Talk about obnoxious...

[Ashock]

I've sort of stayed away from this topic, at least from posting about it, but the last statement in this article infuriated me. Talk about testicleitus elephantitus, jeez.


I tried to post a link, but while it works in preview, it does not work in the final version. You'll just have to trust me....




Cost to Remove 12M Illegal Immigrants Huge By MARTHA MENDOZA, AP National Writer
47 minutes ago



As Congress debates immigration reforms, some experts say the most extreme proposal — deporting millions of illegal immigrants — would be a huge legal and logistical morass, and ruinously expensive, too.

Officials at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, which would be responsible for deportations, said they have no projections on what it would take to rid the United States of an estimated 12 million people.

But the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank in Washington, has put the cost at $215 billion over five years.

The study assumed that a crackdown would prompt a quarter of the nation's illegal immigrants to leave voluntarily, leaving 9 million men, women and children to deport.

"I think a lot of people are making emotional calls on this issue without thinking through the cost to taxpayers," said study author Rajeev Goyle, a lecturer at Wichita State University. "It would be an unbearable cost that would bankrupt the treasury. It would cost more annually than the entire budget of the Department of Homeland Security, twice that of the annual cost of the war in Iraq."

Finding and catching people would be the most expensive part, about $158 billion, Goyle said. The study calculated it would cost an additional $34 billion to detain them, $3 billion for extra beds, $11 billion for legal processing and $9 billion to put them on buses or airplanes.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., author of a get-tough immigration bill, said the government has no intention of trying to deport 12 million people.

"Nobody is seriously proposing that, because that will require a massive infiltration of law enforcement officials and will disrupt the economy," said Sensenbrenner told CBS' "Face the Nation" this week.

But his bill and several others would make living in the United States illegally a felony. And felons without legal immigration status are subject to deportation.

In 2004, the Department of Homeland Security deported about 200,000 people; an additional 1,035,000 returned to their countries of origin when caught by federal authorities, according to the Office of Immigration Statistics.

Ira Mehlman of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which advocates limits on immigration, said he does not believe a mass deportation "has ever been seriously suggested. It's the straw man that proponents of amnesty set out there so they can set it on fire."

FAIR's projection is that if current laws protecting the borders and penalizing employers who hire illegal workers are enforced, many illegal immigrants will leave the country.

"Once we get their numbers down, cut in half say, or three quarters, what you do with those that remain, that's something we can figure out," he said. "It becomes a more manageable problem. Three million is obviously better than 12 million."

Mehlman said military bases could be converted to detention centers, buses and airplanes could be arranged to take people back to the country of their birth, and legal processes could be streamlined.

Peter Schey, president and executive director of the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law Foundation, said it would be "absolutely absurd, impossible" to protect the legal rights of millions of people facing deportation.

"Unless you want to schedule deportation hearings 20 or 30 years into the future, there's no way it could be done," he said.

Carlos Portillo, who owns La Fuente Restaurant, one of the most popular restaurants in Tucson, Ariz., said the sudden loss of workers from mass deportations would be economically devastating for this country.

"Right now everything that's happening in the United States, the restaurant and hospitality industry, all the housing and building construction, all the farming, this is being done mainly by illegal immigrants," he said. "This country needs these illegal workers more than the illegal workers need this country."


Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.


Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback




-A

[Occhidiangela]

I've sort of stayed away from this topic, at least from posting about it, but the last statement in this article infuriated me. Talk about testicleitus elephantitus, jeez.

"Right now everything that's happening in the United States, the restaurant and hospitality industry, all the housing and building construction, all the farming, this is being done mainly by illegal immigrants," he said. "This country needs these illegal workers more than the illegal workers need this country."
Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press.

Nah, this pundit merely got the sense backwards, which is common when people are speaking in a foreign language -- in her case, English. :rolleyes:

More of a case of Mouthus Sneakerus, from where I sit.

Occhi

[jahcs]

Carlos Portillo, who owns La Fuente Restaurant, one of the most popular restaurants in Tucson, Ariz., said the sudden loss of workers from mass deportations would be economically devastating for this country.

"Right now everything that's happening in the United States, the restaurant and hospitality industry, all the housing and building construction, all the farming, this is being done mainly by illegal immigrants," he said. "This country needs these illegal workers more than the illegal workers need this country."[right][snapback]106509[/snapback][/right]

Mostly devastating for the folks that hire these workers... If a less than minimum wage labor force is "so absolutely neccesary" then why don't they change the minimum wage? But the minimum wage argument is a whole other can of worms on internet forums.

"...being done mainly by illegal immigrants." This may be true - but only in certain markets. I take offense to this generalization.

What I'd like to see happen on the subject of illegal immigration:
Step One: Reinforce the borders to curtail illegal crossings. Why let the problem get any worse? There also is the security and integrity of our Nation to consider.

Step Two: Enforce the immigration laws we already have.

Step Three: Deal with the illegals currently within our borders.
This step is the current quagmire our politicians are in.
A few key points I would like to see addressed:
Documentation, we need to find out the who and where, the fraudulent SSN numbers...
The criminal element, we have many jails clogged with illegals. Illegals that have commited crimes and aren't in jail or deported also (I have personal experience with this one).
Some form of restitution program. This is where the current debate is focused. We can't send 12 million people out but taking this argument on first is putting the cart before the horse, IMHO.

Step Four: Adjust the current immigration system so legal immigration becomes easier/faster. Make people want to use the legal channels to enter this country. The system appears to be broken at the moment.

[Taem]

Documentation, we need to find out the who and where, the fraudulent SSN numbers...
[right][snapback]106518[/snapback][/right]

It's funny you mention that because recently at one of our stores, we got a letter from Workers Compensation for some woman living in Valencia, California wanting to verify her work status. Apparently, one of our cooks was using her SS number when he got hired. Here's the kicker: He simply changed SS numbers for his empolyer and Workers Compensation did nothing about it becauase, apparently it isin't their job. While in my position this is a relief (saves me the trouble of having to find someone to replace the guy), I find it somewhat disturbing our countries lack of security and ability to react. I doubt rather this bill will have any effect on anyone except to put small businesses out of business with huge fines!

[jahcs]

While in my position this is a relief (saves me the trouble of having to find someone to replace the guy), I find it somewhat disturbing our countries lack of security and ability to react. I doubt rather this bill will have any effect on anyone except to put small businesses out of business with huge fines!
[right][snapback]106523[/snapback][/right]

Only for the businesses that make a practice of hiring these workers.
If fraud can be proven (lying on a job application) the fault should reside with the applicant - unless the business is proven to be complicit with the behavior.

I would presume the illegal employee is being paid a fair wage for his position since he was hired under the guise of legality? 10 cent pickle pickers indeed.

"...saves me the trouble..." "...country's lack of security and ability to react." What happened to "We the People" and our personal choices? Be the change that you want to see in the world. - Ghandi

[Drasca]

Step One: Not doable. Have you seen the news reports on current border patrols effectiveness? Sealed borders cost an improbably high amount, and their effectiveness is always questionable. Great wall of China is a prime example of the large attempt to seal borders that just ended up as a tourist attraction.

Step Two and Three: Not every State wants to. Take a look at the projected cost for just one reason why. Another oddball fact is that the IRS announces to illegal immigrants they want them filing taxes even if they're not here legally.

Step Four: Much agreed on currently broken. There's got to be a better way, but what kind of policy and to make it efficient is beyond me.

[Occhidiangela]

Step One: Not doable.  Have you seen the news reports on current border patrols effectiveness? Sealed borders cost an improbably high amount, and their effectiveness is always questionable. Great wall of China is a prime example of the large attempt to seal borders that just ended up as a tourist attraction.

Step Two and Three: Not every State wants to. Take a look at the projected cost for  just one reason why. Another oddball fact is that the IRS announces to illegal immigrants they want them filing taxes even if they're not here legally.

Step Four: Much agreed on currently broken. There's got to be a better way, but what kind of policy and to make it efficient is beyond me.
[right][snapback]106542[/snapback][/right]

Drasca:

The US doesn't need a fence or a wall. All that is needed is mobile screening force, a permissive RoE -- basically the order "shoot to kill those who illegally cross the broder" -- and a surveillance system in depth. The current state of the art of UAV, and other sensors, allows for the latter.

The permissive RoE would allow "shoot to kill" engagements on a variety of drug smugglers operating along our border. Since we are allegedly still fighting a War Against Drugs (WAD) this might be a suitable mission for the National Guard, or perhaps even for "a well regulated militia."

The means are available. Is the political will available, to comply with section 4 of article IV of the Constitution?

As of this afternoon, no.

As to other targets: decapitation strikes were aimed at various political leaders in "The War Against Terror." (Yes, check the acronym.) I suggest that decapitation strikes, using 500 lb LGB's (GBU-12) or 2000 LB GPS guided bombs (GBU-31) be made on critical Command and Control targets of the enemy in the War on Drugs: that would be the banks and bankers who handle and launder the money.

A little collateral damage to their Bel Air, Marin County, and Long Island neighborhoods would be regrettable, but necessary, in pursuing the War on Drugs as though we mean to win it. :blink:

The question you might want to ask your self is: how sarcastic was I being with that reply? :whistling:

Occhi

[Drasca]

The question you might want to ask your self is: how sarcastic was I being with that reply?  :whistling:
[right][snapback]106544[/snapback][/right]

You're right. I neglected a potential change of policy to something with a lot more backbone and follow through . . . of course,such phenomena are a bit rare when it comes to politics ;) and possibly not desireable by general public.

Cost of blood seems unnecessary. Plus, Canadians might take offense if people coming from their borders are shot on sight.

Occhi likes his toys. Oh I'd love to see some of the perpetraters taken out... :shuriken:

[Guest]

Id prefer a wall.

[Guest]

My solution (nothing special).

Do these steps in order. The order is important.


1 Build a wall.

2 Create a guest worker program. Allow current illegals to join it if they dont have a police record and allow new documented workers to enter the US.

3 Crack down on companies that still employ illegals.

4 Allow people with 15 years in the guest worker program to become citizens.

[GenericKen]

4 Allow people with 15 years in the guest worker program to become citizens.
[right][snapback]106629[/snapback][/right]

15 years? That's more than Jacob gave Laban, and he got two wives out of that. :whistling:

Green card is 5 years. 15 is kind of ridiculous.

[Occhidiangela]

My solution (nothing special).

Do these steps in order. The order is important.
1 Build a wall.

2 Create a guest worker program. Allow current illegals to join it if they dont have a police record and allow new documented workers to enter the US.

3 Crack down on companies that still employ illegals.

4 Allow people with 15 years in the guest worker program to become citizens.
[right][snapback]106629[/snapback][/right]

The wall won't work. Chinas' great wall didn't, The Wall didn't, and the wall on the West Bank won't.

Occhi

[Munkay]

The wall won't work.  Chinas' great wall didn't, The Wall didn't, and the wall on the West Bank won't.

Occhi
[right][snapback]106637[/snapback][/right]

Didn't the Berlin Wall do a pretty good job splitting a border? ;)

This is meant tongue in cheek, not an actual defense of the Wall Theory.

Cheers,

Munk

PS. Wasn't the intent of the Great Wall of China to keep out invading armies, not necessarily individual people (?).

[Guest]

The wall won't work.  Chinas' great wall didn't, The Wall didn't, and the wall on the West Bank won't.

Occhi
[right][snapback]106637[/snapback][/right]

Actually walls work pretty well if you tend them.

Gaurds with no walls work poorly. Walls with with no gaurds work poorly. Sure a few would get through, but it would be a tiny trickle compared to todays deluge.

And please Occhi I though you were a bit better than Drasca on reasonable examples. The Great Wall of China?

The walls involved in the old Iron Curtain worked pretty well. We loved the stories of people who got through, but many more were coaght and countless more didnt even try because of the bad odds.


EDIT: I see Munkay pointed out the same things I did.

[Guest]

15 years? That's more than Jacob gave Laban, and he got two wives out of that.  :whistling:

Green card is 5 years. 15 is kind of ridiculous.
[right][snapback]106634[/snapback][/right]

Whats "ridiculous" about it? Other than that you dont like it. My guess is if the 15 year rule was instituted there would be no shortage of Mexican lining up for it.

[Drasca]

PS. Wasn't the intent of the Great Wall of China to keep out invading armies, not necessarily individual people (?).
[right][snapback]106640[/snapback][/right]

Didn't keep out either. Mongols just rode around it (basically). Now, it is a tourist attraction, where it isn't crumbling.

[Guest]

Didn't keep out either. Mongols just rode around it (basically). Now, it is a tourist attraction, where it isn't crumbling.
[right][snapback]106645[/snapback][/right]

Houses are useless too, we knoww this because castles didnt work out too well.

[Rinnhart]

The best defense is a good offense. The Berlin Wall benefitted from having an active suppression of crossings on the side people were attempting to leave from. It's a great deal easier to keep someone from climbing a wall than it is to keep someone from jumping off.

Additionally, people crossed the Iron Curtain for different reasons than mongol raiders or illegal immigrants. They gained social intangibles. The weren't motivated by plunder.

[Rhydderch Hael]

Didn't keep out either. Mongols just rode around it (basically). Now, it is a tourist attraction, where it isn't crumbling.
[right][snapback]106645[/snapback][/right]

That's because the Wall wasn't meant to stop Mongol hordes cold, but rather channel them into predictable avenues of advance. Of course, you needed a coherent army standing by to take advantage, and that was the biggest hurdle for the Chinese back then. Too many banners to choose from, too much infighting.

[Drasca]

Too many banners to choose from, too much infighting.
[right][snapback]106667[/snapback][/right]

Isn't this everyone's problem? :P