Establishment Republican's Reason for Opposing Immigration EO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Since illegals are so contributory and so well-off, they need no access to food stamps, free medical, or any other social welfare program, correct?

21:25 here. That's distorting the point. From looking at the cost of welfare, incarceration and education against the economic benefits provided to our society as a whole because of the spending and productivity of illegal immigrants, it's probably close to a wash whether it's economically costly or beneficial to deport them all. It's possible that their presence is still a drain on the economy that is not completely offset by their economic activity, or it's possible that there is a net economic benefit to society.

However, when you factor in the cost of deporting them, including the costs associated with dealing with all of the children who under the Constitution are citizens of the US and entitled to all of the benefits of citizenship, it would cost us far more to deport the illegal immigrants than it would to allow them to remain here.

As far as the provision of social benefits (food stamps, medical care, etc.) to illegal immigrants is concerned (and these are not in any particular order and most of these apply to all those receiving social safety net support, not just illegal immigrants):

- first, by analogy, just because someone is driving on a revoked or suspended driver's license or driving a car whose registration has expired doesn't mean they forego the right to a police/fire response or medical treatment if they are in an accident on the Beltway;

- second, a number of the children of illegal immigrants are citizens who are entitled to all of those benefits;

- third, many illegal immigrants are working and paying taxes despite their immigration status and are paying to support those services;

- fourth, there is a societal benefit to making sure that those at or below the poverty line get fed, have access to medical care, get education, etc. There are plenty of studies showing the beneficial impact of appropriate nutrition for women during pregnancy and for children (and the corresponding adverse impacts of the lack thereof, particularly increasing the costs of pregnancy and the medical costs associated with children's care and adverse longer term societal impacts);

- fifth, there is a security benefit to providing free medical care for people because it enables us to catch and treat outbreaks of communicable diseases before they become far costlier problems;

- sixth, in addition to being the morally right thing to do, there is a societal security benefit to providing people at or below the poverty line with food security because it decreases the likelihood that people will turn to criminal means to feed themselves and their children. The cost to society of providing food security is lower than the cost to society of the impact of such theft and the increased law enforcement efforts necessary to prevent it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since illegals are so contributory and so well-off, they need no access to food stamps, free medical, or any other social welfare program, correct?

What law can you, an American citizen break, a not be held accountable for? And better yet, be rewarded for?

Massive Banking fraud. Shooting a black kid.

We jail bankers.

Really? We jail bankers? Well, maybe we used to, but not any more. In the 70s we had Michael Milken, in the 80s we had hundreds of prosecutions associated with the S&L Crisis, and in the 90s we had the Enron prosecutions, but nowadays Jaime Diamon got a massive bonus for being in charge during some of the most epic fraud ever committed.

According to Judge Jed. S. Rakoff, a U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York who has significant experience with financial crimes, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, established by Congress, used variants of the word "fraud" 157 times in explaining the causes of the crisis.

The judge writes in the NY Review of Books (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/jan/09/financial-crisis-why-no-executive-prosecutions/?insrc=toc): "Not a single high-level executive has been successfully prosecuted in connection with the recent financial crisis, and given the fact that most of the relevant criminal provisions are governed by a five-year statute of limitations, it appears likely that none will be. It may not be too soon, therefore, to ask why?"

And yes, all black kids are innocent. Lolol

No, they aren't all innocent. But some of them are, and those who are guilty of crimes may not have committed crimes that merit the death penalty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

What exactly did the Immigration Control & Reform act of 1986 do again

And, it was an ACT--not an executive order.

It was an Executive Order that later Congress adopted into a law. Congress can do the same this time, or adopt a law that effectively overturns the Executive Order. And since the republicans control both houses, why don't they just adopt a law on the point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

21:25 here. That's distorting the point. From looking at the cost of welfare, incarceration and education against the economic benefits provided to our society as a whole because of the spending and productivity of illegal immigrants, it's probably close to a wash whether it's economically costly or beneficial to deport them all.

You omit the cost that the executive order will have on future illegal immigration. You are announcing to the world that yes, the U.S. has an immigration system set up which allows about 1 million people a year (far more from Mexico than any other country) to legally become US citizens. But if you come here illegally, we will never deport you, we will give you social benefits, and we will eventually give you citizenship.

I wish that those in favor of immigration reform would just say that they really want to get rid of all immigration laws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

21:25 here. That's distorting the point. From looking at the cost of welfare, incarceration and education against the economic benefits provided to our society as a whole because of the spending and productivity of illegal immigrants, it's probably close to a wash whether it's economically costly or beneficial to deport them all.

You omit the cost that the executive order will have on future illegal immigration. You are announcing to the world that yes, the U.S. has an immigration system set up which allows about 1 million people a year (far more from Mexico than any other country) to legally become US citizens. But if you come here illegally, we will never deport you, we will give you social benefits, and we will eventually give you citizenship.

I wish that those in favor of immigration reform would just say that they really want to get rid of all immigration laws.

That section I bolded is the bottom line. What Obama will do is create a fluid or non-existent southern land border. Perhaps the next step is to consult with Mexico and develope an agreement plus a process where the USA books flights or provides the ground transportation through Mexico.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

21:25 here. That's distorting the point. From looking at the cost of welfare, incarceration and education against the economic benefits provided to our society as a whole because of the spending and productivity of illegal immigrants, it's probably close to a wash whether it's economically costly or beneficial to deport them all.

You omit the cost that the executive order will have on future illegal immigration. You are announcing to the world that yes, the U.S. has an immigration system set up which allows about 1 million people a year (far more from Mexico than any other country) to legally become US citizens. But if you come here illegally, we will never deport you, we will give you social benefits, and we will eventually give you citizenship.

I wish that those in favor of immigration reform would just say that they really want to get rid of all immigration laws.

That section I bolded is the bottom line. What Obama will do is create a fluid or non-existent southern land border. Perhaps the next step is to consult with Mexico and develope an agreement plus a process where the USA books flights or provides the ground transportation through Mexico.

You make a fair point about the future effects on immigration. I don't know how to model that and I haven't seen articles providing a credible model for how this change would affect future immigration.

As far as the "fluid border" is concerned, according to PolitiFact.com, the best estimate anyone can come up with is that somewhere around 40% of the unauthorized migrants currently resident in the United States did not cross the borders illegally. Instead, they arrived in the United States on a lawful tourist, student, business, or other visa. (http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2013/sep/06/john-carter/john-carter-claim-40-percent-nations-illegal-resid/)

I disagree with your assertion about those who favor immigration reform just want to do away with all immigration rules. Our immigration system is broken in a manner similar to the recording industry. No one is suggesting that because people are sharing music illegally that the music industry should just fold up and go away. Instead, people are trying to figure out how to change the business model for the music industry so that it works better for everyone. We need to modify our immigration laws to recognize certain realities about the nature of the world we live in.

Or we could just allow Mexico and Canada (except for Quebec) to join the US as about 40 new states.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since illegals are so contributory and so well-off, they need no access to food stamps, free medical, or any other social welfare program, correct?

What law can you, an American citizen break, a not be held accountable for? And better yet, be rewarded for?

Massive Banking fraud. Shooting a black kid.

Well, true that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since illegals are so contributory and so well-off, they need no access to food stamps, free medical, or any other social welfare program, correct?

21:25 here. That's distorting the point. From looking at the cost of welfare, incarceration and education against the economic benefits provided to our society as a whole because of the spending and productivity of illegal immigrants, it's probably close to a wash whether it's economically costly or beneficial to deport them all. It's possible that their presence is still a drain on the economy that is not completely offset by their economic activity, or it's possible that there is a net economic benefit to society.

However, when you factor in the cost of deporting them, including the costs associated with dealing with all of the children who under the Constitution are citizens of the US and entitled to all of the benefits of citizenship, it would cost us far more to deport the illegal immigrants than it would to allow them to remain here.

As far as the provision of social benefits (food stamps, medical care, etc.) to illegal immigrants is concerned (and these are not in any particular order and most of these apply to all those receiving social safety net support, not just illegal immigrants):

- first, by analogy, just because someone is driving on a revoked or suspended driver's license or driving a car whose registration has expired doesn't mean they forego the right to a police/fire response or medical treatment if they are in an accident on the Beltway;

- second, a number of the children of illegal immigrants are citizens who are entitled to all of those benefits;

- third, many illegal immigrants are working and paying taxes despite their immigration status and are paying to support those services;

- fourth, there is a societal benefit to making sure that those at or below the poverty line get fed, have access to medical care, get education, etc. There are plenty of studies showing the beneficial impact of appropriate nutrition for women during pregnancy and for children (and the corresponding adverse impacts of the lack thereof, particularly increasing the costs of pregnancy and the medical costs associated with children's care and adverse longer term societal impacts);

- fifth, there is a security benefit to providing free medical care for people because it enables us to catch and treat outbreaks of communicable diseases before they become far costlier problems;

- sixth, in addition to being the morally right thing to do, there is a societal security benefit to providing people at or below the poverty line with food security because it decreases the likelihood that people will turn to criminal means to feed themselves and their children. The cost to society of providing food security is lower than the cost to society of the impact of such theft and the increased law enforcement efforts necessary to prevent it.

Your argument is in support of open borders, and you carefully pick and choose what to quantify and what to say is our moral/societal responsibility.  Not everyone agrees.  

The US is a sovereign nation.  We have an immigration process and immigration laws.  Our President is responsible for enforcing those laws.  If you want to argue that the laws should be changed, that is Congress' job.  (If it takes years to gain enough concensus to pass a law, then it takes years.  Many of our country's issues have.  In addition, most adults entering our country illegally knew it was illegal, and those overstaying their visas, etc. know it is illegal to stay.)   This should not be an EO! This issue crosses party lines as evidenced by the polls and the posts on this site. Let's have a public debate, and let the people talk to their representatives.  Our government relies on a balance of power.  To undo this balance of power with wide reaching, broad impacting EO's is a frightening prospect for our future.  

[Anonymous]

So why aren't republicans engaging in this much needed debate? We would have passed something by now if you had done so in this term.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What exactly did the Immigration Control & Reform act of 1986 do again

And, it was an ACT--not an executive order.

It was an Executive Order that later Congress adopted into a law. Congress can do the same this time, or adopt a law that effectively overturns the Executive Order. And since the republicans control both houses, why don't they just adopt a law on the point?

Because it would have to be signed by the president, right? Or am I forgetting what I learned in first grade....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What exactly did the Immigration Control & Reform act of 1986 do again

And, it was an ACT--not an executive order.

It was an Executive Order that later Congress adopted into a law. Congress can do the same this time, or adopt a law that effectively overturns the Executive Order. And since the republicans control both houses, why don't they just adopt a law on the point?

Because it would have to be signed by the president, right? Or am I forgetting what I learned in first grade....

There is bipartisan legislation initiated by the Senate that Boehner refuses to put up for a House vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since illegals are so contributory and so well-off, they need no access to food stamps, free medical, or any other social welfare program, correct?

21:25 here. That's distorting the point. From looking at the cost of welfare, incarceration and education against the economic benefits provided to our society as a whole because of the spending and productivity of illegal immigrants, it's probably close to a wash whether it's economically costly or beneficial to deport them all. It's possible that their presence is still a drain on the economy that is not completely offset by their economic activity, or it's possible that there is a net economic benefit to society.

However, when you factor in the cost of deporting them, including the costs associated with dealing with all of the children who under the Constitution are citizens of the US and entitled to all of the benefits of citizenship, it would cost us far more to deport the illegal immigrants than it would to allow them to remain here.

As far as the provision of social benefits (food stamps, medical care, etc.) to illegal immigrants is concerned (and these are not in any particular order and most of these apply to all those receiving social safety net support, not just illegal immigrants):

- first, by analogy, just because someone is driving on a revoked or suspended driver's license or driving a car whose registration has expired doesn't mean they forego the right to a police/fire response or medical treatment if they are in an accident on the Beltway;

- second, a number of the children of illegal immigrants are citizens who are entitled to all of those benefits;

- third, many illegal immigrants are working and paying taxes despite their immigration status and are paying to support those services;

- fourth, there is a societal benefit to making sure that those at or below the poverty line get fed, have access to medical care, get education, etc. There are plenty of studies showing the beneficial impact of appropriate nutrition for women during pregnancy and for children (and the corresponding adverse impacts of the lack thereof, particularly increasing the costs of pregnancy and the medical costs associated with children's care and adverse longer term societal impacts);

- fifth, there is a security benefit to providing free medical care for people because it enables us to catch and treat outbreaks of communicable diseases before they become far costlier problems;

- sixth, in addition to being the morally right thing to do, there is a societal security benefit to providing people at or below the poverty line with food security because it decreases the likelihood that people will turn to criminal means to feed themselves and their children. The cost to society of providing food security is lower than the cost to society of the impact of such theft and the increased law enforcement efforts necessary to prevent it.

Your argument is in support of open borders,

No, it is not. At no point have I argued for open borders or simply removing immigration laws. My argument relates to those illegal immigrants who are already here.

and you carefully pick and choose what to quantify and what to say is our moral/societal responsibility.  Not everyone agrees.

You're entitled to disagree. Feel free to challenges my numbers, my choices or any other aspect of my argument.  

The US is a sovereign nation.  We have an immigration process and immigration laws.  Our President is responsible for enforcing those laws.  If you want to argue that the laws should be changed, that is Congress' job.  (If it takes years to gain enough concensus to pass a law, then it takes years.  Many of our country's issues have.  In addition, most adults entering our country illegally knew it was illegal, and those overstaying their visas, etc. know it is illegal to stay.)   This should not be an EO! This issue crosses party lines as evidenced by the polls and the posts on this site. Let's have a public debate, and let the people talk to their representatives.  Our government relies on a balance of power.  To undo this balance of power with wide reaching, broad impacting EO's is a frightening prospect for our future.  

You've rightly said the Presidents job is to enforce the laws. The President allocates limited law enforcement resources where he believes best for the country. It is within his prerogative to direct law enforcement to target certain areas or not to target certain areas.

I would argue that an Executive Order directing law enforcement to focus on things other than illegal immigrants who are otherwise in compliance with law then that is in our economic interest (and you've made no case otherwise) and is within the power of the office of the President.

[Anonymous]

I would argue that an Executive Order directing law enforcement to focus on things other than illegal immigrants who are otherwise in compliance with law then that is in our economic interest (and you've made no case otherwise) and is within the power of the office of the President.

They have pretty much done that without the EO. In fact, there are plenty that are not in compliance with the law that are still here. FWIW, I think all DUIs should be deported.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since illegals are so contributory and so well-off, they need no access to food stamps, free medical, or any other social welfare program, correct?

What law can you, an American citizen break, a not be held accountable for? And better yet, be rewarded for?

Massive Banking fraud. Shooting a black kid.

Massive bank fraud like Bernie Madoff - oh never mind, he got live in prison and didn't his son commit suicide? YUP - rewarded for sure!

[Anonymous]

Google it. The President himself said that this is outside a president's power... That he is not an emporer.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/nov/17/immigration-decree-obama-should-heed-his-own-words/

There are plenty of links and videos.

Then back peddle on what he meant. Yawn.