Focusing attention only on Mexican "invaders" turns the issue into one of race and nationality and obscures the moral wrong of theft. The crime is that government coercion is used to force some to take on the responsibility of providing for others.
One of the big arguments for tightening immigration barriers is the fear that immigrants will enlarge the welfare rolls. An example of this fear was recently demonstrated in California at a hearing of the House Government Reform Committee in San Diego. "San Diego may be the gateway to Mexico, but our taxpayers are the doormat," said County Board of Supervisors Chairman Bill Horn. "Every dollar spent on providing services to illegal immigrants or their children is a dollar that isn't used on taxpaying citizens."
The idea of people sneaking into the country in order to soak the American taxpayer provokes anger. To be fair, though, native-born Americans are already soaking the American taxpayer and ought to provoke a similar anger. In fact, illegal immigrants account for only a tiny minority of those currently on the welfare rolls.
Those who run the gauntlet of fences, guards, and environmental hardships to illegally enter the United States evince a measure of enterprise that would seem to make them unlikely to seek out welfare benefits. An illegal immigrant arriving in America is more apt to avoid contact with government authorities than to try to scam the system. The bureaucracy normally requires those applying for welfare to show a birth certificate, visa, or passport in order to sign up for food stamps or cash assistance. Illegals would need to steal or forge such documents if they are to game the system.
Rather than go to the trouble of trying to defraud the welfare system, illegal immigrants are more likely to proceed directly to vacant, entry-level, low-paying jobs. Working illegals are not a burden to the economy. They provide useful services and pay taxes to help support the government.
The concern that an influx of illegal aliens may lead to a potentially crushing welfare burden is not entirely unwarranted. There are political elements in the U.S. who view a rising welfare clientele as a key to electoral success. Inasmuch as reforms enacted during the 1990s significantly reduced existing welfare rolls, the power base of those favoring big government has been diminished. So, while the welfare system's current drain on our economy cannot fairly be blamed on illegal immigrants, unrestrained immigration could significantly worsen this drain.
It is the welfare system that has sucked generation after generation of American citizens into the trap of dependency. The availability of government subsidies lures people away from the effort of work. The opportunity to get compensation for drug- and alcohol-related disabilities lowers people's resistance to these vices. Payments made to unwed mothers undermine the incentive to take precautions against unplanned pregnancies.
These evils of the welfare system predate any problems we may perceive arising from illegal immigration. The pernicious effects of the welfare system would continue to take a toll even if our borders were perfectly impervious to illegal penetration.
In short, the problem isn't Mexicans. The problem is the welfare state. Once government takes on paternal responsibility for everyone it is an open invitation to freeloaders–both at home and abroad. The solution is not closing our borders. It is eliminating the practice of robbing taxpayers in order to provide benefits for a client underclass. This would remove the disincentives for work inherent in the system. It would also return money to the private sector, where it could sustain more business activity and investment–providing more jobs for natives and immigrants alike.
Whether these clients of the welfare state are Mexicans or native-born Americans, the process of robbing taxpayers to support them is wrong. Focusing attention only on Mexican "invaders" turns the issue into one of race and nationality and obscures the moral wrong of theft.
People traversing geography in search of a better life is how the American continent was populated. There is no moral foundation for policies that attempt to close the doors so we can preserve the good life for us. There is no real us vs. them. We are all human beings trying to survive and provide for our families. The crime is that government coercion is used to force some to take on the responsibility of providing for others.
Well said!
In 2oo2 alone the medicaid/medical system cost the taxpayers 213.5 Billion dollars. Nice huh?
Another fact I ran across was that for every 95 people the system serves, there is one case worker. This means the DHS is a huge employer, wouldn't it be grand if those employees were producing something other than a dependent class of citizens??
http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/aboutdhs/budget/0507budget/w-m_omaphandout_21encl.pdf
Well, I'll give the author credit for one thing: He used "illegal" as opposed to "undocumented".
Spoken like a true Libertarian. So blinded by ideology, that you can't see reality.
"Focusing attention only on Mexican "invaders" turns the issue into one of race and nationality…"
And why Mr. Semmens is race and nationality an illegitimate issue to discuss? Because the left-wing PC goon squad says so? The race and nationality of the immigrants is the primary issue. Soft headed neocons and libertarians (not paleolibertarians) fantasize that everyone can equally assimilate because this is a "proposition" nation and all you have to do is accept the proposition and you will be a good little American. On what basis do you assert that the race of the immigrant is unimportant? Because egalitarian dogma insists it must be so? Because the PC enforcement police won't allow the topic to be raised?
Of course no one believes that the race of the immigrants is unimportant, but no one will say otherwise. The reason that immigration is such a volatile issue is because people intuitively understand the consequences of importing a huge new underclass.
That race (and culture, and national origin, and religion) is unimportant is an idea that is less than 50 years old in its full PC, multicultural form, and it is entirely left-wing. Of course the roots of this counterintuitive idea are in the Enlightenment. American history is full of examples of people being concerned about the make-up of the new immigrants. So all those people were just ignorant fools and smarty pants libertarians and neocons have figured out otherwise in the last 50 years?
Right on Mr.Semmens!
The writer is foolish. The welfare state will not be diminished voluntarily; the last six years of Republican-dominated government has proved that. The welfare state will remain with us irrespective to the Mexican population that flows into this nation. More importantly, the immigration question is largely one of race and culture. The Mexicans and Central Americans who are coming into this country are racially Indian and culturally an Indian-Spanish mix that is radically different from the founding race and culture of the United States of America. If radical demographic changes in the USA continue, the nation will change with it and not in a direction favorable to conservatism.
Derek Leaberry ,
I think that you make some interesting points. I am distressed that the current republican leadership and the white house do not seem that concerned about the immigration problem. However, I do not believe that this is how it has to be. There is a division in the Republican party between paleo and neocons. If a neocon were to win the presidency I believe that we would see a stemming of this tide. I am not ready to give up at all. Look, I knew that Bush was going to be a weak republican when it came to these social issues. However, I held my nose in order to get him in and have him load the Supreme Court. That was the point and this is why republicans threw a fit with the Harriet Meyers situation. However, now that that is done it is time to have a war within the party. We need to throw our votes back to Reaganites who may not win now but will start to force the party to change. Once Republicans see that we will not vote for them just because they have an R right after their name things will change. If there is one thing Republicans do well it is to clean house and get in some of the greatest leaders in our history (Reagan and Gingrich).
Also, while you are right that the South and Central American deluge of immigrants does carry with it a cultural undertone that is not good for conservatism- that point is de facto not the principle reason they are coming. I do not believe that the average South and Central American immigrant is coming over with the intent to destroy U.S. infrastructure and or conservative ideology. They are coming because they can find better paying jobs and free social services here. Pregnant women who start having contractions are driven across the border to hospitals that will give them better care and free services. The welfare state is the primary reason they are coming and if that were removed and they could not get jobs or be allowed to drain social services to the brink then I think they would not be in such a rush to come over.
This article is just silly. Hispanics take 2 – 3 more from the economy than what they put in. When you think of "welfare," also think of social services, public education, etc. And this does n't even take into account that most Mexicans hate the USA, plan on retaking the Southwest, and are currently aiding many terrorists.
Regarding the environment / economy, and what Mexicans will do, see:
http://www.techniguy.com/Newsletters/archives/ImmigrationasanEnvironmentalIssue.htm
This is a must-see short video by Roy Beck from NumbersUSA.
“…Those who run the gauntlet of fences, guards, and environmental hardships to illegally enter the United States evince a measure of enterprise that would seem to make them unlikely to seek out welfare benefits…”
Well how about those plucky, enterprising illegal aliens who run that gauntlet to birth children granted citizenship under a woefully misinterpreted 14th amendment?
Is free health care considered a welfare benefit or is it otherwise defined?
How about bi lingual education programs, funded by taxpayers, for the children of those enterprising illegal aliens?
How about those enterprising illegals currently incarcerated at taxpayer expense?
”… The pernicious effects of the welfare system would continue to take a toll even if our borders were perfectly impervious to illegal penetration…”
If the borders were functional and actually prevented the million or so illegal aliens that currently enter our nation annually, the toll referred to would not be an ever-expanding one. And if the millions of illegals currently skulking around on our soil could somehow be induced to leave this fair land, the toll would be correspondingly diminished.
In short, the problem isn’t Mexicans, but illegal aliens from all over. It just so happens that more than half the illegals in our country are Mexicans, and more than half the remaining number are from Latin America.
Of course the issue is one of race and nationality. Hispanic racial solidarity is constantly employed to garner support for the predominantly Hispanic illegal alien population.
Did the author miss the March and Mayday demonstrations?
Of what use is blubbering about the evils of the welfare state while reminding us there are native born Americans already soaking the American taxpayer?
The article is ridiculous and totally misses the point .
The author must be a libertarian.
This article absolutely strikes at the heart of the problem. In my state, Pennsylvania, welfare accounts for 33% of the budget even at a time when unemployment is at >5%. There are reports that welfare workers go to the malls and find people who "look like" they could use some help.
I live in an area that is flooded with illegal immigrants. The system makes it simple to be a dependent on the state for healthcare. These are people who come from socialist countries and see America as the fulfillment of the broken promises that their corrupt governments never delivered on. While I know illegals who love the American dream there certainly are a large percent who believe it is governments responsibility to take care of them.
For example, I know an illegal who entered the country and within 1 week needed a cortizone shot for his previously hurt wrist. He went to the emergency room and was told there were programs for him and he need not pay. He was never asked if he could pay!
We have tolerated too much taxation in the name of social reform and yet we have soldier's at war without the best protective equipment. The job of the federal government is to defend, we the people can manage the rest.
John, thanks for listing that video (http://www.techniguy.com/Newsletters/archives/ImmigrationasanEnvironmentalIssue.htm). Excellent resource.
In America, illegal aliens are disproportionately responsible for the number of:
-children born out of wedlock
-HIV+ cases
-abortions
-welfare recipients
-illegally cast votes
-dollars spent printing documents in Spanish
-violent crimes committed.
In that light, Mr. Semmens' points have very little relevance. The welfare state is a problem, but even if illegal immigrants are only a tiny portion of that problem there are still plenty of other reasons to send them packing. Not to mention, we have (or had) a culture of our own here in America, and I'm fed up with having it watered downed by all the little unofficial provinces of Mexico scattered across our nation that think May 5th is more important than July 4th.
These last six commentators are exactly right. Yes, welfare in and of itself is a problem, but it is an altogether different issue from illegal immigration. There are several important reasons to oppose unrestricted immigration, and none of them is about keeping "the good life for ourselves". Maudlin gushing about how "enterprising" the aliens are, or about how they're human beings, too, and about how we would do the same thing if we lived in Mexico. . .all so logically useless.
There have always been limits on immigration in this country and in every other country. This new term I've heard thrown around out here in California –"immigration restrictionists" applies to every reasonable person, in every country, everywhere!
During the May demonstrations, my brother overheard two nurses talking, one Mexican, the other Fillipino. The Mexican woman said "Why aren't your people out there? This applies to you guys, too." And the Fillipino woman answered, with an appropriate facial expression, "My people do it right. I've been waiting eleven years to get my sister into this country."
If I knew who she was, I would kiss her.
My daughter and her college roomates were pressured to have an older sudanese woman live with them so that her baby could be a citizen. Fortunately my daughter was not cowtowed with appeals for compassion. After all, the future of her children depends on not allowing people in who are against our ideals of freedom and for systems like sharia law or communism. Back in the days when my single mom received welfare the amount was minimum subsistance, approximately one fourth of poverty level. Now poverty level definition has risen substantially and so has the relative welfare payments. It was not comfortable to be half starving in the late sixties. Now with all the food and housing and better medical coverage it is extremely difficult to get out of welfare coziness. Advanced education seems to be the ticket out
To the writer: a good, unbiased resource to consult on this subject is http://www.cis.org . Read both of their 2004 reports on the fiscal impacts of illegal immigration carefully. After all expenses paid and taxes collected are considered, illegal immigrants take 10 billion dollars more in federal handouts than they pay in taxes. That's not including state and local public assistance dollars (like school lunch programs, in-state tuition given to illegal aliens, food stamps) or welfare given to the legalized children of illegal aliens, that's just at the federal level. Illegal immigration and the welfare state are both problems of epidemic proportion. They both need to be dealt with. But you don't excuse a group of people flagrantly breaking the law by blaming the welfare state. There is not an either/or solution, it's a both/together solution that needs to be dealt with. (Note: This comment was edited for unacceptable language.)
Who is covering the cost of the court system, including attorneys defending against deportation of illegal aliens? Any calculated costs available? RSVP