Maggie's Farm

We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Much Sorry with Delays
Birth, Death and All That Stuff in Between
How to Honor Labor Day, Every Day
My Yom Kippur Miracle (Repost from 2010)
Good intro to fly casting
Peach update, with pie
NYC update
Easy for you to say: To the elites on mass immigration
For NYC on 9/11, Sailors' Snug Harbor
Pickled Peaches
Water Shoes
Labor Costs in U.S.
Your "identity"
Good news about The Great Courses
Uses of Hot Pepper Jelly/Sauce, Chutneys, and Jams
A Saturday Drive to Litchfield County, CT
How to Pick a Kayak
Civilized: Fruit forks and knives
Loads of kayaking on Cape Cod
Psychology Experiments' Questionable Results

Categories


All categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Add to Google

Subscribe with Bloglines

Wednesday, May 5. 2010

Ed Koch on illegal immigration

From his piece at RCP:



Currently, the U.S. has the highest legal immigration in the world. Every year, we allow 750,000 immigrants to enter the country legally and make them eligible for citizenship within five years. Two hundred and fifty thousand aslyees are also permitted to enter annually. Those legal immigrants have the right to work and earn a living; the asylees are eligible to work six months after applying to work. If we need more immigrants, as many think we do to expand the workforce of our graying population, then we can easily increase the number of legal immigrants.


If we give the current illegals amnesty, you can be sure that 20 or so years from now, there will be a clamor for another amnesty bill as the illegals will continue to pour in.


Posted by The Barrister in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 13:48 | Comments (7) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Here's a Thought - Let's adopt Mexico's laws

All of those criticizing Arizona's new anti-immigration law are absolutely correct! It is so unfair! Instead of mimicking existing federal law like it does now, Arizona should enact laws similar to Mexico's. By applying the same standards to illegal immigration as Mexico, Arizona and the U.S. as a whole should:

1. make illegal immigration a felony, punishable by up to two years in prison;
2. deported illegals that re-enter should be imprisoned for 10 years;
3. visa violators sentenced to six years;
4. helping illegal immigrants would be a felony; and
5. deport foreigners who are deemed detrimental to economic or national interests and those who are not "physically or mentally healthy" or lack the "necessary funds for their sustenance" and for their dependents.

I haven't heard a single charge of racism concerning Mexican immigration policy, so logic would follow that (if they are so happy with the immigration laws in their country, they will be equally happy with their own countries laws applied to them as illegal immigrants in the US), then all of the current critics of Arizona's law could be happy. It's a win-win situation! - M.J. Lewis
#1 Berkshire Conservative (Link) on 2010-05-05 14:31 (Reply)
I decided long ago that the federal government had no intention of enforcing immigration law. There was a deliberate policy of pretense.

Illegal immigration was thought to be good for business. And business therefore bought Washington - both parties - to keep it so.

The problem is not illegals. It is a Washington owned by wealth. And the wealthiest in America see no problem at all.

The wording of the next immigration "reform" will be crafted to please some voters and continue the illusion. But it will be enforced, or not, to please the establishment.
#2 KTWO on 2010-05-05 15:38 (Reply)
IMO, immmigration is not the problem, Illegal immigration is.

My family and friends work largely in the restaurant/hotel, construction and healthcare industries, all of which benefit greatly from participation by immigrants, most of whom have spent years and much effort meeting the requirements for naturalization and citizenship. It is a slap in their faces to allow illegals amnesty when so many are still trying to accomplish this goal by obeying our laws.

As for the problems with wealthy and powerful ignoring the written laws NOW IN PLACE, it's the same old, same old...only at their convenience.
#3 jma on 2010-05-05 17:28 (Reply)
#3, illegals have allowed many middle and upper class people in the US to live like kings.

That is one reason - not the only one - why there is such resistance to effective enforcement.

It works like this: You are doing well, making $250K, After taxes maybe $200K.

For $2000/year you can have your yard work done by illegals, but it would cost about $5000 for legal labor due to social security, FIT, etc.

For $20K you can have the house kept clean, the laundry done, and the kids watched for a few hours after school. But that would cost $40K if you were withholding Social Security, SDI, etc.

These things add up and soon the reasonably prosperous person is saving $20-$50K/year. And living as well as a person making twice as much and using legal labor.
#4 KTWO on 2010-05-05 18:32 (Reply)
KTWO is exactly correct.

That is, simply put, the crux of it! Many of my women friends employ illegals as nannies, housecleaners, groundskeepers - these are really upper middle class households at best. They could not afford to be above-board - daycare is MUCH more expensive than a nice quiet illegal! - so they are very happy with things as they are. And many powerful men are run by women such as these.

When I made a negative comment about the illegal young woman living essentially as an indentured servant in my SILs house (literally in a tiny room under-stairs next to the garage, fumes and all!) I made an enemy for life! My sister-in-law is VERY wealthy, and could easily afford to employ legal staff - she prefers the more exploitable illegals. Of course she constantly b*tches about having to drive her everywhere since she can't get a license (yet, I suppose).
#4.1 BlackOrchid on 2010-05-06 09:23 (Reply)
KTWO, somewhat agreed, but as jma and anyone who has adopted foreign children can tell you, the government is obsessively interested in enforcing immigration laws when it is legal immigrants being considered. Shameful. The INS seems to have its attitudes exactly backward.

Koch touches on the phrase "If we need more immigrants..." As the economy seems able to somewhat absorb illegals, it is likely we could absorb something near that number of legals instead. So every illegal is taking the place of some nice Croatian man or woman from the Philippines who would be willing to play by the rules and be a a law-abiding citizen. It isn't very, uh, multicultural of us to accept so many immigrants from a single country now, is it?
#5 Assistant Village Idiot (Link) on 2010-05-05 21:48 (Reply)
I agree with jma here. Living in a border state as I do [Texas] I have many Hispanic friends, quite a few of whom are professionals, all of whom are either natural born citizens or legal immigrants. I can tell you that they are angry and worried about the flood of illegal immigrants who are coming over our unprotected borders every day. And the growing threat from the Mexican criminals, the drug smugglers, the people smugglers, worries them as much as it worries us who have been citizens longer.

But, as one of my friends pointed out after the new Arizona law was passed, most of us who are already citizens have to show our identification frequently during our life -- when we pay our taxes, are stopped by a traffic violation, sometimes when we pick up prescriptions at a drug store, and when we vote. There are many occasions when we do this. It has been a Federal regulation since the 1950s, that non-citizens or those here on visas must carry I.D. when they go anywhere outside of where they are lodging or living. There's nothing new in that. The deliberately disingenuous folks who are comparing the presenting of legal I.D. on various occasions with the Third Reich's "Vere are your paperz" rubbish are doing it to force our weak-spined government to continue to acquiesce to the activist groups who want to continue our lax attitude to closing our borders.

I'm fine with Arizona's brave step forward. The law they passed is almost a duplicate of the Federal law already on the books.

And so far, until the present Administration took over at least, we haven't had the harassment the activists predict. But the murders of our citizens increase. It was time we fought back. What is it the Bible says? "The wicked flee, where no man persueth."

Marianne
#6 Marianne Matthews on 2010-05-05 23:25 (Reply)

Add Comment
(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)

By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email
addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications.

Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u],
[url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here.

Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (*word*), underscore are made via _word_.
E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

BBCode format allowed
 
 
A Chris Southern Consulting website.