Illegal immigration

[Paladin D]

I cannot describe in words my frusteration over this issue. Why... why... is the Catholic Church in Mexico (and the Mexican government), so upset over the United States' legislation that will bring about tighter security along the border? The Catholic Church in Mexico, and the Mexican government feel this will "setback" relations between the two countries. [url="http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=82022"]LINK[/url]

Why would the Mexican government, and the Catholic Church, encourage [b]ILLEGAL[/b] acts? If the Mexican government wants to have friendlier ties with the United States, [b]STOP PROMOTING ILLEGAL ACTIVITY THAT DAMAGES OUR ECONOMY![/b]

Am I the only one who sees the absurdity of this?


Promoting [b]LEGAL[/b] immigration doesn't make us anti-immigration, unfortunately, some people view this as such.

[Sojourner]

Illegal immigrants damage the economy?

[Sojourner]

[url="http://www.dallasfed.org/research/swe/2003/swe0306a.html"]Here's an article on this topic from the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas[/url] from 2003
Useful excerpts:
[quote][b]The pace of recent U.S. economic growth would have been impossible without immigration[/b]. Since 1990, immigrants have contributed to job growth in three main ways: They fill an increasing share of jobs overall, they take jobs in labor-scarce regions, and they fill the types of jobs native workers often shun. The foreign-born make up only 11.3 percent of the U.S. population and 14 percent of the labor force. But amazingly, the flow of foreign-born is so large that immigrants currently account for a larger share of labor force growth than natives.[/quote]
[quote]The number of jobs immigrants fill is important, but where these jobs are filled is also important. In the 1990s, there was large-scale geographic dispersion among recent immigrants. Whereas in earlier years most new immigrants from Latin America and Asia clustered in a few large cities—such as Los Angeles, New York and Chicago—the ’90s witnessed a spread to the western Midwest, New England, and the Mid- and South Atlantic regions. In some parts of the country, almost all labor force growth between 1996 and 2000 was due to immigration. As Chart 2 shows, in the western Midwest, New England and Mid-Atlantic regions, the foreign-born accounted for more than 90 percent of employment growth.[/quote]
[quote]When employment is not growing—largely the case since early 2001—immigration naturally slows. The foreign-born are both less apt to come and more likely to leave when the U.S. economy is doing poorly. Current Population Survey data indicate that while the immigrant population increased 6.1 percent between 2000 and 2001, it rose only 2 percent between 2001 and 2002. One indicator of illegal immigration—the number of migrants apprehended at the U.S.–Mexico border—also shows a drop at the beginning of 2001 (Chart 4). Because these immigrants are not delayed by visa processing, the changes in apprehensions move closely with the strength of the U.S. economy relative to Mexico’s. The drop in early 2001 coincides with the onset of the recession that March. The decline in apprehensions intensifies in midsummer and more so following the September 11 attacks. In October 2001, apprehensions hit a low of 44,619. The fact that they are nowhere near where they were in the late 1990s indicates how the volume of immigration has adjusted to the jobless recovery.[/quote]
[quote]The fact that it fluctuates with the business cycle is one way immigration facilitates the work of monetary policymakers. By providing workers when and where they are needed, immigration raises the speed limit of the economy by keeping wage and price pressures at bay. In 2000, at the height of the economic boom, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan attributed the U.S. economy’s remarkable growth record to two main factors: productivity growth and labor force growth. Both factors held down unit labor costs and allowed the economy to grow faster with less inflation, thereby reducing the need for the Fed to intervene by tightening interest rates to slow growth.

In the long run, immigrants also have a beneficial effect on the fiscal health of pay-as-you-go government programs, such as Social Security and Medicare. Because immigrants are younger than natives on average and have higher fertility rates, immigration decelerates the aging of the population. This slows the ongoing decline in the ratio of workers to retirees and helps maintain the solvency of these programs.[/quote]
[url="http://www.washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040825-031809-3159r.htm"]Here's another interesting article from the Washington Times, counting the costs of immigration.[/url]
Excerpts:
[quote]But while the politically sensitive debate continues, some analysts argue that the cost to care for illegal immigrants far outweighs the potential benefits they bring to the table. The Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington think-tank, for one argued Wednesday that unlawful aliens are draining the federal government's coffers.

According to the center's latest study on the cost of illegal immigration, families that are in the United States used $10.4 billion more in government services than they paid in taxes in 2002.

While the precise cost of illegal immigrants on the national economy is arguable, it is clear that under the current system, even those who are in the country unlawfully can and often do make use of federal programs such as food assistance, healthcare, and access to public education.

But while proponents of allowing illegal workers to be allowed to stay in the country argue that the U.S. economy would not function without such laborers, opponents say that such a move would actually prove to be a greater burden for taxpayers.[/quote]
[quote]Yet it is clear that both businesses and consumers benefit from illegal laborers, especially through those who will take on jobs at or under minimum wage. Moreover, the question of immigration is one where conservative businessmen and liberal activists can find common ground, as the former could benefit from cheaper workers, while the latter calls for a more humane approach to migration flows.

From a purely economic perspective, there is no doubt that consumers can benefit from illegal labor as products and services are often significantly cheaper in the United States than in Europe precisely because so much of the work is done by illegal workers, said Lindsay Lowell, director of policy studies at the Institute for the Study of International Migration at Georgetown University.

"But taxpayers are subsidizing employers" as those who take on low-paying jobs are forced to depend more on state welfare, Lowell said. As a result, while grocery bills and leisure outings might be cheaper in the United States, thanks to cheaper labor costs, the middle class in particular has to pay the price of depending so much on illegal laborers, Lowell said.

As a result, taxpayers have to pay the price of illegal immigrants sooner or later, Lowell added.

[i]"But we have a choice" on whether or not to benefit from cheaper costs in the near-term and pay more in taxes, or simply to bite the bullet and pay higher prices in the first place[/i], said Robert Rector, senior research fellow in domestic and economic policy studies at the Heritage Foundation.[/quote]

That's just from an economic perspective. I think it's also important to look at it from a moral standpoint. Who is my neighbor?

How can we, sitting in the most prosperous country in the world, deny those who want to share in that prosperity a chance to do so? How is that loving? Doesn't that make us greedy? We look at immigrants as being a drain on our economy -- and maybe they are at some level -- but in each person there is the potential to be a great entrepreneur or scientist or artist or something else. By closing our borders tighter, we're denying ourselves the opportunity to be part of that development.

[conservativecatholic]

Well put Paladin.

Illegal immigration is after all illegal, nothing more and nothing less. It is not a moral dilemma in which the United States must open its borders to the Mexican people. It is simply a violation of America's national law.

It is the fault of corrupt governments that there are over 11 million undocumented, non-taxpaying, illiterate Hispanics in this nation. The corruption of Mexican officials is unbelievable and their abuses of power will always prevent Mexico's economy from fully developing. As a result of this, hundreds of thousands flee Mexico to America only to drain money out of America’s economy and send it back to Mexico where their families reside. How on earth does this stimulate our economy? We must be realistic here and recognize the LONGTERM repercussions of this chaotic event in history.

Can it not be seen that Mexico does not respect our country's laws regarding this issue?

It is outright unfair for thousands of African, European, and Asian immigrants to go through a lengthy and intense process of becoming US citizens when millions of Mexicans enter this country free of charge.

Can it not be realized that illegal immigration is also a blatant threat to national security? If drugs are smuggled daily over the southern border, why can't missiles and terrorists?

It is also astounding to see the naive attitudes in regards to the detrimental economic effects of mass illegal immigration. It is remiss for people to expect the United States government to simply handout money to people who are not abiding by US law. Sure, it is no doubt that our economy has experienced great growth because of immigration, but one must think in terms of our economic future. When the children of millions of illegals in this country begin to grow and graduate from high school, white collar jobs are going to be sought, not blue collar jobs that your source was refering to Sojourner.

When the US government drastically increases taxes in order to fund illegal migrant economic assistance programs, I'm sure people will then rise up in fury.

For those who live in the North, East, or Midwest of the United States and are in opposition to controlling immigration, move down here to Texas where you will experience the situation first hand.

Edited December 22, 2005 by conservativecatholic