Tuesday, May 02, 2006

Criminal Immigrant Invasion Roundup Part IV

Some people seem to hate the term "Illegal Alien" and even simply "Illegal Immigrant", so I propose a name change. Let's just call them criminal immigrants, yes? Sounds good enough to me, and much more accurate than "undocumented worker." Or I suppose we could just go the other direction and assign a bunch of euphemisms for all sorts of criminal behavior. People don't rob banks, they just make "unauthorized currency transfers." Whatever. On with the point.

First lets address the Illegal issue in general.

Let's take some lessons from Europe, shall we? I know not everyone likes the whole "learn from history or repeat it" line, but well, I'd say its a pretty good one.

Amnesty in Europe. Glowing success story? Uh, no:

As in the U.S., every amnesty is accompanied by earnest assurances that it is the very last one and by promises of a severe crackdown on illegal immigration that will solve the problem once and for all. Invariably, the argument is also made that legalizing the undocumented will bring them into the mainstream economy, providing much needed labor and a major boost in tax revenues for the state. The reality is the exact opposite.

European Union countries legalized approximately 1.75 million immigrants up through 2000, and between 3.5 and 4 million since then. Despite that, illegal immigration is increasing dramatically. Spain carried out four amnesties between 1985 and 2000, and yet, in 2003 it had 1.3 million legal immigrants and more than twice as many illegal ones. A year ago it amnestied yet another 700,000 to no visible reduction of illegal entries. In December, thousands of would-be immigrants stormed the ten-foot-tall, razorblade-wire fences surrounding the Spanish enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla in Morocco. Similarly, between 1986 and 2002, Italy legalized a million and a half immigrants in five separate amnesties without stemming at all the yearly inflow of well over 500,000 illegal immigrants. The same is the case in Portugal, Greece, France, and every other country that practices amnesties. And there is no reason to expect anything different if fully two-thirds of illegal entrants eventually obtain legalization, the odds of deportation are negligible, and the wait for legalization can be spent in the relative comfort of the European welfare system or its illegal economy.

The last point is worth pondering, because it is simply not the case that amnesties bring millions from the underground economy eager to pay the exorbitant taxes the nanny state collects from those working in order to nanny those that are not. The reason there is an underground economy to begin with is because neither employers nor employees are eager to cough up payroll taxes that average 36 percent in the EU. Indeed, with these kinds of confiscatory levies, the often unskilled and uneducated illegal immigrant becomes unemployable in the regular economy. The result is a huge influx of illegal workers in the now-depleted shadow economy, which is one reason it is rapidly growing both in Europe and North America. According to expert estimates, it has more than doubled in the past 20 years and currently ranges from 8.4 percent of GDP in the U.S. to 14.5 percent in France, 16.8 percent in Germany, and nearly one-third of GDP in high immigration countries like Italy.
Now, on to some of the ugly myths, yet again:
The first myth is that illegal aliens live in the shadows. The “shadows” claim then becomes an urgent reason why Congress must pass a legalization plan: so that 11 million people can come out of hiding. In fact, illegal aliens live in the full blaze of day. Only when confronted with the merest hint that immigration enforcement is even possible do they curtail their movements—and then elite thinking immediately declares such curtailment a gross injustice.

But even if it were true that illegals lived in the shadows, why is that unfair? The bargain they chose was clear: if you come here illegally, the law says that you should face deportation. It is a measure of how surreal our immigration practice has become that it is now “mean-spirited” simply to raise the possibility in an illegal’s mind that his deportation risk is real, much less actually to deport him.

The second myth is that the only way to reduce the illegal alien population is through “mass deportations”—assumed by the enlightened to be patently cruel. The fear stories make clear, however, that the illegal alien population has burgeoned precisely because illegals assume that they face no risk of enforcement. As soon as there is any move toward upholding the law, calculations change. Were enforcement actions to continue, the calculations made by illegals already here and those planning to come would change even more radically: many illegals would go home and many fewer would enter. As Jessica Vaughan points out in a recent report for the Center for Immigration Studies, after the Department of Homeland Security deported 1,500 illegal Pakistanis after 9/11, 15,000 more illegal Pakistanis left the country on their own. We have no reason to believe that illegal Hispanics and other populations would not follow a similar course.
And now moving more to the mayday marches. (No, its not just a coincidence that the rallies were held on the big Communist holiday of Mayday.) The whole purpose was to show that the economy desperately depends on illegal labor. That entire position is purely fiction. (for starters, see the other roundups) But further, consider this: Illegals are costing the government 10.4 billion
The study is called "The High Cost of Cheap Labor" and was conducted by the Center of Immigration Studies.

In 2002, households headed by undocumented workers accounted cost the federal government more than $26 billion in services. Those households paid $16 billion in taxes and created a net fiscal deficit for the government of almost $10.4 billion or about $2700 per household.
And cosider this about those "jobs Americans won't do." (which I gladly would, at this point in my life):
"The meat packers are confirming what we know," says University of Maryland economics professor Peter Morici, "and that is that this large group of illegal aliens in the United States is lowering the wage rate of semiskilled workers, people who are high school dropouts or high school graduates with minimal training."

In fact, a meat-packing job paid $19 an hour in 1980, but today that same job pays closer to $9 an hour, according to the Labor Department. That's entirely consistent with what we've been reporting -- that illegal aliens depress wages for U.S. workers by as much as $200 billion a year in addition to placing a tremendous burden on hospitals, schools and other social services.
Gee, thanks Illegals. I guess the whole refusal of Americans to do certain jobs must have someting to do with Slave Wages.

Ah yes, a day (how about 365?) without an illegal. What would this mean? Well, lets see:

Hospital emergency rooms across the southwest would have about 20-percent fewer patients, and there would be 183,000 fewer people in Colorado without health insurance.

OBGYN wards in Denver would have 24-percent fewer deliveries and Los Angeles’s maternity-ward deliveries would drop by 40 percent and maternity billings to Medi-Cal would drop by 66 percent.

Youth gangs would see their membership drop by 50 percent in many states, and in Phoenix, child-molestation cases would drop by 34 percent and auto theft by 40 percent.

In Durango, Colorado, and the Four Corners area and the surrounding Indian reservations, the methamphetamine epidemic would slow for one day, as the 90 percent of that drug now being brought in from Mexico was held in Albuquerque and Farmington a few hours longer. According to the sheriff of La Plata County, Colorado, meth is now being brought in by ordinary illegal aliens as well as professional drug dealers.

If the “Day-Without-an-Immigrant Boycott” had been held a year earlier on May 8, 2005, and illegal alien Raul Garcia-Gomez had stayed home and did not work or go to a party that day, Denver police officer Donnie Young would still be alive and Garcia-Gomez would not be sitting in a Denver jail awaiting trial.

If the boycott had been held on July 1, 2004, Justin Goodman of Thornton, Colorado, would still be riding his motorcycle and Roberto Martinez-Ruiz would not be in prison for killing him and then fleeing the scene while driving on a suspended license.

If illegal aliens stayed home—in Mexico, Guatemala, Brazil, and 100 other countries—the Border Patrol would have 3,500 fewer apprehensions (of the 12,000 who try each day).

Colorado taxpayers would save almost $3,000,000 in one day if illegals do not access any public services, because illegal aliens cost the state over $1 billion annually according to the best estimates.

Colorado’s K-12 school classrooms would have 131,000 fewer students if illegal aliens and the children of illegals were to stay home, and Denver high schools’ dropout rate would once again approach the national norm.

Colorado’s jails and prisons would have 10-percent fewer inmates, and Denver and many other towns would not need to build so many new jails to accommodate the overcrowding.

Our highway patrol and county sheriffs would have about far fewer DUI arrests and there would be a dramatic decline in rollovers of vanloads of illegal aliens on I-70 and other highways.

On a Day Without an Illegal Immigrant, thousands of workers and small contractors in the construction industry across Colorado would have their jobs back, the jobs given to illegal workers because they work for lower wages and no benefits.

Well, the economy didn't grind to a halt as some seemed to actually believe, but still they "made their point", yes? Oh, I think a point has been made, but not the one they wanted. Believe it or not, the marches are actually making me feel a little better (if at the same time increasingly angry). Why? Well, as Krikorian says, Backlash. I'm seeing it all over the place right now. Maybe something will get done? One can only hope.

And on a side note, I consider it an insult on my intelligence to say that "we're taking back our ancestral homeland." That is no rationalization at all, all it does is confuse people while making a mockery of history. It's no more "your" homeland than it is ours. After all, most Mexicans today are not exactly direct decendants of the Aztec tribe. The land was "stolen" by invaders, largely Spainish, and the Aztec civilization destroyed. (not to mention all of the others, Mayans, Incas, etc, throughout the continent.) We won in war, you lost. That does not mean you are owed the land back, especially now, when no one living had anything to do with it, including illegals who are "taking it back". Just stop already. The world was founded on such territorial grabbing and struggle, including the Mexico which is merely "taking back" what "belongs to it".

That is all for now.

The image “http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/06.04.30.JoseCanYouSee-X.gif” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.