Mexican Immigration Issue Way Over-Hyped

Legal or illegal - I don't care. You are welcome in my countryIt doesn’t take very long using the Internets to find reliable information that confirms that the whole illegal immigration scare/thing is a bunch of overblown, over-hyped propaganda perpetuated by republicans, bigots and generally lazy uninformed whiners.

Fact: The rate of undocumented migration has not increased in over two decades.

Neither is Mexico a demographic time bomb; its fertility rate is only slightly above replacement. Although a variety of trans-border population movements have increased, this is to be expected in a North American economy that is increasingly integrated under the terms of a mutually-ratified trade agreement. Undocumented migration stems from the unwillingness of the United States to include labor within the broader framework governing trade and investment. Rates of migration between Mexico and the United States are entirely normal for two countries so closely integrated economically.

Fact: Mexican immigrants do not migrate to take advantage of U.S. social services.

Their service usage rates are well below those of other immigrant groups and have fallen sharply since the mid-1990s. Undocumented migrants, in particular, are more likely to pay taxes than to use public services, and even those they do use—mainly education and medical care—are consumed at rates well below what one would expect given their socioeconomic characteristics.

cato.gifWhere did I get this information? It may surprise some to know that this comes from the CATO Institute; possibly the most conservative think tank in the world. The facts stated above are simply a few taken from some of the most thorough, scientific research done over the past 40 years.

  1. #1 by Caveat on June 18, 2007 - 6:58 pm

    Aren’t ‘they’ us? Perhaps it’s all these borders that are the problem.

  2. #2 by Cliff on June 18, 2007 - 8:20 pm

    Exactly Caveat,

    Borders are for people who are afraid becuz they feel inferior to the people on the other side.

  3. #3 by Lynette on June 18, 2007 - 8:28 pm

    Mr. Glenn’s silence is deafening.

  4. #4 by Larry Bergan on June 18, 2007 - 11:23 pm

    Republicans have always been good at creating groups of people who are OK to hate or look down on. They’ve been doing it forever.

  5. #5 by Caveat on June 19, 2007 - 5:37 am

    The presence of fences, down on an animal level, accentuates teritorial and aggressive behaviors, not diplomacy, sharing, and brotherhood. Twas ever thus, Republikan or no. Social evolution, however enlightened and transcendent just might not be able to get past hard, fast borders.

  6. #6 by Caveat on June 19, 2007 - 5:50 am

    Even Reagan knew this, hense. “Mr President, tear down this wall!”

  7. #7 by Anonymous on June 19, 2007 - 11:05 am

    Ah Lynette; I’m working today legally. This is on lunch. If democrats consider this an overblown issue, then they will have a considerable surprise come future elections. If they mean anything. Rates of migration? I guess people like cliff consider those people crossing illegally to be something akin to a wildebeest. They can’t help it! Ridiculous.
    Yes the admission there has been little change, it has been bad for 20 years. It is like saying there has no rate of change in how many soldiers have been killed in Iraq, if you average it out, there have been about same month to month. Congratulations! You have all now entered the realm of bushlike obfuscation. It won’t matter, the American people are so done with this. It is a basic rule of law issue at its core.
    It has nothing to do with mexicans, you could illegal irish on the Cape(cod) working restaurants. Just so happens that they are coming and cost us money. Without talking about social services, the lowering of wage scale is enough to make people want it stopped. What does cliff know? He basically outsourced his operations to china where, people are paid 30 cents an hour, and dissidents are killed and their organs harvested. He’s a real humanitarian I tell ya.
    Rally losers to yourselves, as for the rest of the country, they well know what they want and what they will support. No amount of name calling will change that.

    Anyone here addressed the rule of law issue? No, of course not.

  8. #8 by glenn on June 19, 2007 - 11:06 am

    BTW way, that above is me, I’m not on my own rig today and forget to name myself.

  9. #9 by glenn on June 19, 2007 - 11:18 am

    The drop in social services is obvious due to the fact that the STATES have passed legislation to bar illegal aliens anything but emergency medical care. DUH! They can’t qualify anymore at the state level. Talk about uninformed. Colorado is leading the way in sovling this problem, and I have full confidence that it will be rectified, despite what people here think.

    The reason is, you that don’t care or support illegal immigration are the clear minority on this issue, and no amount of saying it does not matter will stop the changes required from coming.

  10. #10 by glenn on June 19, 2007 - 11:19 am

    A furthurmore, this site needs me badly, it is a gladhanding backslapping good time, but it is pretty boring, so someone has to mix it up.

    You really don’t know cliff.

  11. #11 by lamonte on June 19, 2007 - 11:20 am

    “…CATO Institute; possibly the most conservative think tank in the world.” Hardly! CATO Institute disciples are libertarians, not conservatives – in many ways on many issues more liberal than many who call themselves liberal.

  12. #12 by Caveat on June 19, 2007 - 11:26 am

    Glenn! :)

  13. #13 by glenn on June 19, 2007 - 11:36 am

    Ya’ll ready to pay for this? I likely won’t be here for it, so tax and spenders can pay for it. On the immigration issue there really is no differnece between bush and liberal democrats. And you thought the war was expensive! Our money will be so worthless after this and the war (we are now at par with Canada) that if you were astute, you might spend all you have now, as have as worthless later. Where is the trillion going to come from, no loads form Utah? Nah, it’s going to just get PRINTED!

    Immigration Bill Hides $1 Trillion Time Bomb
    Dave Eberhart, NewsMax
    Monday, June 18, 2007

    WASHINGTON — The immigration bill being debated by the Senate would allow more than 2 million illegal workers who received Social Security numbers prior to 2004 to receive more than $966 billion in Social Security benefits by 2040, warns the Senior Citizens League, a 1.2 million-member nonpartisan seniors’ advocacy organization based in Alexandria, Va.

    Despite a provision in the bill that would prevent individuals who performed illegal work and then obtained a Social Security number after 2007 from receiving credit for Social Security taxes paid in previous years, the legislation, according to the League, does nothing to prevent aliens who illegally obtained “non-work” Social Security numbers prior to 2004 from claiming benefits.

    Between 1974 and 2003, the Social Security Administration issued more than seven million “non-work” Social Security numbers, which entitled some foreign nationals – some of whom were illegal aliens – to services such as Medicaid and food stamps, says Mary Johnson, Social Security and Medicare policy analyst for the League.

    According to the League, the majority of non-work Social Security numbers were issued during an era of less restrictive immigration policy; in some cases, aliens didn’t need proof of citizenship to receive a number. Despite their “non-work” status, the League maintains that millions performed unlawful work, and under the Senate legislation currently being considered, this group would be eligible for Social Security benefits.

    “The Senate is telling the American people that illegal aliens wouldn’t be able to collect Social Security benefits under this immigration deal, and that is flat wrong,” says Shannon Benton, executive director of TREA Senior Citizens League. “The truth is that illegal aliens would receive more than double in Social Security benefits what American taxpayers have spent so far on the war in Iraq.”

    According to the Social Security Administration, the Social Security Trust Fund will begin paying out more than it is taking in by 2017, and will be completely exhausted by 2041.

    NewsMax asked League spokesman Brad Phillips to get into the fine print.

    NewsMax: What is the exact language in the proposed immigration bill that is problematic?

    Phillips: The original Section 607 of the immigration bill would prevent individuals receiving a Social Security number after 2007 from receiving credit for Social Security taxes paid in previous years. But that doesn’t preclude those who received a Social Security number PRIOR to 2007 — including those who received these “non-work” Social Security numbers from 1974 through 2003, even if they were illegal workers — from collecting on their illegally performed work.

    NewsMax: We understand there is an amendment to 607 that may be operating here, right?

    Phillips: Yes, an amendment offered by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Tex., would re-write the provision to preclude Social Security credits for periods without work authorization, and reads: “Except as provided in paragraph (2), for purposes of subsections (a) and (b), no quarter of coverage shall be credited for any calendar year beginning on or after January 1, 2004, with respect to an individual who is not a natural-born United States citizen, unless the Commissioner of Social Security determines, on the basis of information provided to the Commissioner in accordance with an agreement entered into under subsection (d) or otherwise, that the individual was authorized to be employed in the United States during such quarter.”

    That’s still problematic, because as you can see, it doesn’t deal with any dates prior to 2004, which is the period which we are concerned with. The language would need to be amended to deal with either dates prior to 2004, or to deal with “non-work” Social Security numbers.

    NewsMax: What is the status of the Hutchison amendment?

    Phillips: The Hutchison amendment passed – but, unfortunately, in final form it covered only through 2004. It’s still useless for the “non-work” people, since the “non-work” period was 1974-2003.

    Perhaps an article in today’s Houston Chronicle best explains what happened: “Hutchison sought to deny Social Security credit for all time worked under illegal status. But her amendment, accepted by the Senate during the earlier floor debate, was pared to deny work credits only to illegal immigrants who obtained legitimate Social Security numbers after January 2004. Otherwise, the amendment could have required changes in the 2004 Social Security Protection Act, triggering the opposition of powerful senators.”

    NewsMax: What is the arithmetic of the $966 billion? How many potential claimants are plugged into the formula?

    Phillips: Between 1974 and 2003, the Social Security Administration issued more than seven million “non-work” Social Security numbers. According to Government Accountability Office testimony, the non-work cards are for people not eligible to work in the United States. The SSA sends recipients of these SSNs a card that bears the inscription NOT VAID FOR EMPLOYMENT.

    To be issued these cards, non-citizens who do not have DHS [Department of Homeland Security] permission to work must have been found eligible to receive a federally-funded benefit or are subject to a state or local law that requires them to have an SSN to get public benefits. Examples include SSI, Medicaid, and Food Stamps.

    The SS numbers continue to be issued but SSA has greatly reduced the number it issues. In 2005 the number was fewer than 15,000.

    NewsMax: Say, someone who worked illegally on a not valid for employment card files in the future for benefits. Why wouldn’t the feds be free to simply say ‘nice try’ but you weren’t eligible to work in such-in-such a period, go away?

    Phillips: That’s the trillion dollar question. It would require a change in the Social Security Protection Act of 2004. Based on Senator Hutchison’s comments, she faced stiff opposition from the other side when she tried to do so, so she had no other choice but to let it go. That’s just my speculation, though.

    At NewsMax’s request, the League’s Mary Johnson threw some more light on this nettlesome 2004 Social Security Protection Act.

    She explained that according to the Congressional Research Service, the 2004 Social Security Protection Act restricts payment of Social Security benefits to certain immigrants who file an application for benefits based on a Social Security number assigned on or after January 1, 2004.

    Specifically, a non-citizen who files an application for benefits based on an SSN assigned on or after January 1, 2004 is required to have work authorization at the time an SSN is assigned or at some later time, to gain insured status under Social Security.

    If an individual gains work authorization at some point, Johnson adds, all of his or her earnings would count toward insured status and in figuring the initial retirement benefit, even earnings while working illegally.

    “Moreover, the Congressional Research Service has opined that a non-citizen who files an application for benefits on an SSN assigned before January 1, 2004, is NOT subject to the work authorization requirement,” Johnson says.

    “Thus, all of the individual’s Social Security covered earnings would count toward insured status REGARDLESS of his or her work authorization status. In other words, those immigrants may qualify for Social Security without ever having legally worked,” Johnson concludes.

    Johnson further explains that her League lobbies for the law to be changed to better protect Social Security from the costs of illegal work. “We do not know the specific reasons why members of Congress would resist Hutchinson’s attempt to strengthen this aspect of law protecting Social Security and the benefits of their constituents.”

    © NewsMax 2007. All rights reserved.

  14. #14 by Caveat on June 19, 2007 - 11:42 am

    The think-tank at Brookhaven has assured us that the destruction of the entire planet and subsequently ‘Life as we know it’ is only a ‘worst case scenario’. Gee, thanks, I think.

  15. #15 by glenn on June 19, 2007 - 11:48 am

    Oklahoma just passed this. % States make social policy in America. You do not live in one of them. Those states are California, Florida, New York, Texas, and oddly to me, Colorado. A sixth, Washington also makes trendsetting legislation that makes its way into national policies.

    Read this.

    http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/05/oklahoma_no_longer_ok_for_ille.php

    The cutting off of State funding for illegal aliens, all but emergency care, and the implemenatation of a 25,000 dollar fine for each illegal alien employed by a business is making radical changes there with regard to tolerance of illegal immigration. The States are taking control, and it won’t be long before Utah republicans take control and pass their own.

  16. #16 by glenn on June 19, 2007 - 11:49 am

    That is 5 States make social legislation that makes it to he national level. Read and know, that what you want and what support, doesn’t mean squat to average Americans.

  17. #17 by glenn on June 19, 2007 - 11:50 am

    See Lynette, you just have give me a little time load and dry powder.

  18. #18 by glenn on June 19, 2007 - 11:58 am

    More fun with illegal alien smugglers that love the environment.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070619-121814-2527r.htm

  19. #19 by glenn on June 19, 2007 - 12:03 pm

    and here is a pleasant story of the mexican mob smuggling cocaine into Canada. Have fun kiddies!

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070619.wcocain0619/BNStory/National/home

  20. #20 by glenn on June 19, 2007 - 12:09 pm

    Here is a story of why it is imporatant to know who exactly it is that wants to live in your Country. All these articles in Canadian, and American news services with a couple days. Yeah sure nobody cares, it’s no big deal.

    This culture moves here, and with no expectation to assimilate, squats upon our own.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070619.wanimals19/BNStory/International/home

  21. #21 by Caveat on June 19, 2007 - 1:50 pm

    It’s just the drug mafia, laying down some bucks for infrastructure improvements. Come to think of it wasn’t our current president once a coke head? A lot of criminal types rollin’ in dough.

  22. #22 by Firmage Ed on June 19, 2007 - 9:55 pm

    Good God, man! We stole their country!! Viva!!!!Viva111111Ondulay ondulay!!!!!!Any hispanic can allways have refuge in my homes, anytime. No questions asked. I do need to plant a garden. If they can hoe and sprinkle veggies in our land, we can hold out against the federales for l000 years. Ed Firmage xoxoxo

  23. #23 by glenn on June 20, 2007 - 7:43 am

    Actually Ed they sold part of it(Gadsden purchase), and lost the rest through bumb ling incompetence. Considering the legacy of the Spanish in latin America, the more of it we kept and they lost would be a good thing from the perspective of history. Being conquered and colonized by Spaniards was about the worst thing that could happen to a an indigenous people. Well the Portugese were real bastards. For all the faults of the English and French, it was bad, but being run by the Spanish? Bad deal. Look at what were their colonies, a stellar collective legacy.

    Whatever your perspective, it isn’t their country now, and they stole from Indians and Anglos, took it from them. If illegal immigration is any indication, what comes around goes around, and the battle is on, and seemingly the laws will soon be enforced. No one is against legal immigration Ed, it is 2007, and the history you describe from another age. I expect you all to turn your current properties over to some deserving Ute.

    Can’t anyone have refuge in your home Ed if they need it? Are you prejudiced against those that appear to be on the wrong side of your version of history?

    Ed in Vermont my friends garden suffered a bad damp off spring which stunted his garden. He an I tilled it under and replanted on June 22. We had a bumper crop of everything. In Utah the summer conditions last longer, and you can even plants lettuce and such in august and get edible results. I planted mine in those large black tubs. Tub ‘o lettuce.

  24. #24 by Ken Bingham on June 20, 2007 - 12:15 pm

    Professor Firmage

    And the Mexican’s Spanish descendents stole the land from the Mayan’s and the Aztecs, and other native people who routinely stole land and made war with each other, so there are no innocent people here. There is a strong “Reconquenista” movement that seeks to create an Apartheid type country called Aztlan stretching from California to Texas, where those who do not belong to La Raza (the race) will be treated like second class citizens so or even kicked out. Also, for those that feel so strongly about not living in “occupied territory” then you better move back to Europe or where ever your ancestors came from. The only problem with that is there is not a single place on the planet that has not been conquered or “stolen” by one group or other so the only place left to go is the moon.

  25. #25 by glenn on June 21, 2007 - 8:27 am

    Ken; the Moon has been claimed, it belongs to the Reverend Sun Young Moon!

  26. #26 by glenn on June 21, 2007 - 8:46 am

    Let’s start thread, top post on this testy worthless subsidy.

    http://www.teambio.org/2007/06/bush-pledges-more-free-money-to-israel/

  27. #27 by Cliff Lyon on June 21, 2007 - 11:04 am

    Ken B,

    Fascinating theory. Perhaps you will regale us with some semblance of evidence for your claim that “There is a strong “Reconquenista” movement”?

    I mean, I know Rush Limbaugh and lots of other white folks like to talk about it, but surely such talk alone cannot constitute evidence of the truth of its existence in the minds of sober and learned men or any for that matter, free of a proclivity for whimsy, fantasy, fable and lore — or at least those in possession of the ability to distinguish between say fact and fiction and the respect for each in their proper place.

    Put another way, the blatant, screaming absence of such evidence following your promulgation of this conspiracy opens you to not unreasonable accusations of fear-mongering though exaggeration if not outright deception.

    …that, or your own weakness for fable.

  28. #28 by Caveat on June 21, 2007 - 11:49 am

  29. #29 by Caveat on June 21, 2007 - 11:52 am

    Scratch that Cliff, Try: http://www.mexica-movement.org

  30. #30 by glenn on June 21, 2007 - 5:54 pm

    What, are you still smokin’ crack Cliff? The motto of La Raza alone is enough to cause alarm.

    “for the race everything, for the rest, nothing”.

    The idea that there are people that want lands returned they believe to be theirs is a simple notion being carried out by Indians, all over Canada. In the US too. The Quilyutes just got a big chunk back up here in WA.

    Within your own ethnic group were there not elements that waited and waited, and then acted upon opportunity to establish their homeland, in which they would dominant and superior to those inhabitants at the chronological time? Gee Cliff, you really have to work on your openings, they determine the outcome of the game. This is on the order of mate in 4 moves.

  31. #31 by Cliff Lyon on June 22, 2007 - 1:44 pm

    Well Cavaet, if that site is the best we can do to support the premise that we should be concerned about this movement, I wouldn’t worry. A simple comparison of Alexa traffic rankings between mexica-movement.org (1,20883,127) and OneUtah (626,674) suggest OneUtah is 3 times bigger movement.

    Extrapolate that diff out to the target Utah vs North America, and you the only conclusion you can reach is that Rush Limbaugh should be ten thousand times more concerned about OneUtah’s efforts to impeach Bush and ameliorate sex education than the Mexica Movement.

    I think this bears out my point, that there is no real evidence of a major movement to kick white Europeans out of the US or at the very least, that such a threat does not rise to a level deserving discussion and most certainly not as an argument for why we should worry about illegal immigration.

    So I ask once again, WHY should we be concerned about illegal immigration. Someone show me some facts.

  32. #32 by Caveat on June 22, 2007 - 4:37 pm

    We do have them outnumbered but there are other natives who remember how, and how recently this ‘new’ world all came into being. Nor is it about being fearful, but for any of us sensitive to these kinds of things, it’s about remembering ‘justice’ as it applies to occupations, broken treaties etc.

    It’a not as though hundreds of generation of dwellers in these parts and thier remnants wouldn’t have insights about living on the planet! Aside from the blood soaked arrogance that our people brought to bear in colonizing America, there is nothing to say that the ones we displaced had nothing to offer. But, like the present administrations efforts to thwart all things ‘Democratic’ (including those things we got absolutely right), so too have we ignored practically all things Native. I would suggest to our peril. By peril I’m not concerned by the threat of insurrection, instead we’ll miss all the adaptive lifeways that a more nature centered community had going for it, and be left with our parking lots and rust driven technologies.

(will not be published)


%d bloggers like this: