Maggie's Farm

I'm not sure I disagree with Obama regarding the legalization of these workers. Our options are few, and the one thing legalization will do is bring in tax revenue that is currently not booked.

The way I see it, here are the options:
1. Seek out and deport all of them. This is expensive, and we have no money. It also assumes we can find MOST, if not ALL, illegal workers. That, of course, is absurd. In most cases, we'll find very few, and the ones we find (on a cost per deportation basis) will be expensive to eliminate in relation to the value they provide for the economy. Consider this: If it costs $200,000 in wages, fees, and paper work to deport a fellow earning $20,000 a year mowing lawns tax free - who is going to do that work? Most likely another undocumented alien OR an unreliable teen (I have teens, I know how they operate). Of course, we COULD penalize the companies caught using aliens the cost of the deportation.....but that's really just another tax on business and hurts the small businessman rather than the large one at a time when small business needs incentive to grow.

2. We can legitimize those who are here, making them pay taxes and turn them into valued citizens. This will cost relatively little, will, in reality, take very few jobs from people who are seeking them (let's be honest, I haven't seen people lining up to be janitors or yard workers. If they wanted to, they could hang out on the corner with the other undocumented aliens and get picked up for work). The idea that removing undocumented aliens "adds jobs" is absurd in the extreme. Most businesses will be forced to adhere to Federal Rules and Regulations about pay scales (inflated minimum wages and benefits), which will mean they will hire FEWER people to do jobs AND raise their rates to do the jobs they do.


In the end, Obama's POV is the correct one and we can no longer hide behind the veneer of "they are taking our jobs". The Nativist movement in the US has a long, sorry history and has been wrong on this count EVERY time.

I'm not sure those numbers are as large as people think, nor do I believe this bill just opens the doors in quite so wide a fashion.

Even if it does, I still have very few reservations regarding it. We need new blood, new ideas, new infusions of talent all the time. Immigration, throughout our history, has led to growth. It has not diminished growth. Indeed, economic growth in the US slowed as more controls were put on immigration. There are many factors in play with growth, but I'm hard put to explain why limiting access to opportunity for all is different from any other form of protectionism.

As the descendant of Irish immigrants who were treated poorly due to thoughts of this fashion, I'll simply say - in the end "Irish need not apply" is no different than what you are saying today.

History has proven you line of thinking incorrect each and every time it's reared its ugly head.

The signs themselves may or may not be a myth. The stories that the family has passed down are not - there are plenty of Irish who (if alive today) could attest to the fact these sentiments, whether in sign format or simply by action or spoken word, existed. While the action and words were primarily generated toward the Catholics in general (and therefore leading to similar dislike for the Italians during their migratory period), the earliest Catholic arrivals to US shores were mostly Irish.

Like many minority groups, even those today, they found work. Usually work that was dangerous, low paying, or undesirable work. The Delaware and Raritan Canal, not far from my home, was built by Irish laborers. The assumption that this, somehow, negates the "myth" is misguided because it was work nobody else wanted. Just like the worker from Peru you saw cutting your neighbors lawn yesterday.

To imply that the signs were a myth, thus the whole story a myth is outrageous. It would be as if you denied the entire history of the Know Nothings. While their long term impact was negligible, their thought processes are no different from those of nativists today - wrongheaded and misguided. Through the lens of history, can anyone on this thread think they would have, with today's knowledge, have joined the Know Nothings? Highly doubtful. Yet listen to yourselves, spouting similar language and commentary to that of those people.

Implying that our country cannot gain from this immigration is also wrong. All nations need low-wage laborers. If we didn't, they wouldn't be here. If we didn't need them in the 1800's, the Irish would likely have settled elsewhere (indeed many went to Australia - much less opportunity there at the time, though.....).

If we cannot gain from immigration, if there isn't some value to having people willing to come here, people who want to work, people who want to be valuable citizens and people who ARE WILLING to pay their taxes to have the same opportunities as you and I do - then why did we fashion ourselves to be the nation we are? Was it just to accept those we felt were desirable based on skin color, creed, or education? NO.

I'm sorry that so many people are anti-immigrant today. I'm afraid that it is primarily grown from the absurdities of the government's entry into our wallets. That we now pay for so much medical care, we pay for so much education, we pay for so much housing, food and clothing.....that it just makes being an immigrant that much easier and more desirable.

I don't view this as a flaw of the immigrants - they are only trying to take advantage of a system which we thought was designed intelligently to help others. Sadly, like all systems set up by governments, it is flawed in the extreme.

I say keep the immigrants coming, but reduce our "benefits" to them. The Irish, Italians, Germans, Chinese, Japanese....all worked hard to move up the ladder with far more limited government assistance, and all are better for it. I'm not in favor of paying for a person's medical needs just because they crossed the border. But I'm also not in favor of paying for a citizen's medical needs because they chose to smoke their lungs into a black mess, or engaged a risky hobby without insurance, or had an abortion because they were promiscuous. I view all these folks the same - moochers on a political agenda that has kind emotions at its heart, but an illogical and impractical application at its base.

On the other hand, the fellow I paid to paint my fence several years ago, or the 2 guys who helped me renovate my bathroom 2 years ago? I'll pay them to assist me thwart rapacious US citizens who jack up their rates just because of the name of the neighborhood I happen to live in. It's all part of something called "The Market" and if we're US citizens, this market should be kept open at all times. When we start rigging it, then the unfairness and the imbalances start accumulating.

What was the upshot of the 1986 amnesty? Nothing, really. No horrendous repercussions, if I remember correctly.

The issue of sending money to border states to pay for those who cross over doesn't smack of immigration problems. It highlights the errors of government redistribution of income. If the government wasn't in the business of paying for those who cannot in a very general sense, then would so many people be making the case they are making? No, not as many.

The only argument would be the "jobs" one. Which isn't really much of an argument.

I do sneer at nativism. Any brief review of the Know Nothings and their legacy shows just how wrong-headed this line of thought is.

Irish/Italian/German/Chinese/Japanese immigrants have all suffered from this mentality at some point. What did we gain from having it? Nothing. What did we gain from incorporating them into our culture? Much.