Removing the Fourteenth Amendment

[Quin]

Soxbadger is writing some great posts/essays in this thread.

[Soxbadger]

I would have no problem having some sort of exception that they would not get equal SSI/Medicaid benefits.

 

But there would also be a provision that they can opt into the programs and began paying as soon as they are allowed. They would be given benefits at a rate that they earn them.

 

Becoming a citizen would not be hitting the lottery, it would come with equal responsibility as any other citizen of the US.

 

 

[Balta1701]

Let me put it this way. If you can tell me that turning 10,12, 15, or whatever million people who are here illegally won't get paid social security, or any other social service, after getting amnesty, without paying a lifetime into it, I will be for it . Until then, I will consider the cost savings a fact.

Does this not translate therefore to you thinking the best circumstance is the status quo?

[southsider2k5]

What does amnesty have to do with birthright citizenship? One is a concept and policy not put into place since Reagan, one is enshrined in the constitution Those are two different arguments, IIRC.

 

Its all a part of the big picture. Giving out birthright citizenship for nothing establishes "families". You have already seen Balta tipping the Dems strategy here by already talking about harming families. Are you really trying to tell me that the anchor babies won't be a part of giving amnesty to people? There is about zero chance of that being reality. It is all the same linear strategy.

[Rex Kickass]

Its all a part of the big picture. Giving out birthright citizenship for nothing establishes "families". You have already seen Balta tipping the Dems strategy here by already talking about harming families. Are you really trying to tell me that the anchor babies won't be a part of giving amnesty to people? There is about zero chance of that being reality. It is all the same linear strategy.

 

I get where you're going, but wouldn't it just be easier to oppose amnesty than it would be to change the constitution to eliminate a possible political strategy for amnesty?

 

I understand the frustration, but I'm having a hard time seeing an argument that makes sense in terms of why the constitution needs to be altered to define who can and can not be a US citizen.

 

Changing the constitution is hard for a reason, it shouldn't be done unless its necessary. I have a hard time seeing a convincing argument that a constitutional change is necessary.

[southsider2k5]

I get where you're going, but wouldn't it just be easier to oppose amnesty than it would be to change the constitution to eliminate a possible political strategy for amnesty?

 

I understand the frustration, but I'm having a hard time seeing an argument that makes sense in terms of why the constitution needs to be altered to define who can and can not be a US citizen.

 

Changing the constitution is hard for a reason, it shouldn't be done unless its necessary. I have a hard time seeing a convincing argument that a constitutional change is necessary.

 

It would be easier to oppose amnesty, and I do. It historically does not work.

[Balta1701]

It historically does not work.

Genuine curiosity...does this refer to anything other than the Reagan amnesty?

[NorthSideSox72]

It would be easier to oppose amnesty, and I do. It historically does not work.

Which leads the other side to state, correctly, that deporting 20 million people en masse is entirely impractical.

 

I think the best solution to this, really, is a combination of very tough enforcement on businesses, federally mandated rules on provision of identification used for any federal purpose, laws disallowing various services to illegal immigrants where practical, and finally, deportation to the extent reasonably possible. Do all those things, and you will make it such that many people will leave on their own, and few new ones will come in.

 

Its not a perfect solution, but its workable.

 

[Balta1701]

Which leads the other side to state, correctly, that deporting 20 million people en masse is entirely impractical.

 

I think the best solution to this, really, is a combination of very tough enforcement on businesses, federally mandated rules on provision of identification used for any federal purpose, laws disallowing various services to illegal immigrants where practical, and finally, deportation to the extent reasonably possible. Do all those things, and you will make it such that many people will leave on their own, and few new ones will come in.

 

Its not a perfect solution, but its workable.

Y'all ought to know my reply to that by now...it's to take 2k5's favorite argument, that it's expensive. We've conducted more workplace employer immigration audits since Obama took office than happened during W's entire presidency, we've dramatically increased expenditures on border security up to about $20 billion up from about $15 billion in 2008 and $13 billion in 2005, and we're on pace to catch and deport about 400k immigrants this year (including those caught in the process of trying to cross). Despite nearly doubling expenditures since 2005, the amount of deportations has only increased by about 33%.

 

Even if I assumed a linear cost per immigrant..to get rid of 15 million at that going rate is a price of $750 billion, assuming no further crossings happen (which of course is silly).

 

Increasing efforts on employers has happened. It doesn't make a big dent. Making the police go after every immigrant they can not only is dangerous for everyone, it's going to be just as expensive. Most of the things you argue in favor of are being done...with small associated increases in removals and cost increases that would outrage people if it was spent on health care or keeping teachers employed.

 

There is no workable solution until the demand for workers is satisfied.

[southsider2k5]

Y'all ought to know my reply to that by now...it's to take 2k5's favorite argument, that it's expensive. We've conducted more workplace employer immigration audits since Obama took office than happened during W's entire presidency, we've dramatically increased expenditures on border security up to about $20 billion up from about $15 billion in 2008 and $13 billion in 2005, and we're on pace to catch and deport about 400k immigrants this year (including those caught in the process of trying to cross). Despite nearly doubling expenditures since 2005, the amount of deportations has only increased by about 33%.

 

Even if I assumed a linear cost per immigrant..to get rid of 15 million at that going rate is a price of $750 billion, assuming no further crossings happen (which of course is silly).

 

Increasing efforts on employers has happened. It doesn't make a big dent. Making the police go after every immigrant they can not only is dangerous for everyone, it's going to be just as expensive. Most of the things you argue in favor of are being done...with small associated increases in removals and cost increases that would outrage people if it was spent on health care or keeping teachers employed.

 

There is no workable solution until the demand for workers is satisfied.

 

My argument is that it will cost WAY more to keep everyone here. Not to mention, if done correctly, it will cost way less than that. Go back to the methods that NSS was talking about that don't have high enforcement costs.

[Balta1701]

My argument is that it will cost WAY more to keep everyone here. Not to mention, if done correctly, it will cost way less than that. Go back to the methods that NSS was talking about that don't have high enforcement costs.

As I noted...they're already being done and the impact is very limited.

 

 

 

The current efforts are getting 2-3% per year. 2 to 3 %, depending on your total number. Increasing the spending by 33% has still left us in the 2 to 3% range. And of course, none of that takes into account the legitimate economic hit that you'd take by removing people who do spend money here and so forth.

 

Saying that there are low cost ways to remove them is absolute fantasy.

[NorthSideSox72]

As I noted...they're already being done and the impact is very limited.

 

 

 

The current efforts are getting 2-3% per year. 2 to 3 %, depending on your total number. Increasing the spending by 33% has still left us in the 2 to 3% range. And of course, none of that takes into account the legitimate economic hit that you'd take by removing people who do spend money here and so forth.

 

Saying that there are low cost ways to remove them is absolute fantasy.

Its not fantasy - you are saying that because up to now the small increases haven't had a huge effect, that means that all the methods I mentioned won't work. If you do all of them in concert, they will work, to an extent - and that is all I am saying. No one is suggesting that ANY method will fully fix the problem.

 

[Balta1701]

Its not fantasy - you are saying that because up to now the small increases haven't had a huge effect, that means that all the methods I mentioned won't work. If you do all of them in concert, they will work, to an extent - and that is all I am saying. No one is suggesting that ANY method will fully fix the problem.

And that extent...maybe 4-5% of them per year if we're really, really good...thereby doubling our current enforcement effectiveness...at a cost of what, say $30 billion, $40 billion a year? You say that we're somehow not doing those things in concert enough...but that's pretty much exactly what we are doing...heavy enforcement on the border, massive increases in workplace checks, increasing levels of ID checks for terrorism purposes, and still not a dent. And that still ignores the fact that the more you make immigrants suspicious of police...the worse of a crime problem you create.

 

I don't think you're taking into account here how far we truly have to go. $20 billion a year and the only reason why we're even coming close to keeping up with the amount trying to enter is that the economy here has gone in the toilet.

 

I'm starting to think I need to add "arresting immigrants" to "blowing things up" on my list of things where spending doesn't really count.

[southsider2k5]

As I noted...they're already being done and the impact is very limited.

 

 

 

The current efforts are getting 2-3% per year. 2 to 3 %, depending on your total number. Increasing the spending by 33% has still left us in the 2 to 3% range. And of course, none of that takes into account the legitimate economic hit that you'd take by removing people who do spend money here and so forth.

 

Saying that there are low cost ways to remove them is absolute fantasy.

 

No it isn't. If you increase the amount of fines to a large amount on companies that hire illegals, and clean up the process of determining if someone is a citizen, it eliminates the problem. If there aren't jobs for illegals, they won't come here. It is why we have already seen a large number of people head back home because of this recession. If you actually make it a determent to hire illegals, companies will stop doing it.

[Balta1701]

No it isn't. If you increase the amount of fines to a large amount on companies that hire illegals, and clean up the process of determining if someone is a citizen, it eliminates the problem. If there aren't jobs for illegals, they won't come here. It is why we have already seen a large number of people head back home because of this recession. If you actually make it a determent to hire illegals, companies will stop doing it.

And as i noted...the number of employer checks has increased by a factor of 4 since the new administration started, and it hasn't made a dent.

 

Saying that if there aren't jobs for them they won't come really is a slogan and nothing more...because you're flat out pretending that it's possible to get rid of the jobs. The level of enforcement that it would take to catch part time contract workers who jump from position to position or who work in sweatshops that the government knows nothing about is staggering.

[NorthSideSox72]

And that extent...maybe 4-5% of them per year if we're really, really good...thereby doubling our current enforcement effectiveness...at a cost of what, say $30 billion, $40 billion a year? You say that we're somehow not doing those things in concert enough...but that's pretty much exactly what we are doing...heavy enforcement on the border, massive increases in workplace checks, increasing levels of ID checks for terrorism purposes, and still not a dent. And that still ignores the fact that the more you make immigrants suspicious of police...the worse of a crime problem you create.

 

I don't think you're taking into account here how far we truly have to go. $20 billion a year and the only reason why we're even coming close to keeping up with the amount trying to enter is that the economy here has gone in the toilet.

 

I'm starting to think I need to add "arresting immigrants" to "blowing things up" on my list of things where spending doesn't really count.

You're just pulling numbers out of thin air now. No one, you or me, knows what % this will effect. And you completely ignore the broader point I was making - that you have to do ALL those different things, and the effect would go beyond the actual, direct enforcement.

 

Also, remember recently, I posted an article showing that the level of illegals in the country had recently peaked, and was actually headed DOWN now? The main reasons for that are simple - lack of jobs, and the fear of increased enforcement measures. Less money, more risk, so they are headed out on their own. Your direct enforcement data won't show that.

 

[southsider2k5]

You're just pulling numbers out of thin air now. No one, you or me, knows what % this will effect. And you completely ignore the broader point I was making - that you have to do ALL those different things, and the effect would go beyond the actual, direct enforcement.

 

Also, remember recently, I posted an article showing that the level of illegals in the country had recently peaked, and was actually headed DOWN now? The main reasons for that are simple - lack of jobs, and the fear of increased enforcement measures. Less money, more risk, so they are headed out on their own. Your direct enforcement data won't show that.

 

There you go. And it is also worth noting that it could also increase the wages in some of those jobs for American's to be able to do them, and still afford to live.

[Balta1701]

You're just pulling numbers out of thin air now. No one, you or me, knows what % this will effect. And you completely ignore the broader point I was making - that you have to do ALL those different things, and the effect would go beyond the actual, direct enforcement.

 

Also, remember recently, I posted an article showing that the level of illegals in the country had recently peaked, and was actually headed DOWN now? The main reasons for that are simple - lack of jobs, and the fear of increased enforcement measures. Less money, more risk, so they are headed out on their own. Your direct enforcement data won't show that.

Wait a second...why do you get to conflate that both increased enforcement and lack of jobs are part of it? Increased enforcement could be doing absolutely nothing and if there are fewer jobs available due to the collapse of the construction industry. And you're suggesting "doing all those things"...can I assume this does not include "keeping the economy in the toilet for the next decade"?

 

In response to your statement that I'm pulling numbers out of thin air...I think I can say the same thing about you. You're pulling out of thin air this notion that somehow there are cost effective things we're choosing not to do and that's why we're only getting 2%...but if we did those things in the way you want, suddenly they'd make a real difference. I think you're plain wrong, and I think that's as "out of the air" as any number I quoted, considering I can show the enforcement trends to back mine up. I'll give you the last word.

[NorthSideSox72]

Wait a second...why do you get to conflate that both increased enforcement and lack of jobs are part of it? Increased enforcement could be doing absolutely nothing and if there are fewer jobs available due to the collapse of the construction industry. And you're suggesting "doing all those things"...can I assume this does not include "keeping the economy in the toilet for the next decade"?

 

In response to your statement that I'm pulling numbers out of thin air...I think I can say the same thing about you. You're pulling out of thin air this notion that somehow there are cost effective things we're choosing not to do and that's why we're only getting 2%...but if we did those things in the way you want, suddenly they'd make a real difference. I think you're plain wrong, and I think that's as "out of the air" as any number I quoted, considering I can show the enforcement trends to back mine up. I'll give you the last word.

That's why I didn't use numbers - I have no idea how MUCH difference it would make, and I don't know how MUCH of the decrease in illegals is purely economy versus fear of enforcement action causing business or alien behavior to shift. I guarantee they are both there, I just have no way of knowing the balance. You were the one who pulled out %'s, out of thin air.

 

[Rex Kickass]

It would be easier to oppose amnesty, and I do. It historically does not work.

 

The last amnesty was 24 years ago. Literally a generation ago. Opposing blanket amnesty seems to have worked well in D.C.

 

Further, I don't understand how changing the definition of who can and can not become a citizen would make amnesty more difficult to take place.

[southsider2k5]

The last amnesty was 24 years ago. Literally a generation ago. Opposing blanket amnesty seems to have worked well in D.C.

 

Further, I don't understand how changing the definition of who can and can not become a citizen would make amnesty more difficult to take place.

 

Its the opposite really. Giving away more citizenships make amnesty easier to grant.

[Balta1701]

Its the opposite really. Giving away more citizenships make amnesty easier to grant.

Was there an answer to my question about whether you had any example of a "failed amnesty" other than the one under Reagan?

[southsider2k5]

Was there an answer to my question about whether you had any example of a "failed amnesty" other than the one under Reagan?

 

How many others do you need?

[Balta1701]

How many others do you need?

Well, I'm wondering if you can cite for me an example of amnesty happening at the same time as a major policy reform where the amnesty wound up being a major issue...such that if there were an amnesty tied up with the creation of a new job registration program the whole thing fell apart because of the amnesty.

 

But frankly, any more than 1 would be interesting, because with 1 I can come up with all sorts of caveats..."yeah but there were only x number at the time...yeah but we were only doing x with regards to enforcement at the time, etc.".

[southsider2k5]

Well, I'm wondering if you can cite for me an example of amnesty happening at the same time as a major policy reform where the amnesty wound up being a major issue...such that if there were an amnesty tied up with the creation of a new job registration program the whole thing fell apart because of the amnesty.

 

But frankly, any more than 1 would be interesting, because with 1 I can come up with all sorts of caveats..."yeah but there were only x number at the time...yeah but we were only doing x with regards to enforcement at the time, etc.".

 

So what major moves in enforcement are we talking about besides, "we can't send them all back." I have seen things like border security spending doesn't work, and we shouldn't have laws that enforce immigration rules so far, and I fail to see where those would actually help the problem. Besides common sense tells you that even if you create a program, if the incentive to come here illegally isn't solved, nothing is fixed. Even if you create a jobs program, but leave all of the mack-truck sized holes that you want to leave, there will still be an immigration problem, because it will still be cheaper to sneak into the country illegally, and employers won't face large enough fines to deter them from hiring them, instead of going through some bureaucratic governmental hiring nightmare.