Skip to main content

Comments on anti-illegal immigration nonsense

I'm not really that invested in the illegal immigration issue, but I'm not a big fan of wild distortions. Here's a quick breakdown of some of the nonsense in the email (the email itself is copied in the previous blog post, if you'd like to see it).

The Iraq and Afganastan wars should not be lumped together for any cost comparison. Iraq was the optional one that was based on "poor intelligence" of more than one type.

It is also untrue to suggest that if illegal immigrants cost us too much, the war must not have cost too much. Perhaps both cost too much!

Next, if you support our troops in any way, you can’t talk about the cost of the war and leave out the loss of American lives. This email leaves that out. What is the implication? Since it doesn’t hit our pocketbook, maybe it’s not worth mentioning? I disagree.

Estimates for the cost of the Iraq War range from $700B-1T (so far). Please note, it also does not include the long-term cost of health care for those soldiers who have been injured. The estimates for that cost are staggering, and will go on for a generation.

Some other notes: “Fairus.org” is an anti-immigration website. (Many of these websites are far from credible.) It was not difficult to find another source which stated that “As the Congressional Research Service points out in a 2007 report, undocumented immigrants, who comprise nearly one-third of all immigrants in the country, are not eligible to receive public "welfare" benefits -- ever.” This is a blog sponsored by the Houston Chronicle, which is a real newspaper. http://blogs.chron.com/immigration/archives/2008/01/post_80.html

The second “Verify at” is very interesting because it also claims to estimate the “total” annual cost of illegal immigration to the government, which it pins at less than $11B, far short of the $338B that the email claims. Another part of the linked article that the email fails to mention is this: “In terms of welfare use, receipt of cash assistance programs tends to be very low.” http://cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

Funny what happens when you actually look into these claims.

Did anybody notice the double and triple counting? 11-22B on welfare by states, then 2.2B on food assistance, then $90B for welfare…? These are counting the same dollars. The $90B figure is bunk, by the way.

$200B annually in suppressed wages? Well then don’t listen to Karl Rove, who said this about illegal immigrants: “We can't just root them out and not have some economic damage done to our country. Let's be honest about it. It's going to cost big economic damage to our country. Not only will prices of a lot of things go up, but we're going to see a lot of jobs leave the country and never come home again.”

Part of the absurd cost counting in this email is the allegedly high cost of deportation. So I guess the email is in support of amnesty for illegal aliens, because deportation is too costly? If not, then what's the point of this figure? This email suggests it would cost $11,500 per illegal immigrant to deport them, assuming the maximum estimate of 20M illegal immigrants in America. Interesting calculation.

Anyone check out rense.com, another so-called “source” for this email? Yikes.

The sex crimes stuff is really stupid and has no basis in reality. Check out http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2007/01/sex_crimes_and_illegal_immigra_1.php.

I’ll close with this: it is necessary for a nation to have an immigration policy, it is necessary to limit immigration, and it is necessary to enforce the laws of a nation. It is not necessary to hate poor, desperate people (illegal immigrant or not), or to blame them for the difficult things in life.

Some of us are familiar with the story of the good Samaritan. Dr. Martin Luther King wondered what people were thinking when they walked by the poor hurt man in the ditch and did not help him. They were probably nervous or scared, and wondered “If I stop to help this man, what will happen to me?” But, Dr. King proposed, the good Samaritan came along and “he reversed the question: 'If I do not stop to help this man, what will happen to him?’”

I suggest that most of us have been raised to be like the good Samaritan.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Real Estate in America

We sold our house this summer and bought a new home. The experience has led me to reflect on homes and home-buying in America. As in any industry, there are good and bad incentives at work in real estate. A home seller would like to get the highest price for their house and sell it in a reasonable period of time. The industry operates on a commission system so that the agent seeks to sell the house at a higher price. This incentive works, but only to a point. Consider the impact of $5000 on the seller vs. the agent. Six percent of $5000 is $300. After the realty company and purchasing agent take their cut, the agent isn't left with much. A $5000 difference in the price of the house means little to the agent, but a lot to the home owner. Does an agent become successful by getting the highest price or by turning over lots of houses? The answer is obvious. An agent's ideal world is not one where people get exactly the right price for their homes, it is a world where everyone is wi...

New Yorker letter to editor

(In The New Yorker, 2/4/08, p5) Jeanne Guillemin, a senior fellor in MIT's Security Studies Program, wrote an excellent letter to the editor regarding how Americans talk about casualties. I'm unable to find a link to a full-text example, but here is an excerpt: "In wars since 1945, American combat mortality figures have sharply declined, while the exclusivity of the American claim on memorialization has intensified, as if U.S. soldiers were the only casualties in Korea or Vietnam or, more recently, Iraq, and the deaths of many thousands of civilians killed in those distant conflicts merited no acknowledgment and carried no meaning. Whose deaths matter and whose do not always tells a great deal about American politics and culture."

Voter Fraud

There's been a lot of talk in Wisconsin about voter fraud and what needs to be done to prevent voter fraud. I'd like to address what the real voter fraud is and what it is not. There has been no substantial voter fraud proven in this state in recent memory. No statistically significant voter fraud has even been alleged. The accusations that are tossed around have more to do with someone standing too close to a polling station when they hand out literature than with someone actually voting in an illigitimate way. One couple in a recent election voted by absentee, then again at the polling station. They were caught easily. The system worked. The fraud that is used to justify so-called voter reform is not a problem. It's not just fear of getting caught that deters voter fraud today. In modern America, voter fraud is by-and-large a very inefficient way to influence an election. You have to find a group of people who are willing to commit crimes, you have to subvert the system a...