is to ask, who gains? Who loses? What is my interest?

 

[Ituyu]

The point is that the Church teaches the ends do not justify the means, and that it is wrong to make use of immoral means to achieve any end no matter how desirable.

It also teaches us about how to deal with our neighbors. It teaches us about God’s laws on a person’s rights and responsibilites as well as about love, mercy and charity. While the Church does teach us that we should respect laws that do not violate those principles it also teaches us that laws that violate those principles are unjust. And, we have a Christian obligation to oppose such laws.

I know of no Church teaching that proclaims it is proper to utilize acts such as lying, cheating or stealing to acquire material gains. Use of false or stolen credentials is certainly such behavior.

 

[Ituyu]

I support the current discussions in congress that will eliminate all jobs for illegal immigrants by making it uneconomical and impractical for any employer to hire or retain employment of any illegal immigrant. These plans have been covered pretty well in another thread of this forum.

You support the idea that poor indigenous immigrants are at fault for our problems. When you’re ready to admit that “illegal” immigration is a SYMPTOM, one that we control, then we can proceed with the job of making Americans more secure and our country more properous and able to meet the needs of it’s citizens.

 

[Ituyu]

These plans have been covered pretty well in another thread of this forum. I can post them again here if you wish.

Actually, rather than have you go off on yet another tangent, I’d be tickled pick if you would stay on topic and address the issues and questions posed here.

 

[Fremont]

Good post and good points. Here are my thoughts.

How many illegal immigrants actually work for large corporations? I was under the impression most of them were self-employed or worked for small businesses or contractors.

I am not sure anyone knows how many illegals work for large businesses, other size businesses or work as independent contractors. Presumably quite a few work for businesses though.

Supporters of illegal immigrants are quick to claim that illegals pay large amounts of social security taxes and that only happens when they work for a legitimate employer of some type. Also the supporters claim it is the demand for labor by companies that creates the situation.

Few if any illegal immigrants working as independent contractors pay the required self-employment taxes. This is not only illegal it is an enormous drain on our economy since that portion of our GNP goes untaxed – and that portion would be taxed if the work was done by legitimate workers.

My neighborhood has seen a large upsurge in inhabitants as immigrants have discovered the area. This has had the benefit of raising our property value and increasing rents in the occasional three and four flats. Many of the immigrants work as nannies and housekeepers, at reasonable prices, which enable many families to have two incomes coming in. Other immigrants are willing to work on rehabs, building or refurbishing decks, lawn care, etc. again at reasonable prices such that folks can afford to have these projects done. So there are also benefits to the immigrants (and I don’t know who is illegal and who is not, it is not my business to know) in my community.

I am afraid this is the biggest part of the problem – many echo your sentiments “(and I don’t know who is illegal and who is not, it is not my business to know)”. Many also do not question the very low price of a TV or computer or other goods of dubious ownership available on the black market or so called “gray market”. As Christians and as honest citizens it would seem we should not support any activities that involve at questionable and likely immoral behavior.

Plus it is only prudent for us to hire only licensed contractors to do work for us and to do a solid background and criminal check on anyone we allow into our homes as a domestic – especially if they are entrusted with our children

This is likely not the forum to discuss the ethics and prudence of relinquishing the care of ones children to others so both parents can work in order to increase their material wealth. A widow may have little recourse but suffice it to say I do not think that is a good idea for ordinary couples. I think children, mothers and the entire family gain the most by intimate nurturing and contact all times the children are at home. I support the attitudes of Dr. Laura on this topic.

The question, as always in politics, is to ask, who gains? Who loses? What is my interest?

“who gains? Who loses? What is my interest?” I suggest the question would be better based on our moral fortitude than on politics. If we are not part of the solution we may well be part of the problem.

 

[Fremont]

I think I would call it vigilantism. If someone tried to murder me I would likely call it attempted murder if I tried to murder them back. We have law enforcement services in our modern community and that is the avenue we should refer such issues to. Taking the law into our own hands has been considered inappropriate for some time.

 

[Fremont]

You support the idea that poor indigenous immigrants are at fault for our problems. When you’re ready to admit that “illegal” immigration is a SYMPTOM, one that we control, then we can proceed with the job of making Americans more secure and our country more properous and able to meet the needs of it’s citizens.

Actually I support the idea that illegal immigration is wrong and believe that the behaviors of many illegal immigrants are immoral and in violation of Church teaching. As such we should condemn this behavior.

 

[Fremont]

Actually, rather than have you go off on yet another tangent, I’d be tickled pick if you would stay on topic and address the issues and questions posed here.

Gee, I thought this forum was about immigration.

I am expressing viewpoints such as the great harm illegals do to our community and programs that strive for realistic and long lasting methods to eliminate the illegal immigrant problem. That seems right on topic to me.

It was someone else that went off on tangents like “Europeans unleashed a brutal murderous conquest that resulted in the most devastating genocide known to mankind.”

 

[Ituyu]

How many illegal immigrants actually work for large corporations? I was under the impression most of them were self-employed or worked for small businesses or contractors

.

There are “illegal” immigrants working in all types business. While many are self-employed there are many who work as part of crews, Agriculture, meat packing plants and an array of other industries though most of those who are indigenous would probably working as a janitor or subcontractor for large corporation. The current law also covers subcontractors.

My neighborhood has seen a large upsurge in inhabitants as immigrants have discovered the area. This has had the benefit of raising our property value and increasing rents in the occasional three and four flats. Many of the immigrants work as nannies and housekeepers, at reasonable prices, which enable many families to have two incomes coming in. Other immigrants are willing to work on rehabs, building or refurbishing decks, lawn care, etc. again at reasonable prices such that folks can afford to have these projects done. So there are also benefits to the immigrants (and I don’t know who is illegal and who is not, it is not my business to know) in my community.

Most opponents of “illegal” immigration would say that those employing them are aiding and abetting a crime. They don’t stop to consider the real world realities. One, the need for these people. Two, the lack of a viable “legal” avenue did not exist for them. Three, the benefits of freeing up the time of well-educated successful middle class citizens to generate jobs at higher income levels with higher tax bases. They’ll always overlook the fact that our quota system shut the doors for these people to come here legally.

The question, as always in politics, is to ask, who gains? Who loses? What is my interest?

While you will always get people with differing views, this is America after all, most economists argue the all immigration, legal and “illegal”, have resulted in sustaining and increasing our economic growth. That growth has also netted us more jobs at all levels of employment and thus more tax revenues.

Other than a fanatic appeal for the enforcement of one side of the law, immigration opponents have not offered a cogent response as to what they hope to gain by deporting 11 million people. We know that the vast majority of them are productive and responsible law-abiding members of our communities and we are in need of their labor. In the future we ill need more, not less. So it behooves us not to criminalize these people but to admit that this is a complex issue and that blaming them is counter-productive. The “illegal” issue is a symptom. They are not the problem. Punishing otherwise law-abiding members of our communities is not the answer.

http://www.perfectlaborstorm.com/facts.html