Follow by Email

Search This Blog

Pageviews past week

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Chuck Semiinformed vs. Carl Concerned By Chuck McGlawn 11/30/2011


The Problem
A recent poll taken by New York Times/CBS News poll, revealed that an overwhelming 74 percent of the American people, one of whom is Carl Concerned believe that illegal immigrants weakened the US economy, while there was only 17 percent who said they strengthened it. One must ask; why is there this lopsided result? Especially when over 95% of the people that should and would know, the economist who literally study this subject say, report that illegal immigration strengthens the economy. And they could be an even greater benefit to our economy, if while they are looking for work, they didn’t have to constantly “look over their shoulders”.
The History
How did we get to these contradictory results? A brief history is in order.
My history will glimpse the past through to lens of the free market system.  This teaches that whenever government involves itself in any enterprise, distortions will be the norm. It is as true today, just as it was in years between 1850 and 1880 when the US Government was subsidizing the construction of railroads in the west. Now if the demand for the railroad is spawned by a free market signal, the ability to pay the “going wage” would have been there. However, the US subsidization of railroad expansion and the huge profits to be made at the government trough created a bubble in the demand for labor, 55,000 migrant workers were hurriedlybrought into the former Mexican territories to fill that demand.
Immigration really picked up in 1910 with the Mexican Revolution; over 50,000 Mexican workers immigrated to the United States every year looking for jobs, and our leaders welcomed them as long as there was a need for them-they proved particularly useful during World War I.
It seemed whenever the United States found a reason to close the door on Mexican immigration, a historic event would force them to reopen that door. Such was the case when the United States entered World War II. Domestic labor was either in uniform or siphoned from all areas of US industry and poured into the support of the war efforts. The Bracero Treaty (1942 and 1964) reopened the borders for legal immigration of Mexican laborers to work temporarily on contract to US growers and ranchers. The Mexican work force was critical in developing the economy and prosperity of the United States. Impoverished Mexicans traveled north to work as braceros. It was mainly by the Mexican hands that America became the most lush agricultural center in the world.
The Reality
The overall effect may be positive, but its costs and benefits are distributed unevenly. David Card, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley notes that savings to meatpacking plants in Nebraska, agribusinesses in California’s Central Valley translate into lower prices at the store, but consumers never make that immigrant/lower prices connection?
Native low-skilled workers suffer most from the competition of foreign labor. According to a study by George Borjas, a Harvard economist, immigration has reduced the wages of American high-school dropouts by 9 percent between 1980 and 2000. Among high-skilled, better-educated employees, however, opposition was strongest in states with both high numbers of immigrants and relatively generous social services. That opposition appeared to soften when that fiscal burden decreased, as occurred with welfare reform in the 1990s, which curbed immigrants’ access to certain benefits.
The Agendas
Distorting the effect of immigration on the US Economy is no difficult task. All it requires is an uninformed populace, (no shortage there.) and a problem. The uninformed have a tendency to blame their current problems on the current “Devil” There are many “Devils” simply because there are many problems. If the problem is inflation the “Devil” is the Federal Reserve System.  If problem is the outsourcing of jobs then the “Devil” is greed. However, if your problem is the current recession, low wages and high unemployment your “Devil” is probably Illegal Immigration. The results: up pops a Cottage Industry of forwarding e-mails, and You-Tube videos about some isolated stories about the horrors of immigration. Some of the stories you get are the truth, some are half-truths and some are outright fabrications. Many if not most are the effects observed in an isolated place by a single individual that may have an agenda and he may see things and report his observations in a way that supports that agenda.
This leads to such e-mails as Joe Legal vs. Jose Illegal, which is a complete distortion, at a frightening level of competence.
The premise of Joe Legal vs. Jose Illegal is incorrect. According to Mark Kirkorian, the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies (See below)“Most illegal immigrants work ON THE BOOKS (Emphasis added) They have given a fake or a stolen Social Security number…”  This means they are paying the same Income Taxes that Joe Legal pays, with no hope of getting a refund check if they overpay. This also means that they are paying the same Social Security Taxes as Joe Legal. [Other illegals also work ON THE BOOKS when they apply for and get ITIN (Individual Tax Identification Number) This group volunteers to pay Income and Social Security taxes.
[The Center for Immigration Studies is an organization that not only vigorously opposes illegal immigration they oppose the high level of legal immigration. On their web site they admit that, “The data collected by the Center during the past quarter-century has led many of our researchers to conclude that current, high levels of immigration are making it harder to achieve such important national objectives as better public schools, a cleaner environment, homeland security, and a living wage for every native-born and immigrant worker.”]

In my Blog Post, "Who You Gonna Believe The Undocumented E-Mail or Your Lying Eyes.  I was borrowing from a story of a husband denying unfaithfulness after being caught by his wife in bed with another woman by saying the only thing he could say that might delivery him from obvious guilt, by saying, “Who are you going to believe, me, your long time husband or your lying eyes?” All the confirmation that illegal immigration is a NET GAIN to the US economy is everywhere to be seen, but 74% are going to believe the undocumented e-mails.

That Blog Post covering the NET GAIN of illegal immigration, attracted one of the 74% that believe that illegal immigration weakens the US economy. I have named him Carl Concerned.  This Blog Post was inspired by by my exposure to the fourth or fifth in depth study, entitled, The Effect of Immigration on the total output and income of the US economy  I did not understand half of what he said less than 10% of what his mathematical formulas proved. However, I did understand when he said, “Statistical analysis of state-level data shows that Statistical analysis of state-level data shows that immigrants expand the economy's productive capacity by stimulating investment and promoting specialization. This produces efficiency gains and boosts income per worker. At the same time, evidence is scant that immigrants diminish the employment opportunities of U.S.-born workers. At the same time, evidence is scant that immigrants diminish the employment opportunities of U.S.-born workers.

I also understood  when he said his findings could be confirmed by a study of, see Borjas 2006; Card 2001, 2007, 2009; and Card and Lewis 2007. I scanned those studies, I understood even less of what they said. However, the one thing they all said, that being, most economist agree that illegal immigration is a NET GAIN to the US Economy.

Then I read, Why Americans (Wrongly) Think Illegal Immigrants Hurt The Economy ByArian Campo-Flores (Not an economist) I understood almost all of what he said, including, “…the consensus among most economists is that immigration, both legal and illegal, provides a small net boost to the economy.
Before I go on, let me say that I believe Carl is concerned. I further believe that Carl believes that illegal immigration is a drain on our economy.  But alas Carl has had too much propaganda and not enough cause and effect. I believe Carl has had too many undocumented anti-illegal immigration e-mails and not enough objective studies.

Carl Concerned accused me of only giving the positive side of the illegal immigration story, and if I was to be objective I would have to give both sides. Please note, gentle reader who is giving both sides and who is being subjective? When most economist say immigration, both legal and illegal is a NET GAIN to the US economy, that takes in both sides. However when Carl says California alone spends $20 Billion educating the kids of illegals, he does not cover the other side. He is not told that many of the children of illegals were born in the US, making them Citizens. He does not say that embedded in the rent that illegals pay for their apartment or house is money the landlord collects and pays to the State for property taxes, and that half of the property tax goes to support government schools.
The only documented numbers he gave were: the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) wrote in its Feb. 2011 article said, "Illegal immigration costs U.S. taxpayers about $113 billion a year at the federal, state and local level… The annual outlay that illegal aliens cost U.S. taxpayers is an average amount per native-headed household of $1,117... Education for the children of illegal aliens constitutes the single largest cost to taxpayers, at an annual price tag of nearly $52 billion...
When I asked if I showed the flaw in those statistics would he favor a more open border policy? He declined, just like he declined when he challenged me to name even one modern nation that had an open border policy. When I challenged him to agree with more open borders if I could name more than three, he declined.
Let me say it again, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) wrote in its Feb. 2011 article said, "Illegal immigration costs U.S. taxpayers about $113 billion a year at the federal, state and local level… The annual outlay that illegal aliens cost U.S. taxpayers is an average amount per native-headed household of $1,117... Education for the children of illegal aliens constitutes the single largest cost to taxpayers, at an annual price tag of nearly $52 billion... Let me leave it open ended. Does any of the readers see even one of at least four flaw in that statement. And Carl, If I can show four flaws will you be in favor of more open borders????????


27 comments:

Anonymous said...

"When most economist say immigration, both legal and illegal is a NET GAIN to the US economy, that takes in both sides"

Please show me where one of your referenced economists itemized both the GAINS and the COSTS of illegal migrants in the United State. The cost must also include opportunity costs to US citziens who are denied those jobs given to illegal migrants. Making a quantitative CLAIM on paper without showing the substantive PROOF is meaningless.

Anonymous said...

" However when Carl says California alone spends $20 Billion educating the kids of illegals, he does not cover the other side"

No. That is an untrue statement. Nowhere did the commenter say that $20B was spent educating illegal children in California. The commenter said that over $20B was spent annually on a variety of social services for illegal migrants in California to include health care, education, incarceration (police services) and welfare. Female illegal migrants who unlawfully enter our state and deliver children in our hospitals are allowed to remain here and subsist off taxpayer dollars in welfare benefits. And none of the stated costs include the cost of urban blight caused by illegals, the non-restituted crime perpetrated by illegal migrants on US citizens and the opportunity cost of citizens denied jobs that are illegally provided to illegal mirgants. All that must be taken into account to arrive at a fair and balanced determination of whether illegal migrants are net gains or net losses.

Anonymous said...

"He is not told that many of the children of illegals were born in the US, making them Citizens"

The author fails to concede that many foreign children who attend public schools in California are illegally in our state. The author fails to concede that the children born in America by illegal mothers were by products of an illegal act - called illegal entry into the United States. The author fails to concede that the overwhelming majority of child deliveries by illegal mothers in the United States are financially borne by the US taxpayers. The author fails to concede that the illegal mothers are allowed to remain in the United State following the delivery of their chidren and collect welfare benefits at the expense of the US taxpayers.

Anonymous said...

"When I challenged him to agree with more open borders if I could name more than three, he declined"

The commenter debates in a fair manner and does not answer questions with another question. The commenter simply replies to the questions asked. The commenter asked Mr. McGlawn to name one other thriving civilized economy in the world that has an open border's policy with unregulated immigration. No answer was given.

Anonymous said...

"The only documented numbers he gave were:"

And then Mr. McGlawn went on to quote the FAIR numbers.

Again, that is an untrue statement. I told Mr. McGlawn that the Sacramento Bee Captial Alert reported on 4-21-2011 that there were 102,795 illegal foreigners housed in California jails in 2009 according to the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO).

According to our legislators, it costs $55k to house one prisoner for one year in the California prisons. $55k x 102,795 = $5.7B.

When asked, Mr. McGlawn failed to comment on the fianancial and social damages that these illegal migrants imposed on our society.

Anonymous said...

"And Carl, If I can show four flaws will you be in favor of more open borders????????"

I will not participate in a debate that answers a question with another question, nor will I participate to agree with a certain premise when alleged facts are withheld from the public's view.

I want to participate in a free, open and two-way civil discourse without tricks and games.

Normally, the one who employs tricks and games in such a discourse in the one holding the short end of the stick.

Chuckest said...

If you do not know that NET GAIN takes in everything, example: your NET PROFIT is your income from a job minus your expenses. you are not going to understand the four flaws in the FAIR statistics.

If an interested reader wants to know the four flaws in the FAIR statistics, e-mail me at chuckest@aol.com

Encarta Dictionary definition, NET: general or overall, after positive and negative features have been weighed against each other

Anonymous said...

"If you do not know that NET GAIN takes in everything, example: your NET PROFIT is your income from a job minus your expenses. you are not going to understand the four flaws in the FAIR statistics"

Unresponsive.

You failed to directly address any of my previous counterarguments or facts.

I suggest you simply eliminate the comment portion of this blogspot. You would be much happier just climbing up on your bully pulpit and describing the world according to Mr. McGlawn without any pushback from those in the audience.

There are so many holes in your analysis that it looks like a silouette at a public shooting range.

I expected more. Oh well. I guess I have to consider that you don't have much material to work with. No one has ever come close to overcoming my arguments on this subject matter. The facts are incredibly lopsided.

Chuckest said...

Hello A4,

You, my deluded friend are the piece of work. You do not even know the meaning of NET GAIN even after I give you a dictionary definition.

Try to wrap your mini-brain around the following: You have said there are 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants in the US let's split that number and say there are 15 million. Then let's cut that in half as the number of illegals that are working that means 7.5 million are working. [I think the percentage of illegals that are working is much higher, perhaps as high as 70%. that would be 10.5 million.]Then, according to Mark Kirkorian, the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies “Most illegal immigrants work ON THE BOOKS (Emphasis added) They have given a fake or a stolen Social Security number…” This means they are paying the same Income Taxes and they are paying Social Security Taxes. More illegals are paying taxes when they apply for and get ITIN. This means they are also paying State taxes as well. A portion of local taxes accrue as a percentage of the sales tax, which illegals pay. The other part of local tax revenue comes as part of the property tax collected by the county and dispersed to the State and a small part goes to the local City where the taxed property is located.

This means some part of the $113 billion a year at the federal, state and local level taxes is paid by the illegals… As far as illegals getting a pass on paying a school tax, they don't. Revenues to support government schools not counting the 8% that comes from the Federal Government is collected on Property Taxes. Illegals pay property each month when they pay their rent. Because some part of their rent hat is collected by their landlord goes to pay property taxes.

However, I do not think these facts will have any effect on your anti-liberty thinking. You have drank the kool-aid buddy.

Anonymous said...

Mr. McGlawn said:

"Then, according to Mark Kirkorian, the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies “Most illegal immigrants work ON THE BOOKS (Emphasis added) They have given a fake or a stolen Social Security number…” This means they are paying the same Income Taxes and they are paying Social Security Taxes"

Upon what does Kirkorian base his claim? Do you think all the illegals who are gardeners, rug cleaners, residential housecleaners, handymen, tree pruners, independent roofers w/o a contactors license, etc... are working on the books? Why would they do so? What benefit would that be to them? We know that many of the illegals do these unskilled or mini-skilled jobs. No doubt many have an illegal wife at home who claims to be unmarried and is collecting wefare for her and the little ones. You seem to ignore all these obvious possibilities that eminate from basic common sense, Mr. McGlawn!

Anonymous said...

Mr. McGlawn said:

" More illegals are paying taxes when they apply for and get ITIN. This means they are also paying State taxes as well"

Dear Sir, please read the following quote:

"A Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration report dated March 31, 2009, “Actions Are Needed to Ensure Proper Use of Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers and to Verify or Limit Refundable Credit Claims,” indicates that, for the 2007 tax year, Child Tax Credits (774,000 filings for $0.62 billion) and Additional Child Tax Credits (1,220,000 filings for $1.78 billion), together totaling $2.4 billion, were given to ITIN filers.3 By definition, none of the 1,220,000 filers who received the ACTC refunds had any tax liability, and as a group they received IRS checks totaling at least $1.78 billion. The report goes on to say: “While the law also prohibits aliens residing without authorization from receiving most Federal public benefits, IRS management’s view is that the law does not provide sufficient legal authority for the IRS to disallow the ACTC to ITIN filers. Nonetheless, as it now stands, the payment of Federal funds through this tax benefit appears to provide an additional incentive for aliens to enter, reside, and work in the United States without authorization, which contradicts Federal law and policy to remove such incentives.”

http://www.cis.org/child-tax-credits

Why do you continue to IGNORE these facts, Mr. McGlawn?

The illegals who acquire an ITIN collected $2.4B in 2007 in child tax credits and $4.2B in 2010. None of them pay taxes because they don't make enough to pay taxes, state or federal. And the exemptions on the W-4 can be manipulated so that barely any earnings are deducted from their weekly paychecks!!! THINK, Mr. McGlawn!!!

Of course they pay state sales tax. All of us do when we buy a non-food item. Most of them don't pay property tax since most of them do not own homes. You know that!!!

"This means some part of the $113 billion a year at the federal, state and local level taxes is paid by the illegals…"

As I pointed out - they collectively pay VERY VERY LITTLE. They take much more out of the system in health care, welfare, education and in public safety tax dollars (incarcerations (102,759 illegals are incarcerated in California jails) than what they pay into the system. PLEASE COMMENT ON THE INCARCERATION COSTS, MR. MCGLAWN. YOU REPEATEDLY SIDESTEP THAT ISSUE!!!!

Now let's have a REAL discussion here. PLEASE ANSWER MY PREVIOUS QUESTIONS AND ADDRESS MY POINTS. STOP AVOIDING THEM!!!!

Chuckest said...

I am quoting an Immigration authority, you are just making statement. My mind says go with the guy that studies the subject.

But then again you may be his boss.

Anonymous said...

Mr. McGlawn,

I almost feel guilty debating you on the subject mattter of illegal immmigration and taking the "anti" side. There is so much documented information supporting my position and such little information supporting yours. It's really not fair. But I respect you for making an valiant effort to overcome the odds. Few would take such a risk especially when using their true identity.

Touche', my friend. Touche'!

Chuckest said...

A4 wants me to, "Please show me where one of your referenced economists itemized both the GAINS and the COSTS of illegal migrants in the United State."

Let's start with an understanding of what NET GAINS is. Here is the formula," A - B = C.
A = Gross Gains
B = Costs
C = Net Change. Now let's put some numbers in the formula.

If A = $3 Billion and B - $4 Billion then C would = a net gain of minus $1 Billion. Since it is a negative amount it would be a net loss of $1 Billion.

However, the numbers that all economist are finding look thus:

A (gains) = $3 Billion minus B (costs) $2 Billion = C (net change) or $1 Billion NET GAIN Therefore when an economist says there is a $36 Billion NET GAIN he means after all costs are considered.

Or as the dictionary says: Encarta Dictionary definition, NET: general or overall, after positive and negative features have been weighed against each other
More coming, save your comments.

Chuckest said...

A4 has asked, "The cost must also include opportunity costs to US citizens who are denied those jobs given to illegal migrants."

This statement shows that you do not know what you are talking about. "Opportunity cost" is an economic term that has a specific meaning. Google it and then restate your request.

More coming save your comments.

Chuckest said...

A4 said, "We spend $20B annually on ILLEGAL immigrants just in California (ie, health care, incarcerations, education and welfare). Could you, would you tell us who said that and where. The only reason I ask, is that number has not changed in six years. I first got that bogus umber in 2005.

More soon. Save your comments.

Chuckest said...

A4 said, "Carl Concerned accused me of only giving the positive side of the illegal immigration story, and if I was to be objective I would have to give both sides. Please note, gentle reader who is giving both sides and who is being subjective? When most economist say immigration, both legal and illegal is a NET GAIN to the US economy, that takes in both sides. However when Carl says California alone spends [some part of] $20 Billion educating the kids of illegals, he does not cover the other side.
He is not told that many of the children of illegals were born in the US, making them US citizens. He does say that the illegals do pay the taxes that support the government schools. Each month when rent is paid there is embedded in the rent that illegals pay for their apartment or house money the landlord collects and pays to the State for property taxes, and that half of the property tax goes to support government schools. He failed to say that illegals pay to support the schools to which their children go.

This should signal A4 that he is being lied to, but he just doesn't get it.

More later but comment if you like.

Anonymous said...

Mr. McGlawn said:

"A (gains) = $3 Billion minus B (costs) $2 Billion = C (net change) or $1 Billion NET GAIN Therefore when an economist says there is a $36 Billion NET GAIN he means after all costs are considered"

Come now, Mr. McGlawn. One cannot just pull numbers from his backside without an itemization acquired from a credible source and expect acceptance from discerning adults. That might work with grade school kids. Show us the documented quantification, Mr. McGlawn, or consider the opinion of your economist friends null and void.

Mr. McGlawn said:

"Opportunity cost" is an economic term that has a specific meaning"

I am not going to allow you to start a semantics war to avoid the larger issue. You know exactly what I'm referring to. When an illegal migrant takes a job in the United States - that is one less job that is available to an American citizen when we have 12% official and 23% REAL unemployment in the State of California. Each job stolen steals an opportunity from Dave Citizen. That is virtually taking money out of Dave Citizen's wallet. You cannot refute that fact.

Mr. McGlawn said:

"He is not told that many of the children of illegals were born in the US, making them US citizens. He does say that the illegals do pay the taxes that support the government schools. Each month when rent is paid there is embedded in the rent that illegals pay for their apartment or house money the landlord collects and pays to the State for property taxes, and that half of the property tax goes to support government schools. He failed to say that illegals pay to support the schools to which their children go"

Either Mr. McGlawn did not read my previous comments under this blog or he is intentionally ignoring the assertions that I made. Good readers, thumb back through the preceding comments and you will find my statements that directly apply to most, if not all, that Mr. McGlawn stated above.

The bottom line is that whatever tax (sales, etc) that illegals pay it does not even come close to the amount of tax dollars that illegals collectively consume by use of taxpayer funded social services.

Anonymous said...

Mr. McGlawn said:

"A (gains) = $3 Billion minus B (costs) $2 Billion = C (net change) or $1 Billion NET GAIN Therefore when an economist says there is a $36 Billion NET GAIN he means after all costs are considered"

Come now, Mr. McGlawn. One cannot just pull numbers from his backside without an itemization acquired from a credible source and expect acceptance from discerning adults. That might work with grade school kids. Show us the documented quantification, Mr. McGlawn, or consider the opinion of your economist friends null and void.

Mr. McGlawn said:

"Opportunity cost" is an economic term that has a specific meaning"

I am not going to allow you to start a semantics war to avoid the larger issue. You know exactly what I'm referring to. When an illegal migrant takes a job in the United States - that is one less job that is available to an American citizen when we have 12% official and 23% REAL unemployment in the State of California. Each job stolen steals an opportunity from Dave Citizen. That is virtually taking money out of Dave Citizen's wallet. You cannot refute that fact.

Mr. McGlawn said:

"He is not told that many of the children of illegals were born in the US, making them US citizens. He does say that the illegals do pay the taxes that support the government schools. Each month when rent is paid there is embedded in the rent that illegals pay for their apartment or house money the landlord collects and pays to the State for property taxes, and that half of the property tax goes to support government schools. He failed to say that illegals pay to support the schools to which their children go"

Either Mr. McGlawn did not read my previous comments under this blog or he is intentionally ignoring the assertions that I made. Good readers, thumb back through the preceding comments and you will find my statements that directly apply to most, if not all, that Mr. McGlawn stated above.

The bottom line is that whatever tax (sales, etc) that illegals pay it does not even come close to the amount of tax dollars that illegals collectively consume by use of taxpayer funded social services.

Anonymous said...

Mr. McGlawn has neglected to respond to my questions and counterarguments with regard to prison (incarceration) cost and public safety costs for illegals, child tax credits awarded to illegals with ITIN's, health care costs for illegals funded by citizens, welfare costs for illegal mothers who drop their offspring in America hospitals, education costs for illegal (not children born to illegals in America) - ILLEGAL children attending public schools, etc....

Mr. McGlawn willfully refused to respond to any of my previous
points on these matters. He refused to comment on the direct quote from the INSPECTOR GENERAL OF US TAX ADMINISTRATION which I previously posted.

Here it is again:

"A Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration report dated March 31, 2009, “Actions Are Needed to Ensure Proper Use of Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers and to Verify or Limit Refundable Credit Claims,” indicates that, for the 2007 tax year, Child Tax Credits (774,000 filings for $0.62 billion) and Additional Child Tax Credits (1,220,000 filings for $1.78 billion), together totaling $2.4 billion, were given to ITIN filers.3 By definition, none of the 1,220,000 filers who received the ACTC refunds had any tax liability, and as a group they received IRS checks totaling at least $1.78 billion. The report goes on to say: “While the law also prohibits aliens residing without authorization from receiving most Federal public benefits, IRS management’s view is that the law does not provide sufficient legal authority for the IRS to disallow the ACTC to ITIN filers. Nonetheless, as it now stands, the payment of Federal funds through this tax benefit appears to provide an additional incentive for aliens to enter, reside, and work in the United States without authorization, which contradicts Federal law and policy to remove such incentives.”

PLEASE Mr. McGlawn. In a debate you are not supposed to ignore the assertions made by your opponent. PLEASE respond to my documented claims. THANK YOU in advance!!!!

Anonymous said...

You see, in any economy there is only so much money to go around, Mr. McGlawn. There is only so much in the pot. And we have all but run out of money backed by value in America. Today we operate based on false demand and fiat money. Money created from nothing.

We cannot just give our money away, especially to illegal foreigners, simply because the money awarded never really existed in the first place. That which does not exist cannnot be allocated, Mr. McGlawn. Can't you understand that simple concept?

We are on the precipice of default with record high unemployment rates for the last 70 years, yet you want to continue to provide billions of tax dollars for the care of illegal foreigners while allowing them to steal jobs from unemployed citizens who are unable to house, feed and clothe their own families!!!

Mr. McGlawn. PLEASE...COME TO YOUR SENSES!!!

Anonymous said...

Those who support illegal immigration are knowingly or unknowingly supporters of de-facto slavery. They just won't admit to it. Businessmen hire illegal foreigners and exploit them as part of their normal business model that benefits greatly by using slave labor. The employer can willfully violate US labor laws by paying illicit subpar wages and and failing to pay State and Federal taxes on the labor. The government fails to enforce the law and, thereby, is an accomplice in promoting modern day slavery. Those who call for a 'path to citizenship' or 'amnesty' fail to recognize that such a policy would only result in the firing of the current crop of illegal migrant workers by their employers who would turn to a new crop of illegal migrants to replace them. The former crop of illegal migrants who now have legal residency would have to turn to our social welfare safety nets for survival - putting an even larger strain on our already overburdened tax system. The only answer to the current problem is to fine and jail those employers violate US labor laws by hiring illegal migrants and by deporting the illegal workers who violated our US immigration laws. But the government won't do this because the government has given their tacit approval to an exploitative system of slavery that is really no less morally reprehensible than the system this nation promoted back in the 1800's.

Anonymous said...

Funny thing about these supporters of illegal immigration.

When they rent out a house or a room to a stranger they want a complete background history on the applicant. Credit check - criminal history check - employment history, etc... On the other hand they want to give strangers free access to their nation and their nation's resources without a single screening with regard to the subject's health, criminal history, skills, employment or credit. And this is true even though there are literally MILLIONS of law abiding foreigners who have filled out their required paperwork and paid their fees to obtain a work visa, yet are kept on hold and in a state of limbo for a decade or longer! INSANITY!!!

And those people who rent out their homes or rooms to strangers would immediately call the police if someone tried to enter their property illegally or without authorization - yet if strangers enter their nation in violation of the law they conveniently turn their heads the other way.

So many contradictions, so little time :>)

Chuckest said...

Funny thing about these people that want to keep them Mexican out they like to blame everything but their own bigotry.They won't admit it of course, not even to themselves.

However, when they refuse to understand the word NET GAIN, then they dredge up "opportunity cost" an economic term to which they do nor know the meaning, but insist that I should know exactly what he means, how for every illegal that enters the nation an Americans loses a job. Even though that is not true. But if it was then why would he "Nor anyone he knows is against legal immigration." They take jobs. So let's stop immigration altogether, even immigration from a neighboring state. If it our job to protect domestic jobs. Let's take it one more step, let's close the borders between Anaheim (the home of Disneyland) and Buena Park (home of Knott's Berry Farm)

These Mexican haters like to project their own hatred onto others. As it turn out, I do rent room in my home. I do not do any background,credit,or criminal checks.

I ask for first and last month's rent, and they are employed, and nothing else. As far as getting a criminal tenant the chances are better with an American born, than immigrants from Mexico. I doubt the Mexican hater would believe it, but there was a story recently called The San Antonio Miracle which pointed out that with many illegals it had the lowest crime rate of any large city in the US.

I am convinced that A4 is working on a different agenda, than protecting American jobs, or keeping out criminals, and that agenda is not going to be changed with facts and truths.

Anonymous said...

Mr. McGlawn said:

"Funny thing about these people that want to keep them Mexican out they like to blame everything but their own bigotry.They won't admit it of course, not even to themselves"

Yep. I knew it. Sooner or later Mr. McGlawn would play the 'bigot' card. At the end of all my debates with illegal immigration advocates that is the last card played - always. They cannot overcome the rational challenges that I present - so they raise the issue to an emotional level in a desperate attempt to "win". hah!

You see, it wouldn't matter to me if the illegal migrants are brown-skinned mexicans or pastey white Canadians, Swedes, Danes or Russians. This is an ECONOMIC war - not a war against specific creeds, nationalities or races. And if you look at my arguments on this subject matter - that is crystal clear.

Shame on you, Mr. McGlawn, for taking the debate down this road! Shame on you!

Mr. McGlawn said:

"...then they dredge up "opportunity cost" an economic term to which they do nor know the meaning..."

Mr. McGlawn refused to address any of my documented proof sources from the Legislative Analyst's Office on the number of illegal migrants incarcertated in California (103,795 in 2009) or the quotes from the Treasury Department's Inspector General of Tax Administration on illegal migrants collecting $2.4B and $4.2B in Child Tax Credits using ITIN's in 2007 and 2010, respectively. Instead, he focuses on the semantics of words like "opportunity costs" to throw the debate off course. Mr. McGlawn totally avoided all the facts that I layed out. What does that tell you, dear readers?

"These Mexican haters like to project their own hatred onto others"

Yep. There we go again. Now Mr. McGlawn plays the 'hate' card. Desperation is a terrible thing. The only thing I 'hate' is economic inequality for American citizens who are forced to compete with illegal migrant labor as we watch our wages get smaller while the cost of goods rises, and as we watch our cities like Santa Ana, which used to be beautiful bedroom communities, turn into war zones and neighborhoods saturated in urban blight. I wouldn't care if the perpetrators were pastey white skinned swedes or brown skinned mexicans. It would draw the exact same ire from me. To be this is an ECONOMIC war - not a war on nationalities or races. Mr. McGlawn is using immoral tactics because he is losing this debate.

"I ask for first and last month's rent, and they are employed, and nothing else"

Why would you discriminate against jobless people? Are you a jobless person 'hater'??? Most landlords check employment, credit and criminal history for good reason. You are an exception. Would you want to rent your home or room to a convicted murderer or child rapist? If not, why would you want to let one into your country unscreened???

"I am convinced that A4 is working on a different agenda, than protecting American jobs, or keeping out criminals, and that agenda is not going to be changed with facts and truths"

Your accusations and implied slander will not fly with intelligent readers, Mr. McGlawn. They will see right through your unfounded and unethical personal attacks. They will recognize you for whom you are: a man who just lost a debate and uses sordid tactics in final desperation to score a point or two. YOU JUST FAILED, Mr. McGlawn!!!!

Chuckest said...

What else could I think, you dismiss, as paid hacks, the economist who STUDY this issue that all agree that immigration both legal and illegal generate a NET GAIN for the US economy. You refuse to understand what NET GAIN means.

What else could I think, you say illegals take Americans jobs, when I have quoted from serious objective studies say the exact opposite, that illegals actually increase the number of jobs that are available for American born workers. Additionally illegals generate higher wages for those same workers.

What else could I possibly think when you accuse me of only presenting one side, when my statements are from learned professionals that are presenting results that take in both sides, and it is you that present only one side.

What else could I think, truth doesn't motivate facts do not sway you. My conclusion is that you have some other agenda.

Anonymous said...

"What else could I think, you dismiss, as paid hacks, the economist who STUDY this issue that all agree that immigration both legal and illegal generate a NET GAIN for the US economy"

None of your sources itemized the gains or the losses of illegal immigration. How could one claim a 'net gain' on paper when the breakdown of gains and costs are not even included in the analysis? Use your brain. Do you think that we must accept for fact what some economist claims to be true without a breakdown of gains and costs - just based on his title??? Besides not having much common sense you are quite naive too! :>)

"...that illegals actually increase the number of jobs that are available for American born workers. Additionally illegals generate higher wages for those same workers"

That's just more proof that you have no common sense. Illegal workers depress wages. Businesses hire slave labor because they can pay them subpar wages and no benefits. These lawbreaking businesses promote slavery. They disenfranchised millions of American workers who once made middle class wages building and repairing homes and the nation's infrastructure. Most of those jobs have gone to lawbreaking foreign invader scum.

"My conclusion is that you have some other agenda"

Your faulty and baseless conclusion that I am a 'bigot' or a racist or one who hates people based on their skin color was uncalled for, Mr. McGlawn. Such underhanded techniques do not score you any points in a debate. You lost significant credibility with that baseless comment. Shame on you.

I repeat - you never responded to MANY documented facts that I presented in our debate. You ran away from them. That is proof to me that I won this debate hands down.

Once before I suggested that you remove the comment section of your blogs since you do not debate in a fair or objective manner. You refuse to answer pertinent questions or respond to documented facts presented by your opponent. You merely sidestep them. You would probably be much happier if you could stand on your little bully pulpit and proselytize without interference from others in the audience. Please consider it.