Here are some prior threads on this topic.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/showthread.php?threadid=279586

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/280274-why-not-national-boycott-biz-run-illegals.html

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/showthread.php?threadid=280667

Posting as background. There's been some good discussion.

Another Krauthammer piece on the subject, with which I concur.

Get in Line, Einstein

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, June 1, 2007; A15


Beware legislative behemoths. Beware "comprehensive immigration reform." Any bill that is 380 pages long is bound to have nooks and crannies reflecting private deals, quiet paybacks and ad hoc arrangements that you often don't learn about until it's too late.

The main provisions of the immigration reform monster are well known. But how many knew, before reading last Saturday's Post, that if Einstein were trying to get a green card, he would have to get in line with Argentine plumbers and Taiwanese accountants to qualify under the new "point system" that gives credit for such things as English proficiency and reliable work history? Good thing Albert was a patent office clerk, and that grooming isn't part of the point system.

Until now we've had a special category for highly skilled, world-renowned and indispensable talent. Great musicians, athletes and high-tech managers come in today under the EB-1 visa. This apparently is going to be abolished in the name of an idiotic egalitarianism.

I suspect this provision is a kind of apology for one of the few very good ideas in the bill -- taking skill, education and English proficiency into account rather than just family ties, thus cutting back on a chain migration system in which a Yemeni laborer can bring over an entire clan while the engineers and teachers desperate to get here languish in the old country.

The price for this lurch into rationality appears to be the abolition of the VIP fast track, which constitutes less than 2 percent of total immigration and, from the point of view of the national interest, is the most valuable. This staggeringly stupid idea is reason alone to vote against the immigration bill. Beyond stupidity, the bill offers farce. My favorite episode is the back-taxes caper. John McCain has been going around telling everyone that in order to be legalized, illegal immigrants will, among other things, have to pay back taxes. Such are the stern requirements on the "path to citizenship."

Problem is, McCain then discovered that back taxes were not in the bill. The Department of Homeland Security had argued that collecting on money paid under the table -- usually in cash, often with no receipts -- is pretty much impossible. Indeed, the cost of calculating and collecting the money would probably exceed the proceeds.

Now, nonpayment of taxes is not the kind of thing you want to defend when trying to sell immigration reform to citizens who do pay their taxes -- back and otherwise. So last week John McCain proposed an amendment to restore the back-taxes provision. A somewhat sheepish Senate approved this sop -- unanimously.

But the campaign for legalization does not stop at stupidity and farce. It adds mendacity as well. Such as the front-page story in last Friday's New York Times claiming that "a large majority of Americans want to change the immigration laws to allow illegal immigrants to gain legal status."

Sounds unbelievable. And it is. A Rasmussen poll had shown that 72 percent of Americans thought border enforcement and reducing illegal immigration to be very important. Only 29 percent thought legalization to be very important. Indeed, when a different question in the Times poll -- one that did not make the front page -- asked respondents if they wanted to see illegal immigrants prosecuted and deported, 69 percent said yes.

I looked for the poll question that justified the pro-legalization claim. It was Question 61. Just as I suspected, it was perfectly tendentious. It gave the respondent two options: (a) allow illegal immigrants to apply for legalization (itself a misleading characterization because the current bill grants instant legal status to all non-criminals), or (b) deport them.

Surprise. Sixty-two percent said (a). That's like asking about abortion: Do you favor (a) legalization or (b) capital punishment for doctor and mother? There is, of course, a third alternative: what we've been living with for the past 20 years -- a certain tolerance of illegal immigrants that allows 12 million to stay and work but that denies them most of the privileges and government payouts reserved for legal citizens and thus acts as at least a mild disincentive to even more massive illegal immigration.

Indeed, unless the immigration bill is fixed, that alternative is what the country will in essence choose when the bill fails. My view is that it could be fixed with a very strong border control provision. But let's make sure we know what's really in the bill and not distort what the American people are really demanding, which is border control first. And for God's sake, keep Einstein on the fast track.

Of course we should accept them with open arms, that will cure the problem. Just like the last time amnesty was granted 20 yrs ago (or did you forget). The illegal numbers when up by over 10x in the next 20 yrs....

Oh and the tax thing - completely bogus. Any taxes some of them pay are easily chewed up by the amount of services they consume.

Thanks John for the tip and for digging up the numbers.

So basically 4% of the US population is estimated as illegal aliens (assuming a 300MM total population). Estimating that 7MM are working.

Assuming we had to replace the 7MM working illegals, taking numbers from your previous post and some more numbers I found,

(rounded maximums)

2MM on welfare
2MM US prison population (year 2002 number I found)
1MM homeless
7MM unemployed
20MM 15-19 year olds (year 2000 census)
--
32MM possibilities

Now of this 32MM we only need 22% to make 7MM.

So I would say that it is indeed possible, but John, you were right in that the welfare and the homeless wouldn't do it alone.

Instead stop giving inmates a free ride and start them on the back breaking hard labor the illegals are doing, also add in re-employment of teens, great for the seasonal jobs, and will breed a whole new generation of responsible children.

As for deporting 12MM illegals (wild estimation),

- assuming nearly all will be mexicans
- 200,000 bus loads assuming 60 people per bus (packing them in)
- with 200 buses that's 1000 trips
- say each trip is an average of 600 miles
- at 60 mph that's 10 hours
- would take between 3-4 years to move all of them to the border
- assuming 8 mpg for the buses (bad estimate)
- this would be 30,000,000 gallons of gas
- at $3/gallon = $90,000,000 for the gas
- another 200*4years*$50,000 = $40,000,000 to pay for drivers
- add in another $40,000,000 to pay for armed guard in each bus
- 200*$70,000 for buses (guessing) = $14,000,000
- so a total of $184,000,000
- divide this among 300,000,000 americans equally over 4 years
- grand total is about 16 cents a year
- add in a 625% over budget fudge factor
- and still only a $1 a year

Looks easily doable to me.

You're assuming one warm body is equal to another, which isn't true. How many of the 7MM unemployed would, or should, work at illegal alien type jobs? If you get laid off, thus becoming one of the unemployed, are you going to head to the nearest farm to pick lettuce? Doubtful - you're going to get your resume out there and start interviewing to find another job in your chosen field. And how are you going to feel when the local incarcerated prisoners start showing up in your community as busboys, roofers, etc? I'd probably want a lot of them to stay behind bars. Are you going to tell a small business that they have to hire the mentally ill homeless, instead of a capable worker?

I don't think we can conclude that the US has enough spare labor of the appropriate type to replace all of the est 7MM working illegal aliens. Some, probably. All, probably not. Just how many, we don't know.

My thought was we let the market figure it out, with the appropriate incentives. Impose an additional tax on businesses who hire Z-visa holders (this is the proposed visa for illegal aliens, that would let them work). Make that tax heavy enough that the total cost, to the employer, of employing a Z-visa holder is higher than the wage and benefits that they'd have to pay to attract US citizens to do that work. Have strong identification systems, and severe criminal penalties, to prevent employers from pretending that they thought a Z-visa holder was a US citizen. With modern biometrics, we should be able to mostly close off the route of forged social security cards etc. Then see what happens. If an industry truly can't attract enough US citizens to work, then they can pay the higher costs of employing Z-visa holders. If an industry in fact can attract enough US citizens, then there won't be work for the Z-visa holders. Without work, most of them will go home. The taxes would go to pay for the costs of border control, of administering the Z-visa and guest worker programs, for the costs of enforcement, and other social costs imposed by the aliens. And the proven shortage of US citizen workers, if any, will help us determine how many guest worker permits to issue each year.

We are all forgetting the essential truth....They will ultimately be voters...Statistics say they will be vote 3 out of 4 for the Democrats. A huge democratic voting block will change the political landscape of this country forever. 20 Millions will be 100 million in 20 years...Get ready for Poncho Villa III for President.

res ipsa loquitur

aye carumba!

I highly doubt many of the current crop of illegals will be able to successfully navigate all the hoops this bill puts in their way. But that just means the requirements will be relaxed later on.

doh!

Rick...This bill is pablum.. just to say they did something..I think I would leave things alone and start a insidious attack on those who hire them..

Nostatic, When are we going to Taco King...How about a run with some other guys up to the top of Mt. Baldy for coffee?

res ipsa loquitur ...Means? The head of Cattle????? I'm lost in the translation...?



__________________

http://www.grassfire.org/20042/largeAd.htm

I still stay start shooteng them as they sneak over, then hang at the boarder like they use to do to pirates!!!http://www.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/hanged.gif

So non WASPs need not apply?

Can we do the same to the employers?

No, non-Hispanics will need not apply.

Yes, but tie weights to their ankles:mad:

Chuck gets it right again.

Good Fences

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, June 15, 2007; A21


The reason comprehensive immigration reform remains in jeopardy, despite yesterday's partial resuscitation, is that it is a complex compromise with too many moving parts and too many competing interests. Employers want a guest worker program; unions want to kill it. Reformers want to introduce a point system that preferentially admits skilled and educated immigrants; immigrant groups naturally want to keep the existing family preference system. Liberals want legalization now; conservatives insist on enforcement "triggers" first.

There is only one provision that has unanimous support: stronger border enforcement. I've seen senators stand up and object to the point system, to chain migration, to guest workers, to every and any idea in this bill -- except one. I have yet to hear a senator stand up and say she is against better border enforcement.

Why not start by passing what all sides say they want? After all, proponents of this comprehensive reform insist that the current situation is intolerable and must be resolved. It follows, therefore, that however much they differ in the details of how the current mess should be resolved, they are united in the belief that such a mess should not be allowed to happen again. And the only way to make sure of that is border control.

So why not pass it, with the understanding that the other contentious provisions would be taken up subsequently? Because for all the protestations, many of those who say they are deeply devoted to enforcement are being deeply disingenuous. They profess to care about immigration control because they have to. But they care so little about the issue that they are willing to make it hostage to the other controversial provisions, most notably legalization.

Why am I so suspicious about the fealty of the reformers to real border control? In part because of the ridiculous debate over the building of a fence. Despite the success of the border barrier in the San Diego area, it appears to be very important that this success not be repeated. The current Senate bill provides for the fencing of no more than one-fifth of the border and the placing of vehicle barriers in no more than one-ninth.

Instead, we are promised all kinds of fancy, high-tech substitutes -- sensors, cameras, unmanned aerial vehicles -- and lots more armed chaps on the ground to go chasing those who get through.

Why? A barrier is a very simple thing to do. The technology is well tested. The Chinese had success with it, as did Hadrian. In our time, the barrier Israel has built has been so effective in keeping out intruders that suicide attacks are down more than 90 percent.

Fences work. That's why people have them around their houses -- not because homeowners are unwelcoming but because they insist that those who wish to come into their domain knock at the front door.

Fences are simple. They don't require much upkeep. Two fences with a patrol road between them along the length of the U.S.-Mexico border would be relatively cheap, easy to build and simple to maintain.

Why this preference for fancy high-tech surveillance stuff that presents no physical impediment to illegal entry but instead triggers detection -- followed by alarm, pursuit, arrest and possible violence? It makes for great TV. But why is that good for the country?

It is certainly good for the Border Patrol, ensuring a full employment program till the end of time. But why for the rest of us? Fences have no retirement benefits.

The final argument against fences is, of course, the symbolism. We don't want a fence that announces to the world that America is closed. But this is entirely irrational. The fact is that under our law, America is indeed closed -- to all but those who, after elaborate procedures, are deemed worthy of joining the American family. Those objecting to the fence should be objecting to the law that closes America off, not to the means for effectively carrying out that law.

A fence announces to the world that America is closed to . . . illegal immigrants. What's wrong with that? Is not every country in the world the same? The only reason others don't need such a barrier is that they are not half as attractive as America, not because we are more oppressive or less welcoming.

Fences are ugly, I grant you that. But not as ugly as 12 million people living in the shadows in a country that has forfeited control of its borders.

Comprehensive immigration reform has simply too many contentious provisions to command a majority of Congress or the country. We all agree on enforcement, don't we? So let's do it. Make it simple. And do it now. Once our borders come visibly under control, everything else will become doable. Including amnesty.

The illegal imigration problem is like having your basement flooded.

Not only, are we not figuring out how to stop the water from coming in, but we make excuses for how the water that is already there is not really a bad thing.

This should really have gone in the completely tasteless joke forum,

Illegal immigration : DMZ solution : forget the wall, forget the fence, leave everything wide open and add land mines.

Oh and add signs in English that says, "Beware of land mines, it's safer to just get a Green Card!".

... guess my chances to get elected as president are now down the tubes.