Illegal Immigrants and drivers licenses

[Quinn]

There's an incredible dearth of factual information in the discussion of Mexican immigration. & yes we're only talking about Mexican immigration. . .

Agreed, on both points. I’ll be sure to include some of the more methodologically sound findings that I have come across later.

Are they illegal? I don't know, I don't care, & I would never presume to ask. They've been great neighbors, & are hard working industrious middle class people.

No one has put into question whether illegal immigrants are “great neighbors” or “hard working industrious . . . people.” Speaking as someone who has both lived and done business in Mexico, there are few cultures I have a higher opinion of – but that isn’t what this is about, is it? It is about the economic impact illegal immigrants have upon this country.

I see this whole thing as just another hate campaign. No different than any other that we've seen throughout the planet's history. Some fizzle out. Some get totally out of control. Nobody hates the Irish anymore.

This type of unfortunate language is often used by advocates of illegal immigration to stifle any meaningful debate. Furthermore, our national economy bares little resemblance to the one that existed when the Irish and other groups came to this nation. As a result, today's immigrants' economic impact is completely different and has the potential to impose costs the nature of which didn't even exist when the Irish came here (if necessary, specifics and be provided).

The truth is that they're just looking for work & an opportunity to make a better life for their progeny. Isn't that what America's supposed to be about? We claim it is. The self-evident truth that there's an unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness?

The problem occurs when their pursuit of happiness comes at the cost of people who have lived and worked in this country their whole lives. Unfortunately, those most affected are those who can least afford it: this nation’s working class (reams of data addressing this phenomenon exist). Here are some findings from a reliable study of U.S. census data by CIS. Please keep in mind that, since state and local costs are not included, the costs detailed represent only a small fraction of the total cost to this nation:

• Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household.

• Among the largest costs are Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion).

• With nearly two-thirds of illegal aliens lacking a high school degree, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments, not their legal status or heavy use of most social services.

• On average, the costs that illegal households impose on federal coffers are less than half that of other households, but their tax payments are only one-fourth that of other households.

• Many of the costs associated with illegals are due to their American-born children, who are awarded U.S. citizenship at birth. Thus, greater efforts at barring illegals from federal programs will not reduce costs because their citizen children can continue to access them.

• If illegal aliens were given amnesty and began to pay taxes and use services like households headed by legal immigrants with the same education levels, the estimated annual net fiscal deficit would increase from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for a total net cost of $29 billion.

• Costs increase dramatically because unskilled immigrants with legal status -- what most illegal aliens would become -- can access government programs, but still tend to make very modest tax payments.

• Although legalization would increase average tax payments by 77 percent, average costs would rise by 118 percent.

• The fact that legal immigrants with few years of schooling are a large fiscal drain does not mean that legal immigrants overall are a net drain -- many legal immigrants are highly skilled.

• The vast majority of illegals hold jobs. Thus the fiscal deficit they create for the federal government is not the result of an unwillingness to work.

• The results of this study are consistent with a 1997 study by the National Research Council, which also found that immigrants' education level is a key determinant of their fiscal impact.

-Quinn

[hippifried]

Got a source for that paste? I'm betting on F.A.I.R.U.S. or Lou Dobbs.

Sorry. Not buying the doom & gloom.

I'm also not buying the "heavy use of most social services". Have you ever tried to use any of those services? Any clue how many hoops you have to jump through or how many documents you have to supply? The whole complaint against these people is that they're undocumented. If they can get all that shit, they can get good jobs with benefits. Join unions & whatnot. The only way to collect government benefits is in the name of their children who have documents because they were born here. They aren't immigrants at all, legal or illegal. They're natural born US citizens. Your stats are based on who the head of household is.

That's the problem with these kinds of stats that look for proof of a conjecture. You can make them say anything you want with nothing more than directional focus. Like I said. A dearth of factual information.

There are liars & there are damned liars.
Then there are statisticians!
---Mark Twain (over a century ago, & nothing's changed)

Look at the stats you've provided. A total of $10 billion in cost-benefit differential over the course of a year. What is that? 2 weeks in Iraq? Cook the books all you like, but the resulting question is still the same: "So what?"

Property taxes are the bulk of school funding. Everybody with a roof over their head pays them, regardless of status. We insist, as a matter of law, that all children living within the jurisdiction be educated. It's not an immigration issue.

Medicaid payments are mostly reimbursements for emergency room care because these people can't get medicaid for general care. You could cut that cost in half by putting them on the program so they could see a doctor periodically. Lots of people are in the same boat. When you check the per-capita stats, you find that the percentage they draw closely corresponds to their percentage of the general population. Within a point. It's not an immigration issue.

Don't kid yourself about the education or skill levels of these folks. Mexico's biggest problem right now is the brain drain. Status has everything to do with what kind of job you can get, especially if there's a language issue. We're loaded with skilled Mexicans who can't work at their craft because of status. Diplomas don't mean much in the trades if you're good at what you do, but legal status keeps even the most educated people from rising above total anonymity. They take what they can get & hope their kids can have a future that wasn't available at all where they were.

If you want them to pay more taxes, get out of their way. It's just that simple. They're already paying property taxes & sales taxes even if they're completely off the books. If they have a number, they're paying income tax & social security that they probably won't collect. They don't get refunds either because they're afraid to file. Just more cutting off our collective nose to spite our face.

Anybody born on US soil is a US citizen. Period. Irrespective of their parentage. It wasn't "awarded". They ARE citizens just like any other born citizen. Of course they can access whatever programs are available. American born children shouldn't even figure into the discussion since they are neither immigrants, naturalized citizens, or Mexicans.

I won't even bother to address the dire predictions concerning amnesty. I heard all the same wailing in '86 & it didn't happen then either. It's all based on the stereotype of the illiterate Mexican chopping weeds in some field or scrubbing floors. They have schools down there too you know. I've lived in the southwest surrounded by Mexicans for the last half century & they can read & write.

Like I said: A dearth of factual information.

[tsmandy]

I'm hesitant to get much more involved in this discussion since it seems likely I will be attacked.

I am certainly not an economist, and if you would like to discuss credentials, we can do that in private , Quinn. Suffice it to say, I'm an intelligent and discerning gal, and I don't appreciate discussions that get too personal. So I will rather than use my own words, quote studies and articles by other "more qualified" sources, since obviously I'm just some dumb hooker.

First on the issue of taxes, hippifried pointed out that 26 billion is a pittance compared to the money being spent in Iraq, which it is. It represents oh, about 2% of the budget, and doesn't even compare to the corporate largess being handed out by the Bush administration.

Second, in 1986 Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, which set penalties for employers who knowingly hire undocumented workers, causing many to purchase fake social security numbers. According to the New York Times the estimation is that 75% of undocumented workers pay into Social Security and Medicare through Payroll tax deductions, yet are completely ineligible to receive remuneration.[1] All those wages, which eventually cannot be matched, end up in the "Earnings Suspense File" which by now has "surpassed 189 billion in wage receipts, generating $6 to $7billion in Social Security tax revenue and about $1.5 billion in Medicare taxes, none of which can be claimed by the people who worked for it." According to a Time magazine article in 2002 that undocumented migrants have contributed up to 463 billion to Social Security[2]. "an analysis of the social security administration data by the national foundation for American Policy (A nonpartisan policy organization) finds that at current immigration levels, new immigrants entering the United States will provide a net benefit of $407 billion to the Social Security system over the next fifty years"[3]

Beyond all of the statistics and facts, there is a historical perspective on all this, that I tried to point out in my previous post, and was quickly denounced for. Over and over again, immigrant populations have been scapegoated for the US's economic woes. The racial component of this targeting has often resulted in violence, especially in California and the southwest. Rather than targeting the horrendous inequities in our society, and challenging the people who are robbing everyone blind, we focus our anger on the hardest working and least protected members of our society. And this is the road, I fear, to facism, much like it was in the 1930's. Not surprisingly, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center [4] the American South is seeing a resurgence of the Klu Klux Klan this time using immigration as a recruitment boon, along with several Neo Nazi organizations, and of course the minutemen.

Of course, it remains good business for those that stand to make the most money off of undocumented workers, to keep the public agitated about illegal immigration, because it has a tremendous effect on things like collective bargaining and workplace rights.

Like hippifried said, its a non issue that is used to distract people from the real pressing issues of our time/

[1] Eduardo Porter "Illegal Immigrants are bolstering social security with billions" New York Times, April 5,2005

[2] Lisa Takeuchi Cullen and Daren Fonda, "What it means for your wallet" Time Magazine, April 10, 2006

[3]quote from Mike Davis and Justin Akers Chacon "No one is illegal: fighting racism and state violence on the US border", statistics Takeuchi Cullen and Fonda, Time magazine.

[4] SPLC April 22, 2005, https://secure.splcenter.org/intel/news/item.jsp?aid=13

[/i]

[Quinn]

Got a source for that paste? I'm betting on F.A.I.R.U.S. or Lou Dobbs.

That’s quite an assumption, particularly when all that was needed to avoid making it was an ability to comprehend this, previously made, statement:

Here are some findings from a reliable study of U.S. census data by CIS.

You may dismiss the CIS findings if you wish, but the fact is that they are consistent with those of the NRC (the operative arm of the National Academy of Sciences, and other bodies, regarded by many as the foremost authority in matters of research). If that’s not enough for you, you can always look to non-partisan, independent think tanks, like the Council on Foreign Relations (CSR No. 26, April 2007).

That's the problem with these kinds of stats that look for proof of a conjecture. You can make them say anything you want with nothing more than directional focus. Like I said. A dearth of factual information.

With all due respect, the only conjecture I see at this point is your own. The only “dearth of factual information” lies with your inability to support your own assumptive position and consequent refutations with any sort of analysis at all. You are free to do your own searches of CIS, NRC, CFR, and similar research-oriented bodies.

Don't kid yourself about the education or skill levels of these folks.

Once again, you seem to be engaging in the type of conjecture you ascribe to others. You have yet to provide an iota of data to support your conclusion that a low level of education isn’t a major determinant in the impact of illegal immigrants (Mexican illegals in particular) upon our economy. The fact is that there are literally volumes of studies concerning the education level of legal and illegal immigrants alike. All of them show a proportionally low level of education among Mexican immigrants (both legal and illegal).

I won't even bother to address the dire predictions concerning amnesty. I heard all the same wailing in '86 & it didn't happen then either. It's all based on the stereotype of the illiterate Mexican chopping weeds in some field or scrubbing floors. They have schools down there too you know. I've lived in the southwest surrounded by Mexicans for the last half century & they can read & write.

It didn’t? Talk about a “dearth of factual information.” The last amnesty resulted in, according to the most forgiving studies, a tripling of the illegal population (studies usually cite 3-4 million then versus at least 12 million now). Given that reality, I can see why you wouldn’t want to “address the dire predictions concerning amnesty.”

So far as "schools down there" are concerned, I lived in Mexico, so I’m familiar with them – and they’re appallingly bad. In 2004, the World Economic Forum ranked the quality of education in Mexico 74th out of 102 nations surveyed, just behind Cameroon. The average student abandons school at 14. Enough said.

Honestly, at this point, I don’t see the any reason to continue our discussion. Our approaches are just too different for us to establish any factually objective point of reference.

-Quinn

[Quinn]

I'm hesitant to get much more involved in this discussion since it seems likely I will be attacked.

I am certainly not an economist, and if you would like to discuss credentials, we can do that in private , Quinn. Suffice it to say, I'm an intelligent and discerning gal, and I don't appreciate discussions that get too personal. So I will rather than use my own words, quote studies and articles by other "more qualified" sources, since obviously I'm just some dumb hooker.

I have no interest in attacking those who don’t attack me or others (something you don’t do). So far as not appreciating discussions that get too personal, I am glad to hear it – particularly given that it was your implication that brought a personal element to this discussion. And for the record, no one thinks you are a “dumb hooker.” I have known escorts who are well educated and have held “legitimate” (from a wider social perspective) jobs that would leave them more than qualified for such a discussion. Given the presumptuous nature of your statement, my question was more than valid. Now, on to the discussion at hand.

First on the issue of taxes, hippifried pointed out that 26 billion is a pittance compared to the money being spent in Iraq, which it is. It represents oh, about 2% of the budget, and doesn't even compare to the corporate largess being handed out by the Bush administration.

As previously noted, the above number represents the current federal costs only (not state and local costs) – and therefore constitutes only a small fraction of the total cost to the U.S. Moreover, as stated above, the current net fiscal deficit can be expected to nearly triple following any amnesty. Lastly, given that the issue of illegal immigration predates both the Iraq War and other issues relating to the Bush administration’s chronic incompetence, I think the war and issues of corporate largesse should be saved for a separate debate.

Second, in 1986 Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, which set penalties for employers who knowingly hire undocumented workers, causing many to purchase fake social security numbers. According to the New York Times the estimation is that 75% of undocumented workers pay into Social Security and Medicare through Payroll tax deductions, yet are completely ineligible to receive remuneration.[1] All those wages, which eventually cannot be matched, end up in the "Earnings Suspense File" which by now has "surpassed 189 billion in wage receipts, generating $6 to $7billion in Social Security tax revenue and about $1.5 billion in Medicare taxes, none of which can be claimed by the people who worked for it." According to a Time magazine article in 2002 that undocumented migrants have contributed up to 463 billion to Social Security[2]. "an analysis of the social security administration data by the national foundation for American Policy (A nonpartisan policy organization) finds that at current immigration levels, new immigrants entering the United States will provide a net benefit of $407 billion to the Social Security system over the next fifty years"[3]

Regarding this, the above cited study states the following in its executive summary:

Although we find that the net effect of illegal households is negative at the federal level, the same is not true for Social Security and Medicare. We estimate that illegal households create a combined net benefit for these two programs in excess of $7 billion a year, accounting for about 4 percent of the total annual surplus in these two programs. However, they create a net deficit of $17.4 billion in the rest of the budget, for a total net loss of $10.4 billion. Nonetheless, their impact on Social Security and Medicare is unambiguously positive. Of course, if the Social Security totalization agreement with Mexico signed in June goes into effect, allowing illegals to collect Social Security, these calculations would change.

As previously noted, this study is inline with studies from a range of reputable sources. Furthermore, while I definitely appreciate your efforts to cite a factually objective basis for your argument, I would prefer that you refrain from citing media sources. Though I don’t have any particular problem with those figures, many media organizations – the New York Times, for example – have a long history of cherry picking facts and studies to suit a narrow editorial agenda handed down from the top (not to mention the fact that we’re dealing with journalists, not economists or similarly qualified analysts). It’s for this reason that I have refrained from citing a range of media sources, including, but not limited to, NPR, CNN, and Fox News.

Beyond all of the statistics and facts, there is a historical perspective on all this, that I tried to point out in my previous post, and was quickly denounced for. Over and over again, immigrant populations have been scapegoated for the US's economic woes.

It was dismissed because it’s not particularly germane to what is largely an economics-oriented discussion. Additionally, it opens the door for a meandering discussion that could wind up covering everything from the industrial revolution to the civil rights era, which would only serve to distract from any meaningful discussion of the topic at hand. Lastly, as stated above, this round of immigration is decidedly different from previous waves of immigration (for example, the Irish immigration referenced by hippifired), something the previously cited study addresses:

Many native-born Americans observe that their ancestors came to America and did not place great demands on government services. Perhaps this is true, but the size and scope of government were dramatically smaller during the last great wave of immigration. Not just means-tested programs, but expenditures on everything from public schools to roads were only a fraction of what they are today. Thus, the arrival of unskilled immigrants in the past did not have the negative fiscal implications that it does today. Moreover, the American economy has changed profoundly since the last great wave of immigration, with education now the key determinant of economic success. The costs that unskilled immigrants impose simply reflect the nature of the modern American economy and welfare state. It is doubtful that the fiscal costs can be avoided if our immigration policies remain unchanged.

Of course, it remains good business for those that stand to make the most money off of undocumented workers, to keep the public agitated about illegal immigration, because it has a tremendous effect on things like collective bargaining and workplace rights.

You should take the time examine who benefits most from illegal immigration. Why would very small segments of the left and the right come together to push for an agenda opposed by the majority of their respective political movements – not to mention the overwhelming majority of the American public? Why, when an overabundance of low-skilled immigrant labor has already depressed wages among this nation's working class, would these elements pursue so pernicous an agenda?

Just to establish the factual basis of the above statement, I’ll include some testimony prepared for the House Judiciary Committee in May, 2007:

Harvard professor George Borjas, who is regarded as the nation's leading immigration economist, found in a study published in 2003 by the “Quarterly Journal of Economics” that between 1980 and 2000, immigration reduced the average annual earnings of native-born men by an estimated $1,700 or roughly 4 percent.

Among natives without a high school education, who roughly correspond to the poorest tenth of the workforce, the estimated impact was even larger, reducing their wages by 7.4 percent. The 10 million native-born workers without a high school degree face the most competition from immigrants, as do the eight million younger natives with only a high school education and 12 million younger college graduates. The negative effect on native-born black and Hispanic workers is significantly larger than on whites because a much larger share of minorities are in direct competition with immigrants.

-Quinn

[jenlee969]

Just to add my (very small) $0.02 to this discussion - I live in NY and I have had alot of discussions about what our dear Governor had proposed.

And legal/ethical issues aside, it still is a logistical nightmare to manage a licensure program for "undocumented aliens". Most banks/businesses, etc use a Driver's License as a legal form of identification, so therefore the applicant must provide that information to the DMV.

And I'm not sure how the DMV would handle such an "undocumented" licensure anyway - would it stamp "Undocumented Alien" on the license? If some kid came in with a Mexican Birth Certificate in someone else's name, would it still be valid? How would we know? Otherwise, it'll be an easy way for people to "game" the system and obtain an ID under false pretenses (wish I had that in college... lol).

In any case, many local DMV agencies upstate are run by County Clerks (in the place of the NY State DMV) - and they don't want to be saddled with handling these cases, too.

Anyhow, I can just imagine the popularity of such a program with the illegal immigrant population: Come to the DMV with your papers and prove to a Governmental agency that you're here illegally, and you can get a driver's license.

I'm sure that many wouldn't bother applying for this, as it can probably be percieved as a ready-made "come arrest me" invitation to the INS for those it's designed to "help".

[tsmandy]

Lastly, given that the issue of illegal immigration predates both the Iraq War and other issues relating to the Bush administration’s chronic incompetence, I think the war and issues of corporate largesse [sic] should be saved for a separate debate.

I just don't think illegal immigration is that much of an issue. At least not separate from other major policies of the Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush administrations. It doesn't make much sense to me to complain about the disastrous cost to our society of illegal immigration when the parameters of our discussion are relegated solely to fiscal costs as defined by a small list of approved studies. How is it a problem that millions of working people who are creating huge amounts of wealth in the construction, agriculture, and service industry, use up as much money in social services as the Occupational Authority straight up lost in Iraq? Why wouldn't that be part of the discussion, if we are talking about economics?

If we are talking about people from the south moving here, why wouldn't we talk about NAFTA, The peso devaluation, US support for anti-democratic regimes in Central America (i.e. death squads), and resulting waves of immigration?

Why do we have to de-contextualize this so much so as to render all other contributing factors pointless?

I think the whole illegal immigration debacle, is a media generated problem, unless of course you happen to be Latino, in which case vigilante violence and gestapo tactics on the part of immigration authorities are a big problem.

Tax cuts in the billions and a crumbling infrastructure? Not a problem, not worth talking about. Hundreds of billions of dollars involved in Bush's mideast adventures, not a problem.

10 billion dollars to provide healthcare to citizens whose parents are undocumented? Its a crisis.

Second, in 1986 Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, which set penalties for employers who knowingly hire undocumented workers, causing many to purchase fake social security numbers. According to the New York Times the estimation is that 75% of undocumented workers pay into Social Security and Medicare through Payroll tax deductions, yet are completely ineligible to receive remuneration.[1] All those wages, which eventually cannot be matched, end up in the "Earnings Suspense File" which by now has "surpassed 189 billion in wage receipts, generating $6 to $7billion in Social Security tax revenue and about $1.5 billion in Medicare taxes, none of which can be claimed by the people who worked for it." According to a Time magazine article in 2002 that undocumented migrants have contributed up to 463 billion to Social Security[2]. "an analysis of the social security administration data by the national foundation for American Policy (A nonpartisan policy organization) finds that at current immigration levels, new immigrants entering the United States will provide a net benefit of $407 billion to the Social Security system over the next fifty years"[3]

As previously noted, this study is inline with studies from a range of reputable sources. Furthermore, while I definitely appreciate your efforts to cite a factually objective basis for your argument, I would prefer that you refrain from citing media sources. Though I don’t have any particular problem with those figures, many media organizations – the New York Times, for example – have a long history of cherry picking facts and studies to suit a narrow editorial agenda handed down from the top (not to mention the fact that we’re dealing with journalists, not economists or similarly qualified analysts). It’s for this reason that I have refrained from citing a range of media sources, including, but not limited to, NPR, CNN, and Fox News.

Since sarcasm generally gets taken as hostility I'll refrain. I've devoted years of my life to analyzing, critiquing, and organizing around media issues, and am quite familiar with the biases of the mainstream media. Nevertheless, there is occasionally good reporting, with important perspectives and good factual information, and I figured you would be much more likely to accept quotes from the New York Times, than say from The Nation.

And as long as we are talking about cherry picking facts, and dealing with bias, what makes you think the studies you cite are free from this? It is unavoidable that studies are designed to present someones point of view, and we could spend all our time challenging each others facts and sources, but I would hope we would limit this to obviously distorted and disproved facts as well as factoring in the basic corporatist agenda of the major media.

Beyond all of the statistics and facts, there is a historical perspective on all this, that I tried to point out in my previous post, and was quickly denounced for. Over and over again, immigrant populations have been scapegoated for the US's economic woes.

It was dismissed because it’s not particularly germane to what is largely an economics-oriented discussion. Additionally, it opens the door for a meandering discussion that could wind up covering everything from the industrial revolution to the civil rights era, which would only serve to distract from any meaningful discussion of the topic at hand.

The only reason this is largely an economics oriented discussion, is because you say it is; I thought we were talking about drivers licenses. I think that looking at past times in our nations history when mass anger and violence has been directed at illegal immigrants and asking what correlations exist with our current situation is entirely reasonable. Especially, since I fear a general slide in this country towards fascism, and xenophobia and nativism are integral aspects of a fascist system.

Lastly, as stated above, this round of immigration is decidedly different from previous waves of immigration (for example, the Irish immigration referenced by hippifired), something the previously cited study addresses:

I agree that the Keynesian welfare state was not in existence a hundred years ago, but immigration during a potato famine is not all that much different than immigration during any other type of economic destabilization. Currently immigration is a world-wide issue, not just in the US, and it follows very closely with the destruction wrought on traditional farming cultures by so called "Globalization". But while our country pushes for complete economic liberalization, complete laissez faire for third world economies, complete mobility for capital, we demand large walls to keep out the displaced poor. And in this sense, the current wave of immigration is not much different than previous waves.

Of course, it remains good business for those that stand to make the most money off of undocumented workers, to keep the public agitated about illegal immigration, because it has a tremendous effect on things like collective bargaining and workplace rights.

You should take the time examine who benefits most from illegal immigration. Why would very small segments of the left and the right come together to push for an agenda opposed by the majority of their respective political movements – not to mention the overwhelming majority of the American public? Why, when an overabundance of low-skilled immigrant labor has already depressed wages among this nation's working class, would these elements pursue so pernicous an agenda?
-Quinn

Like I said, immigration is a world-wide phenomenon right now and it is very much related to massive economic changes, and of course war. As someone who is interested in fighting for economic and social justice, I believe that narrowing my focus to the "illegal immigrants" in the United States obfuscates much larger issues on this planet. I'm interested in challenging the destructive, violently anti-democratic practices that have caused such massive dislocation in the first place, not demonizing globalizations victims.

I would rather dismantle NAFTA, withdraw from the WTO, support new fair elections in Mexico, break the IMF's stranglehold on thirld world economies, and lastly shift from an war based economy, to an economy that seeks to build a wealthier, healthier society. Seems more sensible than building a new Berlin wall that stretches from Brownsville to San Diego and hiring Blackwater to police it.

The alternative is an ever increasing supply of immiserated people, dislocated from their ancestral lands facing exploitation in European and American sweatshops, and politico's stirring up public anger against them whenever the spotlight shines too brightly on corruption and corporate greed.

So that's my take on things. Address the illness, not the symptom.

Back to drivers licenses and "illegal" immigrants.
I still maintain that having licensed and insured drivers is better for the public health and safety than not. Since you think it was moronic, what would you propose as an alternative?

What do you propose doing with the 12 million undocumented people in this country?

[Quinn]

I just don't think illegal immigration is that much of an issue.

In that opinion, you are largely alone. Check the polls, and you will find illegal immigration (and immigration reform) regularly rates at or near the top of voter concerns (example can, of course, be provided). Moreover, there exists a wide body of credible research that shows the economic impact of too many immigrants – and illegal immigrants, in particular – is damaging to our economy (and working class interests wages).

It doesn't make much sense to me to complain about the disastrous cost to our society of illegal immigration when the parameters of our discussion are relegated solely to fiscal costs as defined by a small list of approved studies.

I’m a bit curious as to why you would think the list of credible studies is by any means small. If you’re familiar with the research surrounding this issue, then surely you must know there are many good studies out there – ones performed by qualified, independent, and objective research-oriented organizations. Seriously, if you want to include media sources with well established records of bias (Fox News, NPR, CNN, CBS News, NY Times, Washington Post, etc) and a distinct lack of qualifications, then we will simply be discussing what amounts to little more than propaganda.

The fact is that I can support my argument using sources ranging from Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government (a body that includes the nation’s leading immigration economist), to the National Research Council (the operative arm of the National Academy of Sciences, which includes more than 170 Nobel Prize winners among its membership), to the Council on Foreign Relations, to RAND – to name but a very few. These are among the most respected sources anywhere when it comes to this type of research and analysis.

How is it a problem that millions of working people who are creating huge amounts of wealth in the construction, agriculture, and service industry, use up as much money in social services as the Occupational Authority straight up lost in Iraq? Why wouldn't that be part of the discussion, if we are talking about economics?

The best research bodies this nation has to offer have firmly established that illegal immigrants are costing this nation more wealth than they are creating – and that doesn’t even begin to address the effect they are having upon the wages of this nation’s working class. So far as Iraq is concerned, two wrongs don’t make a right. Save for ChefMike, I’ve complained about Iraq more than any poster on this forum. To date, I am the only poster here who has aggressively addressed the stupefying economic cost of the war. That said, by even the most forgiving of standards, it’s a separate issue that postdates the immigration issue.

If we are talking about people from the south moving here, why wouldn't we talk about NAFTA, The peso devaluation, US support for anti-democratic regimes in Central America (i.e. death squads), and resulting waves of immigration?

Why do we have to de-contextualize this so much so as to render all other contributing factors pointless?

Look, we could discuss everything from the PRI’s disastrously corrupt 70-year monopoly on power in Mexico to the toppling of Savador Allende in Chile. In the end, two facts are relevant above all others:

1) Illegal immigrants will come here from the south (and other destinations) so long as this nation continues to be wealthier (on a per capita basis) and offer greater economic opportunities than their own respective nations.

2) We could control whether or not they are able to immigrate to this country with far greater effectiveness than we could ever hope to positively affect their internal economic development so as to provide equal opportunities to what they find here (we can’t begin to afford to do it for all of Latin America).

Tax cuts in the billions and a crumbling infrastructure? Not a problem, not worth talking about. Hundreds of billions of dollars involved in Bush's mideast adventures, not a problem.

Have I ever stated this wasn’t a problem? No. It is, however, a separate issue.

10 billion dollars to provide healthcare to citizens whose parents are undocumented? Its a crisis.

As previously, and repeatedly, stated:

As previously noted, the above number represents the current federal costs only (not state and local costs) – and therefore constitutes only a small fraction of the total cost to the U.S. Moreover, as stated above, the current net fiscal deficit can be expected to nearly triple following any amnesty.

Moreover, you have failed, once again, to take into account the damage that these comparatively low skilled immigrants are having upon the wages of our own working class.

I've devoted years of my life to analyzing, critiquing, and organizing around media issues, and am quite familiar with the biases of the mainstream media. Nevertheless, there is occasionally good reporting, with important perspectives and good factual information, and I figured you would be much more likely to accept quotes from the New York Times, than say from The Nation.

And as long as we are talking about cherry picking facts, and dealing with bias, what makes you think the studies you cite are free from this? It is unavoidable that studies are designed to present someones point of view, and we could spend all our time challenging each others facts and sources, but I would hope we would limit this to obviously distorted and disproved facts as well as factoring in the basic corporatist agenda of the major media.

While media outlets like the NY Times are good for basic coverage of events, they are rarely satisfactory for anything related to detailed economic analysis. Think about it; are you going to go to Lou Dobbs or some other journalist do understand physics. Of course not, so why would we take the word of agenda driven amateurs to analyze an issue as complex as “immigrant economics”? Bottom line: Given the choice between an individual with a BA in journalism who cherry picks facts and studies to satisfy their organization’s editorial agenda and a group of Ph.D.s employed by a credibly objective research oriented entity, I’ll choose the latter any day of the weak. So far as the qualifications of my own sources are concerned, I’ve already addressed the matter.

The only reason this is largely an economics oriented discussion, is because you say it is; I thought we were talking about drivers licenses.

Actually, you made it largely an economics-oriented discussion with the following statements:

Illegal immigrants are not the problem with this country, and certainly not the problem with our economy.

Scapegoat economics work real well when you don't know how to do the math.

I would rather dismantle NAFTA, withdraw from the WTO, support new fair elections in Mexico, break the IMF's stranglehold on thirld world economies, and lastly shift from an war based economy, to an economy that seeks to build a wealthier, healthier society. Seems more sensible than building a new Berlin wall that stretches from Brownsville to San Diego and hiring Blackwater to police it.

Once again, this isn’t really germane to the discussion at hand, but, for what it’s worth, the IMF hasn’t been relevant for a while now.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/...sek.php?page=1

Forgive me if I haven't addressed all of your topic-related points. Today has been far busier than the last two days, leaving me less time than I would prefer to thoroughly address your argument.

-Quinn

[Rogers]

not outrageous. we need all foreigners in the country to vote to beat the evil republicans and a license is id used to show when voting.

"I sense something; a presence I've not felt since..."

[loki]

If you come into this country illegally you are a CRIMINAL and should be punished not rewarded. I am all for LEGAL immigration not criminal trespassing or the breaking and entering into my country.