There is a growing bipartisan agreement in Congress, especially punctuated by the mass incarceration speech by President Obama and his visit to the Oklahoma federal prison last week, that the time has come to overhaul a system that is putting nonviolent offenders in prison for far too long – causing a strain on budgets and crowded prisons.
While there was attention on the President’s 46 commutations last week, there are also thousands of inmates that are being released due to a retroactive downward modification of federal sentencing guidelines. An ACLU analysis found thousands of people serving life sentences for nonviolent offenses.
There are currently 95,000 federal prisoners who are serving decades in prison for drug crimes. However, thanks to a 2014 policy change, known as “drug minus two,” an amendment was placed in the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s guidelines that could reduce the sentences of as many as 46,000 people.
The Smarter Sentencing Act, while it has its critics like Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, was a bipartisan bill that will shorten federal drug sentences and elimination the mandatory minimum sentences for some drug crimes.
However, the one area where this consensus seems to not be emerging is on the polarizing issue of immigration. As the Marshall Project notes, “The most serious offense for roughly 10 percent of the federal prison population is immigration-related, and over half of federal criminal convictions so far this year have been for illegal entry or re-entry. As lawmakers look to lessen the criminal consequences for drug convictions, even legal immigrants also remain at risk of deportation for those same crimes.”
In fact, Congress is discussing pushing it further in the other direction, arguing for a new mandatory minimum for nonviolent immigration offenses.
The rallying call is the shooting death of Kathryn Steinle, who was shot by undocumented immigrant Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, who had re-entered the US after five deportations and who was released from San Francisco County Jail after San Francisco County officials refused to recognize a detainer request by ICE.
There were contentious hearings on Tuesday where family members like Laura Wilkerson, of people killed by non-citizens, spoke out.
“I will not give up another child so that a foreign person can have a nicer life,” said Laura Wilkerson, whose son Joshua was killed by an undocumented immigrant in 2010. “Thank you to Mr. Trump for getting the message out.”
Chuck Grassley blamed these deaths on the Obama administration, calling their immigration policies “lax.” “The Obama administration, in too many cases, has turned a blind eye to enforcement, even releasing thousands of criminals at its own discretion,” he said.
Even Democrats climbed on the bandwagon, with Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, stating, “Convicted felons should be removed from the country but not released into our streets.”
Meanwhile, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, a Presidential candidate and a supporter of the drug sentencing reform, introduced what he is calling “Kate’s Law,” which would punish illegal re-entry into the U.S. with at least five years in federal prison.
As Senator Grassley put it, “No more people should die at the hands of those who break our laws just by being here.”
In the Sacramento Bee this morning, UC Davis Law School Dean Kevin Johnson and Law Professor Rose Cuison Villazor call “Kate’s Law” “a misguided reaction to tragedy.”
They write, “Such a proposal, however, will not truly address the concern of removing serious criminals from our streets. Instead, it would imprison many low- and medium-skilled workers who are not dangerous to the community and lack legal avenues for coming to the United States.”
They call for the nation to address its concerns with this issue by focusing on “serious criminals.”
They lay out some policy objectives.
First, they argue, “While state and local agencies are the primary enforcers of the criminal laws, immigration enforcement today is – and should be – in the near-exclusive hands of the federal government. Local police are better able to combat crime when all residents, including lawful and undocumented immigrants, trust the police and do not fear deportation if they report a crime or cooperate as witnesses.”
Second, “State and local governments must be allowed to establish law enforcement priorities tailored for their communities and decide how to appropriately cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.”
Third, “The federal government must focus removal efforts on serious criminals. Some cities and states, concerned with the overbroad impacts of Secure Communities, have resisted cooperating with the federal government in immigration enforcement.”
They note that, in ending the Secure Communities Act, the Obama administration announced a new Priority Enforcement Program designed to focus on serious criminals.
Dean Johnson and Professor Villazor write, “This focus is consistent with the president’s deferred action program for undocumented immigrants without criminal records. The use of prosecutorial discretion to direct limited resources at the most significant public safety risks makes perfect sense. If the administration implemented such a program, the nation would be in a better position to keep dangerous people off the streets and out of the country. “
Moreover, they believe that following these principles will address the concerns that have fueled sanctuary city ordinances in the first place, under which police only turn over non-citizens if required by state or federal law or presented with an arrest warrant.
They note, in the case of Ms. Steinle, “Immigration and Customs Enforcement demanded that the suspect be held but failed to present an arrest warrant or point to a law requiring that he be turned over. ICE simply failed to comply with the San Francisco ordinance.”
Despite claims to the contrary about lax regulations, the prosecution of immigration crimes has actually grown in recent years to make up a large part of federal law enforcement. A report by the Brookings Institute’s Hamilton Project, from which Obama cited the overall cost of mass incarceration in the U.S., says that the “increase in federal imprisonment rates has been driven by increases in immigration-related admissions. Between 2003 and 2011, admissions to federal prisons for immigration-related offenses increased by 83 percent.”
The ACLU notes that such prosecutions for illegal border-crossing “have essentially taken over the federal criminal justice system in the Southwest.”
Moreover, the mandatory minimum would require substantial new resources. ICE director Sarah Saldana stated, “We’re stretched on our resources already. To expand it…would be a very big problem for us.”
The question is whether these crimes warrant this type of new expenditure or if we don’t have better ways to approach the problem by figuring out how to identify truly dangerous individuals and separate them from those individuals who have simply been caught up in the system.
Not that it is likely to satisfy the hardliners on this issue, but, in the end, it may be the type of arrangement that will produce the best results.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“Moreover, the mandatory minimum would require substantial new resources. ICE director Sarah Saldana stated, “We’re stretched on our resources already. To expand it…would be a very big problem for us.”
While in Oregon recently had an interesting experience regarding expectations for governmental agencies vs willingness to support these agencies financially. The issue was maintenance of historic sites by the Bureau of Land Management. The guides on a river tour were pointing out the lack of maintenance of some historic homes along the Roque River once they had come under the jurisdiction of the BLM. They also spoke adamantly against paying taxes for said agencies. They did not seem to see any irony at all regarding their unwillingness to be taxed and the ability of said agency to maintain the sites that they wanted maintained.
It seems to me quite clear that if we expect strong action by our government, we must be willing to pay for that action. It further seems to me that whether we are talking about immigration, or land management, or virtually any issue that can be named, it is the same folks that demand action on their prioritized issues most loudly that also want to “starve the beast” and claim that they are “already taxed too highly”.
“figuring out how to identify truly dangerous individuals and separate them from those individuals who have simply been caught up in the system.”
In assessing priorities given the limited resources, this would seem to me to be the key point.
i’m surprised this has received a lack of comment. i think this captures my view on the idea that the answer to the immigration problem is to throw people who are probably harmless for the most part in prison for a long period of time.
still haven’t seen a good response to this: “Immigration and Customs Enforcement demanded that the suspect be held but failed to present an arrest warrant or point to a law requiring that he be turned over. ICE simply failed to comply with the San Francisco ordinance.”
last week everyone was skirting the main issue.
The first role of government is to keep Americans safe. When any illegal immigrant causes harm to an American on American soil, it is clear evidence that government has failed to perform this role.
We should be outraged and demand no less that absolute illumination of any increase risk of harm at the hands of any illegal immigrant.
“The first role of government is to keep Americans safe”
in your estimation
“When any illegal immigrant causes harm to an American on American soil, it is clear evidence that government has failed to perform this role.”
not necessarily. unless you believe that the government has the capacity to prevent all people from coming into this country illegally and has the ability to protect all citizens under all conditions.
the real question is not one of absolutes but of balance – how much are you willing to spent to prevent people from coming illegally? how much liberty are you personally willing to give up? how many people are you willing to put in prison who are of comparatively low harm? there are all sort of considerations here.
You need to talk to this guy then…
Yes, there are lots of factors to consider, including the massive drug traffic and violence that comes north via the Mexican drug cartels. If we closed the border 90%, the prices of drugs would rise, and we’d probably help reduce our nations drug dependence.
I see no reason why we can’t built the 700-mile planned fence in 2 years. Fences are a proven way to protect nations and people. We could employ the National Guard to assist with building it, and protecting the border. A secure border would give us more liberty, and far more liberty for those who live continuous to our unprotected border. Protecting the border would also gradually reduce our prison size.
” including the massive drug traffic and violence that comes north via the Mexican drug cartels.”
there are better ways to deal with that – for example legalizing some drugs. even if you closed the border 90%, it’s kind of like sticking your finger in a leak, if you don’t get to the root of the problem, the leak just moves to the next weak point. so you could close down some drugs that come from mexico, and that would likely increase the demand and therefore the supply for drugs from within the country – like meth.
building a fence probably would have a temporary impact of one type of immigration. however, right now a lot of immigrants come to the country legally and simply stay and there are elaborate networks of underground tunnels that are difficult to find and detect. the estimated cost for increased enforcement is at least $28 billion, that doesn’t seem like the kind of country i want to live in.
i think a better approach is dealing through it, through market means like allowing people to get jobs at the border and enter the country legally. that would cut a lot of the teeth out of the need for human trafficking.
The problem is that more than half of Mexico wants to live here, plus other citizens from other places south of Mexico, as well as around the world. We don’t have the capacity to take in half the world.
The wall in Israel cut down violence 99%.
Israel’s border management is your preferred solution?
Frankly
I am curious if you feel it is more important for the government to keep Americans safe from immigrants than it is to keep them safe from other Americans ? If you feel that providing safety from other Americans is as important, are we not failing even more abysmally in that task ?
The media and the government have hidden the true nature of crime committed by illegal immigrants under the banner of Political Correctness and Multiculturalism.
The murder of Kate, combined with the outspoken Trump and Ann Coulter, seems to have ripped the lid off the topic. Here are some high-level statistics.
“Mr. Todd and his research staff apparently also did not see the recent U.S. Sentencing Commission data that showed that although illegal aliens only account for 3.5 percent of the U.S. population, they accounted for 36.7 percent of federal sentences in Fiscal Year 2014.
“Mr. Todd and his research staff were also apparently not aware that, in 2009, 57 percent of the 76 fugitive murderers most wanted by the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) were foreign-born (either illegal aliens or aliens given visas).”
Doing a quick search for this response, I also just stumbled into these statistics from the GAO which I have not confirmed.
“The 2011 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report documents crimes committed by foreign alien nationals inside the United States. It counts as an alien any immigrant who has not been “naturalized” – that is, any alien who has applied for and been conferred with citizenship after being brought into the United States from their home country. Therefore, even this report would not include the criminal offenses of the millions of immigrants inside the U.S. who have converted their green cards into citizenship papers, about 19.3 million. So, for instance, the elder Boston Bomber, the recent Chattanooga Shooter, and other immigrant terrorists naturalized by the federal government would be counted by the government as citizen crimes, not alien crimes.
“The report tallies approximately 3 million arrest offenses attached to the incarcerated criminal alien population. Of these offenses, half a million were drug related, 70,000 were sexual offenses, 213,000 were for assault, 125,000 were for larceny/theft, and 25,000 were for homicides. Based on the GAO’s sample of criminal aliens, they estimated that their study population of 249,000 criminal aliens was arrested about 1.7 million times, averaging about 7 arrests per criminal alien.”
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/20/no-comment-nbc-covers-up-evidence-of-immigration-crime-wave/
Drug crimes
Regarding the “non-violent” drug crimes, I don’t see how someone without an agenda can accept or downplay drug dealers who sell crack, meth, and heroine to children and young people. Crack eviscerated black communities across America and quadrupled the homicide rate for young black men. I don’t consider a crack dealer who pushes tens of millions of dollars of drugs a year to young people “non violent”. I’ve been told that China stopped their opium addiction by executing their drug dealers.
so a new study shows immigration has fall 57 percent since 2003, why are we going to build a multi-billion fence?
part of the reason – the market. there is no longer excess labor force.
Three problems.
One – There is evidence that ALL government is underestimating the amount of illegal immigration.
Two – The problem is that the criminal element is not responding to the regular economic changes that reduce the number of Mexican immigrants looking for legal work.
Three – There are more immigrants from Central America. There is evidence that the Mexican government is actually helping Central Americans migrate to the US instead of remaining in Mexico.
We need to build a fence and put the US military along the border.
We need to increase the crime for illegal entry and being here illegal.
We need to deport more.
We need large fines for business hiring illegal immigrants.
We need to change the Constitution to stop with the practice of granting US citizenship to kids born in the US. Children of parents that are here illegally are also here illegally.
“One – There is evidence that ALL government is underestimating the amount of illegal immigration.”
not really other than right wing blogs
“Two – The problem is that the criminal element is not responding to the regular economic changes that reduce the number of Mexican immigrants looking for legal work.”
there is not really evidence of that. crime is down.
“Three – There are more immigrants from Central America. There is evidence that the Mexican government is actually helping Central Americans migrate to the US instead of remaining in Mexico.”
immigration is still down.
we need to legalize some drugs, create work visas, and allow the market to work.
You want to station federal troops in sovereign states? Egad.
How about if Congress just passes comprehensive immigration reform? They had a good shot at it in 2013. Maybe that bill can come forward again in about 2017.
That would be a disaster (i.e., Amnesty).
I would pass no “comprehensive amnesty / immigration” until the border is secure. Hold their feet to the fire.
Passing reform now is like remodeling the interior of your house when you have massive holes in your roof, you have an incompetent General Contractor, and the General Contractor put up the current leaky roof. Beyond ludicrous.
Then nothing will happen. Period.
Something would happen with a Republican President, House and Senate. We would then have comprehensive immigration reform because we would eliminate that party of no from preventing progress.
Both parties have factions that apparently prefer the status quo. We will not have comprehensive immigration reform if there is no path to citizenship. Democrats will block that in the Senate. I don’t see Republicans as likely to get to 60 votes on it there, even if they retain a slim majority. It’s unlikely they will even retain that majority.
Evidently we will not have comprehensive immigration reform if it includes a path to citizenship, because the conservative wing of the Republican Party will block that in the Senate if the present majority continues.
The bill that passed in 2013, which was a hard-fought and reasonable compromise, could probably not pass today or so long as the Hastert Rule prevails in the House.
A Democratic Senate with a Democratic President and a reduced House Republican majority might pass it. That’s why I say we might see it again in 2017.
It is absurd to call the Democrats the “party of no” on immigration reform. The 2013 bill passed the Senate 68 – 32. It had support from leadership of both parties, from business groups, from conservative economists, the Cato Institute, the Wall Street Journal, and more. The only opposition came from the Tea Party wing of the Republican party. Because of their opposition and their control of the House majority, it could not come to a vote. Had it done so, a significant percentage of House Republicans and a majority of Democrats would have voted for it, and it would be law. It would have provided funding and verification procedures for the border fence, among many other provisions.
So there is no Party of No except the Tea Party. And since that’s the tail that wags the Republican Party dog, nothing got done. Since then, attitudes among conservatives have become more extreme and hardened (in so many ways…), and so that one slim opportunity has passed.
By the way. I would refrain from the “period” use as in “you get to keep your doctor, period.”
Republican/conservative positions have hardened since 2013 on this issue. Things are getting less likely, not more. When TBD says “Hold their feet to the fire,” I don’t know whose feet he wants to hold. You aren’t going to make Democrats more willing to compromise by being less willing to compromise.
The Democrats like the Latino / victim vote because they will vote Democrat for at least 2 generations, so the Democrats will run the table. They will have power.
The flip side is more of America will turn into California, with more gangs, school scores dropping like a rock in a vacuum, and more budget deficits as far as the eye can see while social programs explode. Less integration, more mayhem.
Amnesty begets more illegal immigration, just as Obama is now proposing more non-enforcement of illegal immigration policies and expanding those who can stay here legally.
At the same time, we allow in more refugees from terrorist nations who then unleash their terrorist ways here. Not all, not most, but some… just like the young man who butchered 5 Marines.. Marines we emasculate because we don’t let them carry firearms while on military bases, where they are now sitting ducks.
Huh? He was from Kuwait. He wasn’t a refugee. Your comments are just all over the place.
Spot on, Frankly, spot on. Did you read recently that California’s DMV estimates for illegal immigrants that would sign up for a driver’s license were off by 100%?
There will be ebbs and flows. Build the fence.
The US – Mexican border is one of the largest unprotected borders between a rich country and a poorer country in the world. We can also deploy high-tech systems to find the drug tunnels, it’s a multi-pronged approach.
I believe some that we deport we simply walk across to Tijuana. That makes no sense, they’ll just try to come back 12 hours later. Fly or bus them down to Guadalajara or Mexico City. Make a retry tougher.
My oh my, xenophobia lives. I say we deport anyone of Irish or Italian heritage. Look how much trouble they caused. Where do you think the Mafia came from? And while we’re building walls, let’s rebuild the Berlin Wall….it kept us safe from the Communists, after all.
Common jrberg. You can do better than that.
Hypothetically, if Mexico was some poor Eastern European country do you really think the arguments would be any different from those demanding our immigration laws are enforced?
Let me answer… of course not.
The issue is all about the law, safety and financial. It does not matter if our neighbor was pink with purple spots, or having the exact same look and language as the average American (in fact, you can make the case that the illegal immigrants actually do look and talk like the average American in many states).
The xenophobia cry is just a weak attempt to take a made-up moral high ground lacking anything useful to contribute.
No country can survive for long with this type of soft invasion of poor and uneducated people flooding in. Can’t you simply do the math and stop with the hypersensitivity?
The influx of immigrants has slowed dramatically over the last few years.
So say the officials who are repeatedly wrong by at least 100% on every estimate. Then we have an older, glue-addicted elderly illegal immigrant sneak in 5 times in a row? Seems pretty porous.
Do I need to give you proof? Just google it, for god’s sake. Try this: “immigration slows to a trickle.”
I have a bridge I can sell you for a cheap price too.
Let me understand this. You do not believe that immigration from Mexico has slowed significantly?
That’s funny, I could swear you posted a lot in the past about various groups not assimilating, not adopting “American values,” all that kind of stuff.
Which gets to the fiscal issues. Because if they don’t adopt those American values (you know, all that kind of stuff you like to dismiss) they are a net drain on our limited financial resources.
And I also don’t like the fact that they vote for Democrats because Democrats are more apt to approve more hand outs and social services and raise taxes. Again, another hit on our limited financial resources.
Sorry Don, but English is the language of business.
I’m sure the folks at Univision will be interested to learn that.
Come on Don. Univision is only $2.6 Billion in revenue… about half the size of VSP Global in Rancho Cordova.
Sure, you keep floodin’ in Spanish speakers to a level where there is not much assimilation, and you will create Spanish speaking markets. That does not mean that the average person unable to speak English well will not have a big problem getting ahead in this country.
Every time I read something like this, from you and other xenophobes, all I can think of is “The Russians Are Coming! The Russians Are Coming!!”
If all the undocumented people in California disappeared tomorrow, so would the California economy, and so would your business.
Uh… don’t get your point… at all here. Care to elaborate?
Note that you can come from wherever legally and assimilate and I don’t care where you are from. We are all from somewhere else. I think some of the posters on the Vanguard are from outer-space, and I’m cool with it because they managed to make it legal and pretty much behave like good Americans.
Why such love for people here illegally? No other country in the world would put up with this… a flood of poor and uneducated people that cost us billions and overwhelm much of our social services and infrastructure.
It has nothing to do with xenophobia, it has to do with common sense.
You know that Mexico has enough money and resources to help their people have a better life. The rich in Mexico just laugh at liberals in El Norte for taking all the poor people so they don’t revolt in Mexico.
Again: the flow of immigrants from Mexico has slowed to a trickle. And the flow of immigrants from further south that was such an issue last year has also slowed way down. Also, a number of countries in Europe are dealing right now with a huge influx of poor and uneducated people, and many are taking in a lot of people that they can’t really afford. Greece, for example. In fact, it’s kind of a crisis at the moment.
You know that for many who are viscerally opposed to immigration from Mexico, it has a lot to do with xenophobia. Maybe not you, but certainly that is a factor. And we have a long history of that in our country.
We do allow 1 million a year legally, more than any other nation. We have numerous legal visas too, student visas, visitor visas, which we extend to people from all over the world.
Europe is having similar problems, but I’m not sure they have 30-40 million illegal immigrants. The Norway prime minister has deported several thousand radical Muslim extremists, and violent crime has dropped 31%. Many of the EU countries are discussing the issues of education, lack of assimilation, multiculturalism, language skills (or lack thereof), etc. I’ve also seen articles about crime in Sweden, particularly Malmo (a city) and reports of a dramatic increase in rape.
I believe Mexico used to have oil as it’s number one revenue source, and remittances from citizens living abroad (i.e., here) was number two. So the government doesn’t have to help these people, and they send money home. Win-win for racist Mexico. (
PS, have you noticed how light-skinned the anchors are on Telemundo?
Wow.
A very, very small minority of people.
Everyone… absolutely everyone I know that is incensed about immigration policy and the lack of federal enforcement has Hispanic friends or family or both or is Hispanic. They go to Mexico and love Mexican culture. The go to Central and South American and they love those cultures too.
They love those cultures so much that they would defend those cultures being diminished and supplanted by a flood of people from other cultures demanding accommodations with help from liberals lacking common sense about the consequences.
But the US has a lot of Latino culture in it. And everyone I know is excepting of that.
What they are not accepting of is the impact to our schools and our hospitals. Our crime rates. Our lack of jobs. The problems in the poor black communities because they are squeezed out by the demographic shifts from the flood. There are tremendous negative impacts only because there has been too many too fast at a time when the US has to tighten its belt and reinvigorate its economy.
Liberal’s continued demand that we implement amnesty and we don’t lock up the border is insane.
One of them is currently leading in the polls for the Republican nomination.
Don, where is the “diversity” at Telemundo? Same for Sabado Gigante, where the hosts and audience are diametrically opposed in appearance.
I thought this type of labeling of other posters was prohibited on the Vanguard.
“Liberal’s continued demand that we implement amnesty and we don’t lock up the border is insane.”
i don’t think we can or should lock up the borders. what i would like to see… again is amnesty along with the provision of jobs at the border so that people can apply for jobs and gain work visas or go on a waiting list.
Reference? Cite? Proof?
You do know that the richest person in the world is Carlos Slim… a Mexican national?
Mexican immigrants send home over $23 billion per year to their home country. We get criminals and poor and uneducated people here that would otherwise be a drain on the Mexican economy along with them feeling the drop in that $23 billion per year. That would cause pressure for Mexico to increase taxes on the wealthy and do other belt tightening. Of course the rich are happy that US liberals keep supporting the flood of illegal immigrants to this country. These are not doctors and engineers coming here… they are not Mexico’s best and brightest.
Too bad the US does not have a wealthier neighbor where we could ship more of our poor and uneducated to relieve the pressure for continually raising taxes to care for so many.
You completely ignored my request. I would like solid references for your assertions, because I don’t believe any numbers you pull out of your…..whatever. Do you have such references?
And yes, I do know that Mexican workers send home a huge amount of money….doing work that Americans are unwilling to do.
Just like the Irish and Italians did in the last century….
jrberg–re: “And yes, I do know that Mexican workers send home a huge amount of money….doing work that Americans are unwilling to do.
Just like the Irish and Italians did in the last century….”
Currently, it is estimated that only 5% of the illegal immigrants do any kind of farmwork–most are in construction and other services–hotels & motels, nanny/caretaker, landscaping & yard care, etc. There are plenty of citizens looking to do this kind of work; illegals will do it for a lower wage–to be accurate, you could state that few citizens are unwilling to do it for current very low wages–with fewer illegals the wages would go up, more citizens would be employed at better pay. Same thing with irish & italians from last century–they were simply the cheapest source of labor; if they weren’t around the pay would go up to the point that other groups would take the work.
Also use of multisyllabic words that you may have picked up as a college sophomore such as ‘xenophobe’ does not confer any additional validity on an argument–wasting a 50-cent word on a 5-cent idea.
“There are plenty of citizens looking to do this kind of work; illegals will do it for a lower wage”
skeptical – want to see evidence, not just assertions. and not postings from right wing blogs, i don’t consider that evidence.
We have plenty of Americans who can take STEM jobs, but this is the other end where politicians sell out the middle class by allowing in more H1B Visa workers at 1/2 or 1/4 the American wage. See Disney Florida, Southern California Edison, Microsoft, Google, Facebook, etc.
DP–one line of evidence is simple history. Before the 1980s, most illegals who came to the USA were involved with agricultural work; and most workers in the industries I listed were in fact USA citizens. What has changed since the 1980s that makes you think that citizens would no longer do these jobs–in fact there are many citizens who are currently involved in these industries; as well as many illegals. This is simple economics 101, a greater supply of labor reduces the cost of labor; and impoverished mexicans and central americans are willing to work for lower wages; it is just simple undercutting of wages.
Why can’t we tax those remittances to pay for the services they use?
Immigrants pay taxes.
There is a massive underground economy in places like construction.
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/04/16/Study-Finds-Illegal-Immigrants-Pay-118B-Taxes
It’s getting late… Im kinda’ tired of this left/right, liberal democrat/conservative republican BS.
To lighten things up, (helps me, if no one else), I offer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDSN1F72QU4
Best wishes to all, even if I strongly disageee….
Oh, and as you listen to it (if you do), substitute “American society” for “musical group”…
We need folk who think, and not ideologues.
One other point–there are repeated references to statistics indicating that net immigration over the southern border has decreased over the past few years–this may be accurate; however of course there will be ebbs and flows in the immigration tide–when the relative economies (and job prospects) of USA and those countries south of the border change, so will the ebbs and flows in immigration. How can you be sure there will be no future large flows of illegal immigration in the absence of the tightening of border security? Its like the climate change deniers who assert that because mean temperature has not increased much over the past 18 years or so, this means that it will not increase again despite the relentless pumping of more and more CO2 into the atmosphere (and there are indications that 2015, like 2014 was, will be the warmest year on record).
1. You are correct, without new security and new fencing, we will continue to get millions more here illegally, further hammering our middle and lower classes.
2. Your climate points don’t make sense. The past 19-20-21 years has proven to be what is called a “global warming hiatus”. Temperatures haven’t increased. If you recall, our summer started out slow, and we’ve even had a few thunderstorms.
The Warmists continue to lose the PR battle. Some are even predicting that we are entering a Global Cooling Phase.
TBD–I’ll pick up with you on the climate change debate on another Vangaurd thread–there have been some recent developments, a bit complex and involved, will follow-up on a later Vanguard climate article thread!
I will not even read this article or the responses, because I have one point:
When someone steals from you, your psyche is scarred for life. Your sense of self worth, safety and self esteem is forever affected. Even reading about this is so debilitating, ask your kids next time they have their house broken into, or their stuff stolen, or front door knocked in. Victims who feel they get a check it is all done and over are lying.
When you don’t get a check or even if the guy is arrested he pleads to a drug charge, and it gets classified as a “non-violent” crime. Sorry for your smug pronouncements these are “non-violent” crimes. There is no such thing. Sorry also I am upset to the point I am probably making no sense to you “intellectuals”.
Make me whole, make sure this person stops forever a bad behavior? Riiight.