A Free Voice


Arizona’s Immigration Law: Lies, Ignorance, and Stupidity

Yeah, yeah! I know it’s been a while since I’ve been posting. That’s just because I have not been inspired to. But lately, I have been itching to come back. With all the hype of the new Arizona Immigration law, we have been hearing the same old race card bullshit that supporters of illegal immigration spout out when they have no real argument. — With politicians fishing for the Hispanic vote (I’m legally a Mexican National), they have gone out crying that the law calls for (or allows) racial profiling. But when they they are actually asked they actually read the law, they admit that they haven’t.

Eric Holder, for example, condemned the Arizona law and then admitted “I have not had a chance to — I’ve glanced at it.” (Link: Fox News). — More recently, when Janet Nepolitano attacked the Arizona law, she then was asked by John McCain if she had read the law, she said, “I have not reviewed it in detail. I certainly know of it . . . That’s not the kind of law I would have signed.” (From Fox News) — Lovely, Nepolitano hasn’t read the law, but she just knows she would never have signed it. They’ve just either “glanced” at it or “know of it.” — Sad! Just when does “glancing” or “knowing of something” indicate any real knowledge? It doesn’t!

— It doesn’t stop here. Nepolitano continues to put her foot in her mouth by saying, “I believe it mandates and requires local law enforcement or puts them into a position many do not want to be placed in.” — Uh, Janet, I have a question for you: If you haven’t read it, then how can you Goddamn “think” anything about it? You and the other stooges in Obama’s administration have just admitted that you have not read it, and therefore you have no valid opinion on it. So what place do you have to criticize it?

Well, I guess we shouldn’t be surprised that people are calling out racism. But considering that the race card is so old and abused, I almost never take it seriously anymore. — But anyone who has read the law will know that racial descrimination is prohibited by the law SB 1070.

— Don’t believe me? Then, actually take the trouble to read the law! — Or if you are too lazy to read the whole law, here’s a summary. Also there are many unfounded fears that this law may indanger legal immigrants. What is usually not mentioned is that this law takes stepts to protect legal immigrants.

The ignorance and misinformation about the Arizona law is incredible. And considering how much Illegal Immigrants cost the Arizona tax payers, which amounts to $2.7 billion a year after the tax payments of illegals are accounted for, can the Arizonans be blamed for wanting some law enforcement? (Linked source). — No, wait! I guess the Arizonans should be forced to pay for people who don’t have the right to be in their state! Those selfish racist bastards!

I guess the supporters of illegal actuvity would want to talk about the “economic benefits” of having illegitimate labor? That will not work for me because I have already dealt with those claims. For more information, see The Economic Contribution of Illegal Immigration.”

As tough and rude as it may seem for me to say this, the claims of descrimination, racism, and Nazism made against the Arizona law are a wrong, pathetic, and are downright stupid and retarded! Those making the accusations are at best ignorant, and at wose they are lying.

— Just my two cents.

Advertisements


Obama the Supposed Uniter’s ‘Stoking Racial Antagonism’
September 19, 2008, 11:04 pm
Filed under: Democrats, Illegal Immigration, McCain, Obama, Racism

From The Wall Street Journal, and written by Rush Limbaugh,

I understand the rough and tumble of politics. But Barack Obama — the supposedly postpartisan, postracial candidate of hope and change — has gone where few modern candidates have gone before.

Mr. Obama’s campaign is now trafficking in prejudice of its own making. And in doing so, it is playing with political dynamite. What kind of potential president would let his campaign knowingly extract two incomplete, out-of-context lines from two radio parodies and build a framework of hate around them in order to exploit racial tensions? The segregationists of the 1950s and 1960s were famous for such vile fear-mongering.

Here’s the relevant part of the Spanish-language television commercial Mr. Obama is running in Hispanic communities:

“They want us to forget the insults we’ve put up with . . . the intolerance . . . they made us feel marginalized in this country we love so much.”

Then the commercial flashes two quotes from me: “. . . stupid and unskilled Mexicans” and “You shut your mouth or you get out!”

And then a voice says, “John McCain and his Republican friends have two faces. One that says lies just to get our vote . . . and another, even worse, that continues the policies of George Bush that put special interests ahead of working families. John McCain . . . more of the same old Republican tricks.”

Much of the media that is uninterested in Mr. Obama’s connections to unrepentant 1970s Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers and Rev. Jeremiah Wright have so far gone along with the attempt to tie me to Mr. McCain. But Mr. McCain and I have not agreed on how to address illegal immigration. While I am heartened by his willingness to start by securing the borders, it is no secret that we have fundamental differences on illegal immigration.

And more to the point, these sound bites are a deception, and Mr. Obama knows it. The first sound bite was extracted from a 1993 humorous monologue poking fun at the arguments against the North American Free Trade Agreement. Here’s the context:

“If you are unskilled and uneducated, your job is going south. Skilled workers, educated people are going to do fine ’cause those are the kinds of jobs Nafta is going to create. If we are going to start rewarding no skills and stupid people, I’m serious, let the unskilled jobs that take absolutely no knowledge whatsoever to do — let stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work.”

My point, which is obvious, was that the people who were criticizing Nafta were demeaning workers, particularly low-skilled workers. I was criticizing the mind-set of the protectionists who opposed the treaty. There was no racial connotation to it and no one thought there was at the time. I was demeaning the arguments of the opponents.

As for the second sound bite, I was mocking the Mexican government’s double standard — i.e., urging open borders in this country while imposing draconian immigration requirements within its own borders. Thus, I took the restrictions Mexico imposes on immigrants and appropriated them as my own suggestions for a new immigration law.

Here’s the context for that sound bite: “And another thing: You don’t have the right to protest. You’re allowed no demonstrations, no foreign flag waving, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his policies. You’re a foreigner: shut your mouth or get out! And if you come here illegally, you’re going to jail.”

At the time, I made abundantly clear that this was a parody on the Mexican government’s hypocrisy and nobody took it otherwise.

The malignant aspect of this is that Mr. Obama and his advisers know exactly what they are doing. They had to listen to both monologues or read the transcripts. They then had to pick the particular excerpts they used in order to create a commercial of distortions. Their hoped-for result is to inflame racial tensions. In doing this, Mr. Obama and his advisers have demonstrated a pernicious contempt for American society.

We’ve made much racial progress in this country. Any candidate who employs the tactics of the old segregationists is unworthy of the presidency.

To see the original post, click here to read it.



Pro-Illegal Immigration Republicans
June 17, 2008, 5:57 pm
Filed under: Illegal Immigration, Republicans | Tags: ,

It often amazes me that Republicans like George W. Bush and John McCain think they can possibly win the Hispanic vote by giving amnesty to illegal immigrants. Statistics show that 58% of Hispanics are either Democrats or lean that way. Only 20% lean Republican.

I’m sorry to say that an amnesty is not going to change this because that trend will not be any different with illegal immigrants that receive amnesty. — Actually, I think that almost all will lean Democrat. And if both of these highly probable conclusions are correct then the only thing pro-illegal Republicans will accomplish is a massive and sudden growth of natural Democrats. And if that happens that will damage the GOP probably far beyond repair.

The fact that giving amnesty wouldn’t help the Republican party is shown in an article in the City Journal written by Heather Mac Donald. She references what happened (or didn’t) in 1986 when Ronald Reagan legalized illegal immigrants,

The 1986 amnesty signed by President Reagan did not trigger a Latino surge into the Republican Party. And California’s Hispanics leaned as strongly Democratic before Prop. 187 as after it. Hispanic voting patterns in California have held steady since 1988—they vote approximately two-to-one for Democratic presidential candidates. California’s shift from red to blue would have happened with or without Prop. 187, as defense-industry whites left the state, replaced by liberal high-tech professionals, and as the Hispanic portion of the electorate tripled from 7 percent to 21 percent.

Also, even if the Republicans gave an amnesty to illegals, they would never get credit for it. Only someone who is highly delusional would think otherwise.

Also, many Republicans think that because Hispanics tend to be Socially Conservative that they can therefore win the Hispanic vote. But apparently these people don’t seem to understand the reasons why Hispanics tend to vote against their own moral values for the Democrats: It is because many of them are poor and the Democrats claim to be the party of the little guy.

When it comes to state propositions, Hispanics seem to vote for Socially Conservative Republican supported amendments, but that is all. That doesn’t translate into votes for Republicans. — As VDARE.com’s Steve Sailer put it: Hispanic Republicans are a media myth. The same also goes for Asian-Americans, so-called “natural Republicans” that vote 75% Democrat. The fact is minorities do in fact tend to vote Democrat, Period!

So Republicans are delusional in thinking they will gain the Hispanic vote by giving amnesty to illegals. You need to remember that illegal immigrants have come from places that are highly dependent on government services, and that is what the Democrats are for as well. And that is what natural Democrats will vote for. Do if the GOP gives an amnesty, it is only going to hurt itself and it will never get the credit for giving it out anyway. For all I know, even if John McCain were to get his way and legalize 13 million illegal immigrants the descendants of the legalized-illegals will have the impression that the Democrats (not the Republicans) were the ones responsible for their grandparents receiving citizenship. No matter what, the Republicans will still be seen as racists and xenophobes.



The Economic Contribution of Illegal Immigration
June 9, 2008, 8:15 am
Filed under: Illegal Immigration

The economic contribution of both legal and illegal immigration is a really debatable subject. Many advocate for mass immigration insist that “immigrants” are crucial to our economy. ( I placed the term immigrants in quotations because many of their advocates tend to lumb legal and illegal together.) Also, those who favor lesser (or no) immigation say that they are a economic drain.

To be honest, I never really believed that illegal immigration was all that critical to the economy. I never did and don’t now. But it would be intelectually dishonest of me not to do the research myself and just go on supposing my  own assumptions.

A study entitled ”Deporting the Undocumented“ released by the Center for American Progress makes the claim near its finnish that the cost of deporting illegals insists near the end of the study that deportation would cause a shock to the economy because of the instant loss of illegal labor. — That said, this study cites another study from the American Immigration Law Foundation (AILF) when it makes that statement.

But having read the other study for myself it cites ( See “Economics of Necessity“) I know that it only talks about the contributions of the “foreign-born” and not necessarily illegal immigrants themselves. At one point it does mention in passing that the Undocumented immigrants contribute, but it never gives any statistics as to how much. Also, it mentions the estimate that legal immigrants would contribute $407 billion to Social Security over fifty years after 2005. — It is true that low skilled legal immigrants do in fact contribute to Social Security, but a comprehensive study done by the Heritage Foundation shows that low skilled immigrants (60% legal and 40% illegal together on average) contribute, on average, $2,900. But the benefits they receive exceed the FICA taxes they pay. –The AILF report only mentions benefits of immigration while ignoring the costs.

Also, another study done by the Center for Immigration Studies (which only focuses on illegal immigrants) that Illegal Immigrants contribute $7 billion a year to Social Security, but take more than they contribute because of government services they use.  Based on this, it would be a huge mistake to say that illegal immigrants, or all low skilled immigrants, are a net gain because of Social Security contributions.

The impact of illegal immigrants on the economy isn’t what most people on either side of the debate imagine. — Many on my side insist that they are an all out economic drain, while the illegal apologists insist that the economy would fall if it weren’t for illegal labor.

You may not believe this, and at first I didn’t either, but the truth seems to be that the actual impact to the economy seems to actually be trivial.

One economic benefit because of low-paid illegal labor is that prices get driven down.  But what so many illegal apologists neglect to mention is the actual price impact of the products they produce. I’ve heard it said that if it weren’t for illegal labor then I would pay $10.00 for a piece of fruit. This is an exaggeration.

According to an article written by Business Reporter Drew DeSilver in the Seattle Times entitled “Low-paid Illegal work force has little impact on prices,”

If illegal workers disappeared from the apple harvest and wages for the remaining legal workers rose by 40 percent in response — and that entire wage increase were passed on to the consumer — that still would add less than 3 cents to the retail price of a pound of apples.

Less than 3 cents rise in price with a 40% pay raise for legal workers? Well, I’d say this would be more beneficial than keeping illegal workers. — Drew DeSilver also goes on to talk about the prices of avarage houses if illegal workers were to disappear,

If the supply of illegal workers were cut off, wages for those low-skilled jobs presumably would have to rise enough to attract legal workers into them. If, hypothetically, wage levels rose by a third, that would either add around $1,600 to the cost of the typical house or shave half a percentage point off the builder’s 12 percent average profit margin.

He later quotes someone who says, “If I’m buying just one home, there’s not that big an impact. But if I’m building a lot of homes and I can save a few thousand on each one…. “ I.e, the impact isn’t great. It just would become noticeable if you were to keep buying a lot of stuff. But this is far away from the great impact that supporters of illegal immigration are describing.

Also, Harvard Professor and economist George Borjas in his research paper found that increasing the labor force through immigration lowered wages on an average of 3.7%.  He found that, for high school drop outs, they were lowered by 7.4% because of immigration. He then concludes that if illegal immigrant workers were just as low-skilled as their legal counterparts, then illegals would be responsible for half of that particular loss. But if their skills were yet lower than the low-skilled legal immigrants, then they are responsible for even more of the wage loss of high school dropouts.

Another paper published in Region Focus in the summer of 2006 says that,

The overall gains to the economy from unauthorized migrants do not appear to be huge, nor do the losses. Perhaps the only thing that can be said with certainty about immigration’s economic impact is in identifying its main beneficiaries: They are the immigrants themselves. (Emphasis mine)

The main beneficiaries to the economic contribution of illegal immigrants are the same immigrants. So the more accurate conclussion is that they pay for themselves, not us. So we aren’t so dependent on their contribution so much.

Adam Davidson, business correspondent for National Public Radio, says that illegal immigrants have both positive and negative impacts on the economy. He also mentions that most economists believe that they give only a very small net benefit to American wealth (less than 1%). Then he says that the economic impact of illegal immigration is much smaller than other trends in the economy. (See Q&A Illegal Immigrants and the U.S. Economy)

Edwin S. Rubenstein, the president of the ESR Research Economic Consultants of Indianapolis on his blog on VDARE.com sarcastically says,

Everyone knows the economy needs illegal alien labor, except economists. They think its contribution is fairly trivial.

He also dismisses claims that illegals are critical as “bunk.” He then points out that the U.S. economy is extremely large, pumping in an average of $11 trillion a year, and that there are thousands of factors that influence economic growth. -Adam Davidson mentions some of these factors, such as the “increase of automation use in manufacturing, or the growth in global trade” saying that these two factors “have a much bigger impact on wages, prices and the health of the U.S. economy.”

Rubenstein adds that illegal immigrants make about 1% of the GDP, but that this doesn’t account lost wages, displaced native workers, substantial payments from U.S. taxpayers to illegals for education and welfare for anchor babies, and definitely not for emergency room care. He also admits that there may be a job shortage in certain areas if illegal labor were to disappear, but both he and Davidson say that employers can invest in technology to get these jobs done, if in fact, nobody wants to do them. Reubenstein says that people would fuss over a lack of illegal labor, but the worst the economy would go through would only be a hiccup, as he puts it. Also it would lead to higher wages .

(That employers can turn to technology to satisfy worker shortages in without is confirmed by an article in Business Week.)

Rubenstein’s awarding only 1% of the GDP is an overly generous amount. According to a report from the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) entitle “The Economic Logic of Illegal Immigration” the contribution of low skilled immigrants and illegal immigrants is smaller. Although I have my disagreements with certain things in the report it is still pretty useful and relevant.

It says that the immigration surplus seems to be very small at only 0.2% of the GDP of the year 2004. (The full GDP of 2002 was $10.47 trillion.) This means that all low-skilled immigrants in 2002 contributed $20.9 billion to the economy that year. Later, the U.S. GDP in 2004 was $11.71 trillion.  Therefore because that was the rate of the in 2004 all low skilled immigrants contributed $23.4 billion to the economy. (I’m supposing that the rate was the same two years earlier as well.) The Heritage Foundation estimates that these immigrants cost tax payers $89.1 billion. 

The CFR report then adds,

With unauthorized immigrants accounting for 5 percent of the U.S. labor force, U.S. residents would receive a surplus from illegal immigration of about 0.03 percent of GDP. Combining these two numbers, it appears that as of 2002 illegal immigration caused an annual income loss of 0.07 percent of U.S. GDP. Again, given the uncertainties surrounding this sort of calculation, one could not say with much confidence that this impact is statistically distinguishable from zero.

If this is true, then in 2002 this could mean that illegal immigrants contributed $3.14 million while inflicting a loss of $7.32 million. — Again, if the rate of contributions of illegal immigrants to the economy as well as what they take were consistent, they may have contributed $3.5 million to the economy while inflicting a cost of $8.19 million in 2004. And this is without taking into the Estimated Cost of Illegal Immigration on tax payers which is $45 Billion a year with the tax collections of illegals taken into account. — The obvious reason why the contributions of illegal immigrants seem so small in comparison to their legal low-skilled counterparts is that there are fewer illegals than legal.

Using the CFR report as a basis for the net contribution GDP of illegal immigrants even I was surprised at the small result in dollars. But it should be mentioned that the CFR report isn’t anti-immigration. It seems to advocate making immigration easier.

A reason why I do not buy into the arguments that without unrestricted immigration our economy wouldn’t be well off is because of a historical perspective.  History shows that in times of low immigration our economy has faired well.

I’m going to conclude this post by mentioning that even economist, Howard Baetjer, who in his paper endorses open immigration says,

It is incorrect to think that illegal immigration as such is beneficial to the economy. It is better than no immigration at all, but compared to free immigration, it is worse.

Don’t get me wrong. I actually think open immigration is fundamentally a good idea. My problem really is the Social Services that many poor low-skilled immigrants use. If we were to abolish them, both for immigrants as well as citizens and after that make the immigration process easier (in this order), I wouldn’t have the anti-illegal immigration perspective I do now. I’m the son of a legal immigrants which has also affected my perspective. — For that reason I am against amnesty for illegal immigrants because I see it as an insult to legal immigration. But on the condition that we get rid of the social services I wouldn’t fuss about illegal immigrants staying in the country.