But that's okay, we'll nod, nod, wink wink, nudge nudge and humor you when you think your reading of a study trumps boots on the ground experience.

Cause hey, you think it does. Boy where did we hear that kind of stuff before.

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/24/video-reid-…

Jason Arvak said:
>"So far, exactly NONE of the anti-immigration people on this thread have offered actual arguments. The fact that your side must apparently rely on nothing more than sweeping empty assertions, personal attacks, and the occasional bit of juicy racism kind of reinforces my view rather than undermining it"

And you are relying on little more than cries of "racism" against your opponents, which is the hallmark of a weak argument. I thought Poligazette was above this nonsense. Yes, of course many people oppose illegal immigration for racist reasons. But many people support it for racist reasons as well. I seriously doubt Mexican groups like MALDEF, MEChA, or "La Raza" (which literally means "the race"!) would push so hard for immigrant rights if the immigrants were mostly Chinese instead of Mexican. Mexicans certainly don't do much for illegal immigrants in their own country (who are deported, and denied services such as free schooling, unlike in the USA).

Now let's discuss your actual evidence, the Center for American Progress study. The problem isn't just that it was put out by a liberal think tank. The problem is that I can quote you dozens of other very credible studies that would either support or refute this one, depending on who commissioned it. It's all in how you count the numbers. But even assuming that study is 100% correct (and that's a huge stretch), there are other problems:

1. Allowing people to “jump the line” with an amnesty is inherently unfair for people who have gone through the process legally (including my spouse, incidentally).

2. The USA is already over 300 million people. Shouldn’t we be looking at stablizing that? Even in the USA, the population growth is not sustainable forever. We are already in the middle of a fresh water crisis, particularly in the Southwest. And keep in mind that transplanting a person from a third world country to the USA increases their carbon footprint several times over. It’s not pretty, but it’s the truth.

3. On a related note, you use the example of Japan struggling to find ways to take care of it's aging population. But the alternative you are proposing, the pyramid scheme to keep increasing population numbers to pay for retirees, can't go on forever and will eventually explode in your face.

4. The last amnesty under President Reagan, which this study draws heavily on, was supposed to be the last one. It also had the net effect of increasing illegal immigration afterward, because now immigrants believed they could just look forward to the next amnesty. In the political deal, it was coupled with strong enforcement measures to ensure that it would be a one-time amnesty only. But the enforcement was largely ignored by both parties. Enough said.

“I note, however, that the fact you have attempted to post those racist comments proves my point about the racism that infests such a huge part of the anti-immigration movement.”

You have made it pretty personal from what I have seen. Give Johnny P. a big wet kiss for me.

This heritage article falls in line with much of what I said about the current financial burden on taxpayers, illegal immigrants create in this country.

” On average, low-skill immigrant families receive $30,160 per year in government benefits and services while paying $10,573 in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of $19,587 that has to be paid by higher-income taxpayers.

There is a rough one-to-one fiscal balance between low-skill immigrant families and upper-middle-class families. It takes the entire net tax payments (taxes paid minus benefits received) of one college-educated family to pay for the net benefits received by one low-skill immigrant family. Even Julian Simon, the godfather of open-border advocates, acknowledged that imposing such a burden on taxpayers was unreasonable, stating, “immigrants who would be a direct economic burden upon citizens through the public coffers should have no claim to be admitted” into the nation”

One interesting section from the article: “While most open-border libertarians proclaim a desire to dismantle both borders and the welfare state, in practice what they offer is open borders today and a vague (and almost certainly illusory) promise to end the welfare state in the indefinite future. As Milton Friedman understood, open-border enthusiasts have the sequence wrong: Opening borders with the redistributionist state still intact will result in a larger and more confiscatory government.”

Two excerpts:
“The transfer state redistributes funds from those with high-skill and high-income levels to those with lower skill levels. Low-skill immigrants become natural recipients in this process. On average, low-skill immigrant families receive $30,160 per year in government benefits and services while paying $10,573 in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of $19,587 that has to be paid by higher-income taxpayers.”

“The grant of citizenship is a transfer of political power. Access to the U.S. ballot box also provides access to the American taxpayer’s bank account. This is particularly problematic with regard to low-skill immigrants. Within an active redistributionist state, as Friedman understood, unlimited immigration can threaten limited government.”

Ignorance is bliss. Chastising others here, most of whom have a much much MUCH better understanding of the impact of illegals only serves to make you look even more simpleminded. You are a true bleeding heart, as naive a person on political matters as I’ve ever come across. I’ll leave you to pray at the alter of “The Chosen One”. All ye who haveth faith, kneel before thy temple of Obama.

I should introduce myself. I am the author of a book titled “Five Short Blasts: A New Economic Theory Exposes The Fatal Flaw in Globalization and Its Consequences for America.” To make a long story short, my theory is that, as population density rises beyond some optimum level, per capita consumption of products begins to decline out of the need to conserve space. People who live in crowded conditions simply don’t have enough space to use and store many products. This declining per capita consumption, in the face of rising productivity (per capita output, which always rises), inevitably yields rising unemployment and poverty.

This theory has huge implications for U.S. policy toward population management, especially immigration policy. Our policies of encouraging high rates of immigration are rooted in the belief of economists that population growth is a good thing, fueling economic growth. Through most of human history, the interests of the common good and business (corporations) were both well-served by continuing population growth. For the common good, we needed more workers to man our factories, producing the goods needed for a high standard of living. This population growth translated into sales volume growth for corporations. Both were happy.

But, once an optimum population density is breached, their interests diverge. It is in the best interest of the common good to stabilize the population, avoiding an erosion of our quality of life through high unemployment and poverty. However, it is still in the interest of corporations to fuel population growth because, even though per capita consumption goes into decline, total consumption still increases. We now find ourselves in the position of having corporations and economists influencing public policy in a direction that is not in the best interest of the common good.

The U.N. ranks the U.S. with eight third world countries – India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Democratic Republic of Congo, Bangladesh, Uganda, Ethiopia and China – as accounting for fully half of the world’s population growth by 2050. It’s absolutely imperative that our population be stabilized, and that’s impossible without dramatically reining in immigration, both legal and illegal.

If you’re interested in learning more about this important new economic theory, I invite you to visit my web site at http://PeteMurphy.wordpress.com.

Pete Murphy
Author, “Five Short Blasts”

So far, exactly NONE of the anti-immigration people on this thread have offered actual arguments. The fact that your side must apparently rely on nothing more than sweeping empty assertions, personal attacks, and the occasional bit of juicy racism kind of reinforces my view rather than undermining it.

You clearly have no idea – wait – no clue as to what my side is. I’m absolutely for a much smarter immigration policy – basically close to what Bush tried to enact.

But you in your usual – I’ll attack everything that doesn’t agree with me – form denies any possibilities that you are as wrong as you are in your assumptions.

intense personal linkage to an issue has never been a requirement for someone to speak out on public policy.

Sure, anyone can speak out on anything they would like. However, when you decide to lash out at anyone disagreeing with your flawed assumptions, it certainly has it’s requirement place.

I’ve lived it, seen it, felt it from all sides. What have you done.

But speak up – disprove my assertions. If you do not think that gov’t benefits such as community hospitals needing additional funding via US taxpayers to cover illegals is an accurate fact – you have much, much, MUCH studying to do.

So far, exactly NONE of the anti-immigration people on this thread have offered actual arguments.

So everyone of us who voiced an opinion that did not jive with yours are

ANTI-IMMIGRATION????

claims that comprehensive immigration reform leading to legalization for millions of immigrants could yield $1.5 trillion in benefits to the U.S. economy through higher wages and productivity.

Most everyone here is debating this. I don’t know but I think there is way more to immigration and immigration reform then this one aspect, but according to you, anyone who disagrees with you on this one aspect of immigration is now

ANTI-IMMIGRATION.

Interesting take on the debate.

Evading security in an airport is a different scenario entirely because (1) it does not have the same harmless intention (economic survival) and (2) it directly threatens security of other people present.

And “Interested”, you have no basis to know what I do or do not “live”. And even if you do have some intense personal link to the issue, intense personal linkage to an issue has never been a requirement for someone to speak out on public policy.

So far, exactly NONE of the anti-immigration people on this thread have offered actual arguments. The fact that your side must apparently rely on nothing more than sweeping empty assertions, personal attacks, and the occasional bit of juicy racism kind of reinforces my view rather than undermining it.

WOW. Dispite the fact that you just entirely made that up.. Do you really suppose that a speeding violation is comparable to ILLEGALLY CROSSING INTERNATIONAL BOARDERS? Do you think if you snuck by customs in an airport you would receive a ticket? OF COURSE NOT, thats a serious crime.

The issue of illegality is simply a problem of exaggeration. Yes, illegal immigrants broke the law, but probably so did you when you exceeded the speed limit on your way to work this morning. The issue isn’t whether or not illegal immigration is illegal, but rather what the appropriate consequence should be. If individual immigrants have committed other crimes, particularly violent crimes, even progressive plans for immigration reform would concede that imprisonment and deportation is the appropriate response to those other crimes. But illegal immigration in and of itself is a victimless crime. These are people merely trying to survive and support their families. It is hardly just to treat them as violent or dangerous felons in response. Payment of a moderate fine is more appropriate, and a path to legalization should be provided for those that have been otherwise contributing members of their communities.

Irrelevant argument. Likewise my speeding is a victimless crime unless I do a bodily or property damage.

And literally every single study I have seen shows that immigrants, including illegal immigrants, are far more economically beneficial than they are costly.

Studies cannot mesh data with the intangibles. And no study that I’ve seen as fully encompassed every level of a local economy with the given impact financially. They all take one level or bits and pieces of others.

There is nothing magically about being an illegal immigrant that makes the tax man go away. This is entirely a myth concocted by anti-immigration advocates.

Actually you’re splitting hairs here quite a bit. but it combines with the welfare one below.

The idea that people should be excluded because you assume (wrongly, IMHO) that they will vote for the other political party is about as morally repugnant a position as I can think of. Good hard-working people should be forced to live in poverty and violence just so your party can have more power? Blech!

Which is precisely what the democrats did when Bush tried to tackle it.

And here we see another myth about immigrants — that they are all on welfare. There are no facts to back that up and, in fact, most if not all states deny all government benefits without proof of citizenship.

another Myth that doesn’t stand up to reality.

Healthcare given to an illegal immigrant on US Taxpayers dime is a government benefit. Not all illegals that receive services on the taxpayers dime work here.

Hell, and I’m one that supports revamping what we consider and want from immigration – but you probably should live it to understand it Jason.