What should be done about illegal immigration?

By Ian de Silva
April 12, 2007

So, here is a question for those in law enforcement who believe that checking a suspect's immigration status is violating his rights: Was the right of the two girls to live into adulthood a lesser right than the purported right of an illegal alien to be left alone? Virginia Beach is not unique in its laissez-faire attitude toward illegal aliens. Our federal government has precisely the same attitude. And the illegals know this. That is why they have come in millions. So, as Congress and President Bush get ready to discuss amnesty for illegal aliens again, we should ask them a simple question: What makes you think that people who came here trampling the law will suddenly respect the law just because you legalize them?

Fox, Is this the only topic where we agree? LOL

What's draining the federal budget is the war in Iraq - at two billion dollars every week. On top of all that, we lose an average of 14 GIs during that period.

How many businesses would close if they had to pay natural born Americans to replace Mexican labor? (Restaurants would fold left and right, resulting in HUGE unemployment. Even my small stores kicked out 6 figures in Tax dollars each).

OCCOM BILL wrote:

How many businesses would close if they had to pay natural born Americans to replace Mexican labor? (Restaurants would fold left and right, resulting in HUGE unemployment. Even my small stores kicked out 6 figures in Tax dollars each).

I am dubious as to your inference that restaurant costs are relevant to the economy in such a fashion that if restaurant costs were higher due to higher labor costs and/or there were fewer restaurants due to higher labor costs that this would be a net economic negative over sufficient time; because this presumes a fixed and unassailable economic pretext as to the economic relevance of restaurants.

In a more general sense, your unfounded assertion presumes that automation, mechanization and self-service (for example) could not supplant cheap labor in terms of cost containment, further your unfounded assertion presumes that there is an essential on going permanent need for the likes of (for example) restaurants as they are now structured.

That's because you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

As someone who recently owned two restaurants, and did the books on both, I assure you; I do.

There need not be a need for the service for the closure to impact the economy.

Your argument is as senseless as it is clearly uninformed.

I happen to be an expert, and you've made no point.

(Your petty attempts at critical thinking aren't worth addressing.)

I don't know, finn -
it struck me as just as effective as all those "what Imus said was bad, but the real culprit is all the black rappers" arguments.

Finn, I'm surprised you would be taken in by such utter nonsense.

Just off the top of my head:
1. Mexicans in general collect less welfare than whitey let alone an average, which per capita in his sample would be dominated by African Americans from the inner cities. That in itself; renders his research useless. You don't count apples to determine how many oranges you have.
   
   The study freely admits that it doesn't focus on illegal immigrants but rather the lower tier of economic denizens. Unless you wish to suggest that Mexican immigrants (legal or otherwise) find themselves (as a majority) in a higher tier, the issue of relevance fades.
   
   If the described dynamic applies then the fact that Euro-Americans and African-Americans may or may not represent the majority of those among the lowest tier is meaningless if the majority of Mexican immigrants also occupy that tier.
   
   {As just a point of interest, why do you and others describe Mexicans as being something other than "White?" Is it because any and all races other than "White" achieve some moral superiority and you, to advance your position, wish to place Mexicans in a superior status?}
   
2. His study brings up offspring, not at all. Children of unskilled parents grow up just like everyone else, and Mexicans tend to have larger families. While claiming they're eating the pie they bring to the table; how can you ignore this obvious fact? (Hint; it has to do with preconceived conclusions).
   
3. His costs per poor family figures look absurdly high, though I don't really know.
   
   Well there you go. The numbers cited don't sit well with Bill and therefore must be suspect. Do you really wish to advance this argument?
   
   
4. Where does he account for immigrant's increased tendency to open small businesses?
   
   He doesn't. If you can show that the majority of Mexican immigrants do not occupy the lowest economic tier than you can blow his argument out of the water.
   
   
5. How many businesses would close if they had to pay natural born Americans to replace Mexican labor? (Restaurants would fold left and right, resulting in HUGE unemployment. Even my small stores kicked out 6 figures in Tax dollars each).

Ah ha! Bill the Restaurant owner allows his personal ecomomic situation to color his judgment on what is fair and righteous. Undoubtedly you hire illegals. So too do 99% of the restaurant owners in America. I have no doubt you treat these wetbacks just fine, but I also have no doubt that you would not hire them unless you could save money. Sorry Bill, but I just don't thin you are such a proponent of immigration that you, for the same cost, you would rather hire immigrants than native born.

You have a business to run. Liberals have made it ridiculously hard for small business owners to make a profit and so you have found yourself in conflict with immigration laws and commons sense: I can hire some surly bastard who thinks the world owes him a living for "minimum wage," or I can hire a hard working, diligent illegal for something less than "minimum wage." Doesn't take a genius to figure out which way Bill will lean.

No doubt you treat your illegals exceedingly well, but do you pay them "minimum wage?" Unlikely, unless you somehow have come to the conclusion that Mexican Immigrants are superior workers and worth as much or more than "Whitey," or "Blacky" workers.

At the end of the day; he took some point serving stats, not even directly related to immigration and ignored every stat that didn't fit his preconceived conclusion. VERY sloppy work, and you of all people should recognize it as such.

Sorry Bill but unlike you my reaction to this argument, which questions my basic premise (Immigration (legal or otherwise) is good for America) , is to wonder, rather than to rant that the bigoted fool knows nothing.

I'm in a fortunate position though. If I am wrong, and Mexican immigrants are a blight on our economy, sending them packing will only raise my landscaping fees by several percentage points. You, on the other hand, may lose your restaurant.

I can only hope (without, admittedly, too many calories) that my disagreement with your position will not result in the sort of assault launched against Foxfyre. To the extent I can like a cyber-icon, I like you Bill. To the greatest measure, your positions are structured on logic and common sense. In this arena, however, you seem to have moved afield.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

How many businesses would close if they had to pay natural born Americans to replace Mexican labor? (Restaurants would fold left and right, resulting in HUGE unemployment. Even my small stores kicked out 6 figures in Tax dollars each).

I am dubious as to your inference that restaurant costs are relevant to the economy in such a fashion that if restaurant costs were higher due to higher labor costs and/or there were fewer restaurants due to higher labor costs that this would be a net economic negative over sufficient time. This presumes a fixed and unassailable economic pretext as to the economic relevance of restaurants.

In a more general sense, your unfounded assertion presumes that automation, mechanization and self-service (for example) could not supplant cheap labor in terms of cost containment.

Further your unfounded assertion presumes that there is an essential on-going permanent need for the likes of (for example) restaurants as they are now structured, or for that matter (for example) restaurants at all at least as they are now structured.