Quote:
|
Originally Posted by boatin
I'll start by admitting that I have no facts and figures for my stance on what I'm about to say. I haven't seen any of either (facts or figures) so far on this thread. I apologize if I've missed them, but here's my take:
It costs the US taxpayer some amount of money to educate, give health care, and do a number of other kinds of support. That adds up to real money, I'm sure. On the other side, we get cheaper food, cheaper houses and a number of economic positive factors for the average taxpayer.
I'm NOT talking about what's right or wrong here, just what is.
My contention is that if we could wave a magic wand, and make the border impassable, and magically remove every illegal immigrant, the average taxpayer's life would get worse economically.
If one accepts the premise that there is more economic benefit than harm, it would behoove us (the taxpayers) to find a solution that takes advantage of that, helps solve some of the real problems in the system and puts us in a better place than we currently are.
I believe amnesty could be part of that solution. Another part would be to ensure that we're not abusing immigrants and making things fair for all. There's always a middle road...
Now, if you don't accept that premise, you'll have a different take of course. I would sure be interested in seeing someone attempt to show that the costs are higher than the benefits.
Part of why I believe the benefits outweight the costs, btw, is that I know the free market system works. If we didnt' get great benefits, this wouldn't have developed the way it has...
So there's more ramble from me. Here's hoping it makes sense outside of my head...
|
You've nailed both the issue and the problem, boatin. I (and presumably the majority of citizens) would advocate a change in existing law where it could be shown to improve our situation as a country to do so. Regrettably, it's easier said than done.
First, you need to prove that your cost-benefit analysis assumption is in fact correct. Then you need to propose a reform that would be acceptable to a majority of Americans, understanding the difficulty in changing the minds of the 75% who oppose illegal immigration, many to the point that somehow getting the 11 million plus illegals out of the U.S. is the only answer.
Personally, I would only consider the decriminalization of illegals, as opposed to full amnesty, and even then on a number of conditions. My partial list: all are subject to prosecution and punishment for violating U.S. laws; illegals must come in and register, to obtain decriminalization status, and remain illegal and without any protection until then; they would not receive the right to vote; there would be no path to citizenship, other than under current immigration laws; and they would pay a special tax to cover our regulation and enforcement costs.
The reps and dems are batting around proposed legislation, and luck to them. This is a divisive issue, and even if they can put politics aside and come up with a solution that a majority of us can accept, the result will be to polarize the minority opposing it.