Follow by Email

Search This Blog

Pageviews past week

Sunday, December 4, 2011

Cause and Effect From Someone Who KNOWS By Chuck McGlawn

We have read and abbreviated (below) The New Alabama Immigration Law: A Preliminary Macroeconomic Assessment written October 2011 by Samuel Addy, Ph.D. Director of the Center for Business and Economic Research Culverhouse College of Commerce and Business Administration
The University of Alabama

Dr. Sam Addy joined the Center for Business and Economic Research (CBER) in 1998 and assumed the position of Director in 2007. He holds an M.S. in Mineral Engineering from the University of Minnesota, and a Ph.D. in Mineral Economics from The Pennsylvania State University.

In this role as Director, he regularly speaks to groups and organizations on topics including the Alabama economy, economic policy, economic development, and workforce development. Dr. Addy works with CBER’s economic research program and has directed and conducted economic impact studies for numerous public and private clients across the state. Other areas of emphasis include assessment and analysis of Alabama’s workforce; fiscal policy; socioeconomic analysis for transportation and other development projects; and environmental and climate change issues. Sam has published in academic journals and is often quoted in local, regional, national, and international media.

In his recent article he points out that, “Economies are demand-driven so any policy, regulation, law, or action that reduces demand is misguided and will not contribute to economic development…” He goes on to say, “Instead of boosting state economic growth, the law HB56  is certain to be a drag on economic development…”

Dr. Abby doesn’t blame the well intentioned lawmakers, or the citizen supporters of HB56, however misguided, “those that tend to favor the law focus on its intent but often not on its actual effects.” Dr. Abby says, “[T]he law is likely to drive a portion of … illegal immigrants out of state or underground. [D]emand in the Alabama economy is reduced since the income generated by these people and their spending will decline. That results in a shrinking of the state economy and will be seen in lower economic output, personal income, and fewer jobs  (Emphasis added) than would otherwise have been.

Dealing with some of the misconceptions, he says. “What about the argument that illegal immigrants are a drain on resources because they don’t pay taxes? Yes, illegal immigrants use some public services but they do pay taxes and the economy enjoys some benefits as a result of the demand created by their presence.” He goes on to say, “[T]he level of income they receive many illegal workers will not have to pay federal income tax because of the standard deduction and personal exemption allowed. Indeed, they could receive earned income tax credit, which many do not file for because they wish to remain below the radar and because their status makes it practically impossible. In addition, they make payroll taxes with little chance of ever benefiting from those social safety net programs unless somehow they become legal.” [Where have we heard that before?]  However, [illegals do] “pay sales and property taxes directly and indirectly through their income spending and consumption activities.”

Near the end of his paper, Dr. Abby joined the throng by adding, "Although there’s an ongoing debate about the costs and benefits of illegal immigrants, it is generally accepted that immigration, as a whole, has a net positive effect on the national economy."

Dr. Abby concludes with, “Bottom-line, the law will be costly to the state economy even without consideration of [increased] enforcement costs. Is it possible to amend the new immigration law so that it keeps the admirable intent but also increases demand in the economy, brings more of the informal economy into the light, boosts economic development, and facilitates continuation of the economic strides that the state has been making? In short, what we need are laws and policies that will keep Alabama on a ROLL.

My own conclusion is that any one that favors keeping HB 56 and enforcing it, has some other agenda than economic benefits to the National economy, benefits to the Alabama economy and a better life for not only those immigrants that will be affected but the people of Alabama.

30 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Although there’s an ongoing debate about the costs and benefits of illegal immigrants, it is generally accepted that immigration, as a whole, has a net positive effect on the national economy"

Instead of guessing - why don't they actually do the math by itemizing the gains and losses to determine the actual net gains or net losses?

Are they afraid of what they might discover?

Professionals don't GUESS what the answer might be.

Professionals DO THE MATH to find the answer.

The only conclusion is that they already know the REAL answer and since it doesn't fit their agenda it's much more convenient to GUESS.

Anonymous said...

Oh, and another one of those pesky FACTS ..........

Since HB 56 was enacted the unemployment rate is Alabama went down 0.5% and over 1% in those counties that used significant amounts of illegal foreign labor.

In other words, AMERICAN CITIZENS were hired for the jobs that were vacated by illegal foreigners.

Naturally, all these boneheaded experts would tell you that it's bad that American citizens actually found employment.

It's a crazy inside-out, upsidedown world.

Common sense has been tossed out the window.

That's the reason the American empire is dying!!!!

Anonymous said...

"....it is generally accepted that immigration, as a whole, has a net positive effect on the national economy"

It is generally accepted by whom? By those who endorse lawbreaking foreigners to enter our nation in violation of our sacred immigration laws? And you must differentiate between LEGAL and ILLEGAL immigration to make your statement make sense.

It is generally accepted that ILLEGAL and DISORDERLY immigration harm our nation greatly. All the data clearly comes to that conclusion.

So in your future blogs please make sure you differentiate between LEGAL and ILLEGAL immigration, Mr. McGlawn. Don't throw a spitball at us, okay?

Chuckest said...

"....it is generally accepted that immigration, as a whole, has a net positive effect on the national economy"

It is generally accepted by whom?

I think what it means is that economist that study immigration as a part of their discipline almost all agree that illegal immigration in its totality, that is the negatives subtracted from the positives produces a positive end result. You know, a NET GAIN.

The only people that do not embrace the concept are people that have an agenda. An agenda that requires the adherent to deny the truth.

Anonymous said...

Mr. McGlawn said:

"I think what it means is that economist that study immigration as a part of their discipline almost all agree that illegal immigration in its totality, that is the negatives subtracted from the positives produces a positive end result. You know, a NET GAIN"

Then to substantiate your claim I request for you to provide a list of all US economists and their individual assessment of whether illegal immigration is a net gain or net loss. Until you provide that list your claim is absolutely meaningless. It has no merit whatsoever.

And I am still waiting for a breakdown or itemization of the gains and costs of illegal immigration to support your contention that illegal immigration
is a "net gain".

Until you can satisfy that request your claims have no merit.

There must be something that we can agree on, Mr. McGlawn. Why don't you change topics and discuss government overspending or the lack of leadership in America. We could certainly agree on those subject matters!

Anonymous said...

Here, Mr. McGlawn. You seem to enjoy studies. Let me give you one. Here's a synposis:

"This study, done over a 12-month period, is the only in-depth study of its kind. It used a sample group of 1,500 cases out of a pool of roughly 12 million. The study revealed that 2 percent of all illegal immigrants apprehended in the United States are sex offenders. This 2 percent figure translates into 240,000 illegal immigrant sex offenders"

Read more: http://digitaljournal.com/article/293498#ixzz1fjY7zy1f

240,000 is a population large enough to fill the LA Coliseum 3 times over, Mr. McGlawn.

Is this what you want coming into your country?

Would you rent to one? :>)

Anonymous said...

Mr. McGlawn,

It's only fair in a debate that you should respond to facts posted by your opponent(s). Debates are supposed to be a two-way discourse. I respond to your claims (which I have done) and you respond to mine. Why are you avoiding the rules of a fair debate???

Unless you respond to the documented facts that I have posted in the past on this subject matter - I will hereby declare myself the winner by default.

Anonymous said...

Now I see you changed your website disclaimer. No longer does it read that LibertyViews invites all commments, good and bad. Now it appears that posters must conform to a certain regimented format to gain your blessing.

And liberty takes another hit......

Anonymous said...

Blog Moderator:

Please define "initiation of force".

It appears to be a very subjective phrase that one could easily manipulate or massage to discount or even exclude those commenters with legitimate, yet dissenting, positions on controversial topics of public interest. You know, like ideologues who label viewpoints that they oppose as "hate speech" for the cosmetic effect.

Please expound on your phrase.

Anonymous said...

“[T]he level of income they receive many illegal workers will not have to pay federal income tax because of the standard deduction and personal exemption allowed. Indeed, they could receive earned income tax credit, which many do not file for because they wish to remain below the radar and because their status makes it practically impossible. In addition, they make payroll taxes with little chance of ever benefiting from those social safety net programs unless somehow they become legal.”

I have a question or two for Author Addy.

In 2010 there was $4.2B in child tax credits that were paid by the IRS (taxpayers) to ITIN filers most of whom were determined to be foreigners residing in our nation unlawfully. Would you consider $4.2B a sizable amount of taxpayer dollars, Mr. Addy?

How much do those minimum wage earners effectively pay in Federal or State taxes, Mr. Addy? Are you aware of our progressive tax system and the brackets that would apply to minimum wage earners? Are you aware of how exemptions claims affect taxes withheld?

“What about the argument that illegal immigrants are a drain on resources because they don’t pay taxes? Yes, illegal immigrants use some public services but they do pay taxes and the economy enjoys some benefits as a result of the demand created by their presence.”

Mr. Addy, are you aware that just in the State of California that illegal foreigners consume over $20B in our social service resources (health care, education, incarceration and welfare). There are over 100,000 illegal foreigners incarcerated in California jails, Mr. Addy. That has been documented by the Legislative Analyst's Office. Nationwide there are over $100B in taxpayer dollars spent annually to provide social service resources for illegal foreigners, Mr. Addy. Are you aware of that?

"In addition, they make payroll taxes with little chance of ever benefiting from those social safety net programs unless somehow they become legal.”

That is a false statement. Pregnant females unlawfully residing in our country who deliver their babies at american hospitals are allowed to remain in our country and collect welfare payments - for their personal subsistence. There is no requirement for them to work while collecting these transfer payments from American taxpayers.

I would greatly appreciate for either Mr. Addy or a representative to respond to these counterarguments, re: said macroeconomic assessment.

Thank you.

Chuckest said...

It is said that, "Figures don't lie, but liars do figure."

If we take A4s numbers then El Paso should be one scary city. In 2007, the city's poverty rate was over 27 percent, twice the national average. Median household income was $35,600, well below the national average of $48,000. El Paso is three-quarters Hispanic, and more than a quarter of its residents are foreign-born. Given that it's nearly impossible for low-skilled immigrants to work in the United States legitimately, it's safe to say that a significant percentage of El Paso's foreign-born population is living here illegally.

El Paso sits just across the border from one of the most violent cities in the western hemisphere, Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, with 2,500 homicides in the last 18 months alone. A city of illegal immigrants with easy access to guns, just across the river from a metropolis ripped apart by brutal drug war violence. Should be a bloodbath, right?

Here's the surprise: There were just 18 murders in El Paso last year, in a city of 736,000 people. To compare, Baltimore, with 637,000 residents, had 234 killings. In fact, since the beginning of 2008, there were nearly as many El Pasoans murdered while visiting Juarez (20) than there were murdered in their home town (23).

According to Jack Levin, a criminologist at Northeastern University. "If you want to find a safe city, first determine the size of the immigrant population, If the immigrant community represents a large proportion of the population, you're likely in one of the country's safer cities. San Diego, Laredo, El Paso—these cities are teeming with immigrants, and they're some of the safest places in the country."

As the national immigration debate heated up in 2007, dozens of academics who specialize in the issue sent a letter (pdf) to then President George W. Bush and congressional leaders with the following point:
Numerous studies by independent researchers and government commissions over the past 100 years repeatedly and consistently have found that, in fact, immigrants are less likely to commit crimes or to be behind bars than are the native-born. This is true for the nation as a whole, as well as for cities with large immigrant populations such as Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, and Miami, and cities along the U.S.-Mexico border such as San Diego and El Paso.


One of the signatories was Rubén G. Rumbaut, a sociologist who studies immigration at the University of California, Irvine. Rumbaut recently presented a paper on immigration and crime to a Washington, D.C. conference sponsored by the Police Foundation. Rumbaut writes via email, "The evidence points overwhelmingly to the same conclusion: Rates of crime and conviction for undocumented immigrants are far below those for the native born, and that is especially the case for violent crimes, including murder."

Opponents of illegal immigration when they do try to use statistics, they come up short. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), for example, has perpetuated the popular myth that illegal immigrants murder 12 Americans per day, and kill another 13 by driving drunk. King says his figures come from a Government Accountability Office study he requested, which found that about 27 percent of inmates in the federal prison system are non-citizens. Colorado Media Matters found that King appears to have conjured his talking point by simply multiplying the annual number of murders and DWI fatalities in America by 27 percent. Of course, the GAO report only looked at federal prisons, not the state prisons and local jails where most convicted murderers and DWI offenders are kept. The Bureau of Justice Statistics puts the number of non-citizens (including legal immigrants) in state, local, and federal prisons and jails at about 6.4 percent (pdf). Of course, even that doesn't mean that non-citizens account for 6.4 percent of murders and DWI fatalities, only 6.4 percent of the overall inmate population.

But how many times did you head King's numbers quoted.

Anonymous said...

Mr. McGlawn,

I will be happy to respond to your claims on crime in the City of El Paso once you respond to the documented statistics on illegal aliens incarcerated in California jails. Again, I give you the following FACTS:

"The number of criminal aliens incarcerated in California rose to 102,795 in 2009, a 17 percent increase since 2003, federal auditors reported Thursday"

http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2011/04/californias-criminal-alien-pop.html

You have a very bad habit of ignoring and failing to comment on documented statistics posted by your opponents, Mr. McGlawn.

Either play fair or include in your disclaimer that as moderator you are not bound to the standard rules and etiquette of on-line debate - and that you can openly disregard documented facts posted by your opponents yet require others to respond to your claims.

At least post the rules according to the world of Chuck McGlawn on how this particular board is operated so the audience fully understands your position.

Thank you in advance.

Chuckest said...

I keep quoting "end results", “real world effects”, and “net gains” and A4 keeps dishing up isolated statistics. A4 is one of the 74%, who wrongly think that “…illegal immigrants weakened the economy”.

I am one of the 17% who agree with most economists that say, “… immigration, both legal and illegal, provides a small net boost to the economy.”

A4 has accused me of dodging the "facts". He said, “I will be happy to respond to your claims on crime in the City of El Paso once you respond to the documented statistics on illegal aliens incarcerated in California jails. Again, I give you the following FACTS: I am going to hold you to that promise.

Let us take a closer look at that statement, he said, "I will be happy to respond to your claims on crime in the City of El Paso" [Please note how he calls them "my claims", when they are neither "my" or are they "claims".] Then he goes on to say, "...once you respond to the documented statistics..." [Please note A4 is presenting not just statistics, but documented statistics.]”...on illegal aliens incarcerated in California jails. Again, I give you the following FACTS [Quoted from the Sacramento Bee.], "The number of criminal aliens incarcerated in California rose to 102,795 in 2009, a 17 percent increase since 2003, federal auditors reported Thursday"

Please note, when A4, himself is talking he says the “documented statistics" are to be about "illegal aliens", However, when he begins to quote the documented statistics their classification changes to, "criminal aliens"

Might it be important to understand any difference between “illegal aliens”, and “criminal aliens” in these documented statistics?

I doubt that A4, himself even noticed the distinction. Presented for A4s approval the name of the study is entitled. “CRIMINAL ALIEN STATISTICS”
“Information on Incarcerations, Arrests, and Costs”

Remember how we started the comment to which A4 is responding. We said, "Figures don't lie, but liars do figure." The numbers that were compiled referred to “Criminal Aliens”, but A4 attribute the numbers of incarcerated to “illegal aliens” Shame shame A4. The FACTS are that illegal aliens constitute only about 40% of total alien population. Furthermore, the percentage of criminal aliens has remained about 27% from 2001 to 2005. From 2005 through 2010 the numbers have actually dropped to 25%.

A closer look at the statistics would show that if you eliminate immigration arrest [that should not be a crime], drug arrest [that should not be a crime] and assault [which is generally committed on each other] 60% of the crime will not even be counted.

Let’s have a bottom line here. If 60% of the criminal acts are eliminated from the 40% of the alien population that is here illegally then a 17% increase becomes insignificant.

Anonymous said...

Dear Readers,

My FACTS are taken from the following source:

http://www.gao.gov/htext/d11187.html

The entire state prison population in CA as of 2007 was about 170,000. The GAO reported that of that 170,000 - 102,795 were criminal aliens - which calculates out to about 60%. So 60% of our prison population in CA consists of non US citizens from other nations. Does anyone besides me see a problem with this? 102,795 x $55,000 (what it costs to house a prisoner in CA) = $5.7B. And that only includes STATE prisoners. Criminal aliens in Federal prisons add to the cost.

So consider this. It is estimated that there are about 3M illegal foreigners in CA. Mr. McGlawn says that illegals account for about 40% of the total immigration population. So let's say there are 7M resident aliens in CA with green cards. 3M + 7M = 10M. We have close to 40M residents in CA. So illegal aliens and resident aliens are about 25% of our population. Yet they make up 60% of our criminal alien population in our State prisons. Oh, and State prisons do not jail people for immigration violations. To go to state prison you must commit a serious felony (other than immigration violations).

Does anyone see a problem with letting foreigners live in America when they make up 25% of our generaly population yet 60% of our state prison population? Hello? Anyone?

And moderator McGlawn wants to let an unlimited, unscreened number of foreigners in the USA w/open borders?

Hello??? Can we have a rational discussion???

Anonymous said...

I wonder if Mr. McGlawn would relinquish 50%-70% of his current or future social security or medicare benefits so that we could accomodate his dream of opening our borders and flooding the nation with an unlimited, unscreened quantity of foreign migrants? Afterall, those migrants would need medical care and Mr. McGlawn wouldn't want them to die in our street untreated, would he? Perhaps Mr. McGlawn would sacrifice his current or future medicare benefits so that we can finance free medical care for the unlimited migrants - as we are doing today. Mr. McGlawn seems to be a compassionate soul. I'm certain he would sacrifice what he has to save the migrants! :>)

Chuckest said...

It is clear that both A4 and I have agendas.

If asked, A4 would say, "Illegal immigrants are a drain on our economy, they take our jobs and they depress our wages." And he could present statistics to verify each of his statements.

I would say, "All studies show that illegal immigration produces a NET GAIN to the US Economy, that they create jobs for native born workers, and they increase the wages of native born workers."

How would you go about learning which of the two positions is more accurate?

If you polled the people as a New York Times/CBS News poll did, you would learn that 74% believe position #1. As polls go those numbers are impressive.

However, if you polled Advanced Degreed Economist on the same subject, first, would you expect the results to be more accurate? Second, would you be surprised to learn that about 95%. say illegal immigration is a NET GAIN to the US Economy.

Additionally, which would you be more inclined to believe, isolated statistics, undocumented e-mails and anecdotal stories that reveals some horrendous aspect of illegal immigration, or a full economic study that says things like, “Data show that, on net, immigrants expand the U.S. economy’s productive capacity, stimulate investment, and promote specialization that in the long run boosts productivity. Consistent with previous research, there is no evidence that these effects take place at the expense of jobs for workers born in the United States.”? That is my question to A4.

Anonymous said...

Mr. McGlawn said:

"However, if you polled Advanced Degreed Economist on the same subject, first, would you expect the results to be more accurate? Second, would you be surprised to learn that about 95%. say illegal immigration is a NET GAIN to the US Economy"

Show us such a poll. Anecdotes are unacceptable. Be careful what you claim without providing substantiation, Mr. McGlawn. Your reputation is on the line.

"Consistent with previous research, there is no evidence that these effects take place at the expense of jobs for workers born in the United States.”?

Common sense if the best indicator of truth in a debate.

When Jose Illegal comes to America and steals a roofing job or construction job or food service job - that is one less job held by an American.

Now multiply Illegal Jose by 12 million.

I rest my case.

Anonymous said...

Oh, and Mr. McGlawn fails to mention that illegals send a large percentage of their earned illegal wages (and profits generated by crime) back to their countries of origin - that provides economic stimulus to his foreign brothers and sisters - while sucking wealth from our own nation.

Did you folks know that in 2009 that over $20B in remittances were transferred by wire to Mexico by mostly illegal workers residing in America? That revenue is second only to national revenue produced by the oil industry in Mexico!

About $70B was wired to all latin american nations.

You don't have to be a genius to realize that dollars leaving our country for expenditure in foreign nations hurts us and helps them.

These are some things that Mr. McGlawn won't tell you

Chuckest said...

If I showed you the poll, would it change your mind? Would it change your attitude about immigration? Would you admit you were wrong?

If I gave you some common sense information, would it have any affect on your dogmatic, unbending attitude toward immigration? Would you admit being hoodwinked by some charlatan?

You are carrying out one of two agendas. You have either accepted the premise that immigration is a net drag on the US economy and accept all information agrees with your premise and reject all information that questions it. OR, you have some vested interest in keeping out immigrants.

Let me end with the challenge with which I started this reply: If I showed you the poll where 95% of Advanced Degreed Economist agreed that illegal immigration is a boost to the US economy, Would you admit you were wrong?

PS I think that is your cue to start dancing around the challenge.

Anonymous said...

Mr. McGlawn said:

"If I showed you the poll, would it change your mind? Would it change your attitude about immigration? Would you admit you were wrong?"

Are we back to those puerile games again, Mr. McGlawn? Just like you could name 3 thriving, billion dollar GDP nations with open borders if I would admit I was wrong? If you have a winning card just play it. Stop acting like a child

I have challenged you with many documented facts and figures since we began this debate. You dodge them first time everytime. Everything from $4.2B paid by US citizen taxpayers in Child Tax Credits and Earned Income Credits to illegal migrants to 102,795 foreigners in California State prisons. You always sidestep the facts.

So stop with the 'If I do this would you do that?' routine. Let's debate like adults. Just show us what you got.

Chuckest said...

Call my bluff. What better way to win a debate than to prove the other guy is without clothes.

Anonymous said...

"Call my bluff. What better way to win a debate than to prove the other guy is without clothes"

You got nothing. If you had a straight flush you'd just lay your cards on the table. Your entire debate so far has consisted of quoting so-called 'experts'. Experts are a dime a dozen. Why don't you tell us who funded those studies that you referenced? In my experience the authors of academic studies are usually mouthpieces for the the ones who fund them.

You need to come up with more believeable tactics, Mr. McGlawn.

Chuckest said...

I keep quoting "end results", “real world effects”, and “net gains” and A4 keeps dishing up isolated statistics. A4 is one of the 74%, who wrongly think that “…illegal immigrants weakened the economy”.

I am one of the 17% who agree with most economists that say, “… illegal immigration, provides a small net boost to the economy.”

This from Newsweek, Why Americans Think (Wrongly) That Illegal Immigrants Hurt the Economy, "At the heart of the debate over illegal immigration lies one key question: are immigrants good or bad for the economy? The American public overwhelmingly thinks they’re bad. In a recent New York Times/CBS News poll, 74 percent of respondents said illegal immigrants weakened the economy, compared to only 17 percent who said they strengthened it. Yet the consensus among most economists is that immigration, both legal and illegal, provides a small net boost to the economy. Immigrants provide cheap labor, lower the prices of everything from produce to new homes, and leave consumers with a little more money in their pockets. They also replenish—and help fund benefits for—an aging American labor force that will retire in huge numbers over the next few decades. Also, an increase in the number of American workers is needed to prevent the U.S. from having too few working-age adults to pay for retiree benefits in a few decades, as many European nations currently do.

Enjoy your Kool-Aid.

Anonymous said...

"Yet the consensus among most economists is that immigration, both legal and illegal, provides a small net boost to the economy"

You don't seem to comprehend very well, Mr. McGlawn.

No one is arguing the benefits of LEGAL AND ORDERLY IMMIGRATION!

We contend that ILLEGAL AND DISORDERLY IMMIGRATION harms the nation.

Why won't that concept penetrate your skull?

And we need a PROOF SOURCE that substantiates the quoted claim. There are tens of thousands of economists in America. Show us a poll of these economists that indicate a consensus vote that ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION provides a SMALL NET GAIN to our society!

And, as I have said before, we need a quantification GAINS AND LOSSES to arrive at a NET GAIN OR NET LOSS on this subject matter.

Otherwise, your purported claim has no merit.

Anonymous said...

You never even answered my basic original question way back when, Mr. McGlawn.

You said that illegal immigrants and open borders are 'net gains' and good for our economy.

Based on your statement, I asked you if you would support sending transport ships to Africa, India, China, etc... and fill them with indigent workers and ship them back to America. You refused to answer my question and spoke only of "diminishing returns", conceding that at some point unlimited indigent migrant workers would become 'net losses'. But you refused to put a number on it :>)

So I cornered you and made you trip on your own assertions. You conceded that there is such a thing as "diminishing returns" when it came to open immigration. So you might say that you are an 'open borders' advocate - but, in reality, you are an 'open borders' advocate with an asterik.

Your viewpoint on said subject matter is faulty and inconsistent, Mr. McGlawn.

Before you come on your blog site and discuss these matters you should form an airtight premise to your arguments. Otherwise you inevitably contradict yourself lose credibility.

Return back to the drawing board. Reinvent your position on this.

Anonymous said...

"Also, an increase in the number of American workers is needed to prevent the U.S. from having too few working-age adults to pay for retiree benefits in a few decades, as many European nations currently do"

That could be easily accomplished through our LEGAL IMMIGRATION PROCESS in America, Mr. McGlawn.

There are MILLIONS of law-abiding foreigners who have filled out their paperwork, taken their tests and paid their fees who are put ON HOLD for a work visa. All of them want to come to America in a LAWFUL manner. Why would you want to give those who come to America in an UNLAWFUL manner priority over those who want to come here in a LAWFUL manner?

Are you an anarchist?

Please respond.

Chuckest said...

Unfortunately, A4 no one but you are paying any attention to this blog.

If there were any they would have been some that came to your defense, or there would have been some come forward to support me.

I have read all of your comments, I have concluded that you are either just playing with me, or you are a complete idiot or you have drank the Kool-Aid.

No one could absorber the information that I have presented and still defend closed borders unless you fall into one of those categories.

If there is anyone out there, "show us a sign"

Therefore, I am going to say, that nothing that I say is going to have any effect on you. So why bother.

PS The Alabama government is feeling the pinch of their anti-immigration and they are busy busy in damage control. I am sure in a few days there are going to be some changes.

Anonymous said...

"PS The Alabama government is feeling the pinch of their anti-immigration and they are busy busy in damage control. I am sure in a few days there are going to be some changes"

It's laughable how libertarians like yourself profess to hate central control and Federal intrusion on business in the states. But when the Feds use threats of withholding law enforcement monies from the states that want to protect their citizens from illegal invaders who commit crimes on their population and steal their jobs - all the sudden you applaud them!!! :>)

I have never witnessed such egregious hypocrisy in my lifetime.

You applaud the Feds for failing to sue the sanctuary cities for defying our immigration laws yet you love it when they use their power to punish states who try to rid their jurisdiction of illegal invaders who steal, rob and kill.

I am more convinced now than ever that those who follow this line of thought are anarchists.

Mr. McGlawn - you failed to answer or respond to most of my documented points in this debate. There is really only one reasonable explanation for that. You had no reasonable counterargument because you knew I was right.

I believe you know that I am right on the illegal immigration topic. But you are so ingrained in your personal agenda that acknowledging it now would be a personal defeat. So you continue to propogate mistruths at the expense of our beloved nation.

Anonymous said...

Mr. McGlawn.

I suggest that you view the following link that features Bill Still - a leading contender for the Libertarian Party's nomination for the presidential race.

Specifically, go to 8:29 on the video where Mr. Still addresses the lunacy of 'open borders'.

Hopefully you will listen to one of your own kind. Maybe Mr. Still can drill some sense into you on this particular topic.

It's takes courage to offload old worn out beliefs that no longer apply or work, Mr. McGlawn. Release yourself from your ingrained indocrinations of the past and follow the new and improved Libertarians like Mr. Still.

I may even consider voting for him in 2012.

http://www.youtube.com/user/bstill3

Anonymous said...

Silence from Mr. McGlawn.

As expected.