Illegal aliens? You cad, I think you mean "undocumented"! ;-)

As a PHYSICIAN, I am ethically obligated to render appropriate care to anyone who preents to me as a patient. As ILLEGALS, they perceive no obligation to pay for my time, skill, effort, and liability.

As a PARENT, I have to send our children to an expensive & distant private school, because the local public school has been overrun (85%) by ill-disciplined Hispanic youth, many of whom haven't bothered to learn English.

As a HOMEOWNER, I was the victim of a major burglary this summer. MS-13 gang members on parole for other felony convictons were sent in by a subcontractor to drywall for one day; later, they returned and voilated our security. My firearms have been turning up in felonies up to 2000 miles away.

As a CITIZEN, last month I wept as two neighbor children (whose parents were on a tour of duty in the Middle East) were mowed down in a School Zone crosswalk by an un-documented, un-insured illegal. Of course, the illegal was licensed by NC-DMV, whose director (Wayne Hurder) asserted in an e-mail to regional chief examiners: "the fact that a person is in the US without the permission of the Department of Homeland Security (formerly INS) is irrelevant as far as North Carolina DMV is concerned."

Illegal immigration has rightfully become the #1 hot-button issue in this Red State. George Bush and the Republicans have been derelect in their duty to secure us within our borders. Maybe he's laying the groundwork for the candidacy of his nephew George P. Bush, whose mother Columba Garnica Gallo hails from Guanajuato.

I was flattered.. am flattered.. I feel like the teacher who said to albert "Got any bright ideas einstein" and look what happened

The economic argument is nothing new. In fact, it's very, very old. So old, that we've alreadye debated and settled it almost 150 years ago -- and the pro-cheap-labor side lost.

You might recall reading about it, It was called the Civil War.

Dude, this is an apples to oranges comparison and not a very strong one at that.

I don't get it. Conservatives seem to understand the benefits of free trade. They seem to understand how the laws of supply and demand apply to capital, goods, and services, yet they seem cognitively unable to apply supply and demand to labor. And Jay, that's exactly the task before you. To effectively rebut the "economic argument," you are going to have to show how labor is exempt from the laws of supply and demand. Good Luck.

The fact that the US may have more liberal laws than other countries does not mean that American immigration laws are "liberal." They are still based on a quota system that is predicated on a socialist/mercantilist fixed-pie view of economics that has long been discarded by modern economics.

It's as if some leftists of old, in an attempt to eliminate highway deaths, managed to successfully get the legal speed limit dropped to 15mph and now today all of the conservatives are screaming about all of the "speeders."

And Dr. Kerlin, with defenders of the welfare state like you, who needs Democrats?

:peter

Kevin K.: I second your comments regarding the Republicans and immigration. As a California resident (born and raised), I've seen the state deteriorate toward fourth world status - that is a former first world state that, due to immigration and economics, is split into a vast population of recent and illegal immigrants that are predominately of lower economic echelons, and who by their presence, are forcing cultural changes on the the other population segment lower, middle, and upper economic echelons of the natural and naturalized legal citizens of the state.

California will spend about $2B *just* in state/county/city jails (not including any federal costs) to house illegal immigrants that have committed felonies in the state. And that is just the tip of the iceberg.

Also, their crime of illegally entering our country is only the beginning. Bear in mind that not all of the illegals actually work and contribute to the economy, many leech off of tax payers (ala the aforementioned 'anchor babies') and obtain free services from the government at many levels. Our schools are suffering tremendously, and the teachers unions that control our state will allow nothing to be done about it because they perversely see it as some sort of job security. The fact is that if we actually controlled our borders and stopped 90% plus of illegal immigration, our schools would lose many students - and this would be a good thing to the vast majority of citizens. The same number of teachers could teach smaller classes and not have to deal with non-English speakers to the degree they do now. Transient students would decrease, and classrooms and entire schools would stabilize and the learning environments improve dramatically.

Billions of dollars of what illegals earn is actually sent back to Mexico as well and does not get fed back into the US economy. Mexico's second largest revenue source behind oil is money sent back fromm the US by Mexican citizens.

Businesses that choose to do the right thing and not hire illegals are penalized by the fact that their competitors who do hire illegals pay less than prevailing wages for labor giving them an unfair advantage over the business demonstrating integrity. Businesses that knowingly hire illegals should be very, very severely penalized. It has to hurt to hire illegals.

Also, I honestly resent the undue influence that illegal immigration is having on my American culture. Here in California, we are being 'hispanisized' at an increasing rate. The fact is that illegal immigration is driving this unwanted, unwarranted change in our culture. And that is wrong.

What is wrong with us? Why do we tolerate this usurpation of our sovereignity? Economics? We are a capitalist economy and the beauty of that is that if all illegals disappeared overnight, supply and demand would adjust and we'd continue on - far, far better off than we are now.

The German's have their guilt to drive their immigration policy, which is pretty damn liberal, and a sore point across their country. We have pride in our historical dependence upon immigration for our country's growth. Anyone see any other deadly sins involved here?

But we sometimes forget our county's original founders were colonists, not immigrants.

The illegal immigrants in our present country could be viewed as "colonists" of a different kind, and even might be considered a kind of threat to US citizens that our forebears presented to the original inhabitants of this land. Not by a takeover dependent upon force of violence (gang violence notwithstanding), but by a more insiduous and gradual erosion of culture and economics while the political base grows...

Ironic, huh?

Peter J: The illegal immigration problem in America is not an issue of labor economics primarily, it is an issue of national sovereignity. Unless you believe that free trade demands removal of all borders and unrestricted (and possibly government/business subsidized?) travel between nations, then the 'free trade' argument fails.

Free trade can function quite well without illegal immigration, and many - myself included - believe free trade would work far better and be of more benefit to the peoples of every nation without illegal immigration.

As a Californian who worked in the orchards and fields of the Central Valley as a teenager, right along side of legal and illegal hispanic immigrants, I fully believe we should have a very well controlled guest worker program. I have nothing against Mexicans and made many very good friends in my days of farm labor. But we must have absolute control of our borders, otherwise we have no borders, and without borders we will soon have no nation.

epador, good observation. It is precisely the cultural and related economic and governance changes that are being driven by illegal immigration that are a direct threat to the US as a nation of people living under the rule of law.

These changes are being driven illegally and violate our constitution, and our rights to self determination as Americans.

I think your observation of illegal immigrants as colonists is not unreasonable.

I wrote a lenghty response to Jay

Here is my take on birthright citizenship-

Our politicians therefore pay lip service to immigration reform or worse. Make it tougher on legal immigration or propose unconstitutional measures like ending birthright citizenship. This is a bad idea, the 14th ammendment grants citizenship to those born in the US. If we allow this ammendment to circumvented by law we are creating the danger of its misuse to punish certain groups who are out of political favor.

And don't give me the BS reason that those who wrote the 14th ammendment didn't mean birthright citizenship to go to illegals. They didn't want Indians, Chinese and other cultures allowed to be citizens either. You want to follow that example?

Plus the simple fact that some making this 14th ammendment argument are those same in uproar over Kelo. You want one part of the constitution read literally and another interperted. Who's being consistent here? I've read bloggers who think it should be applied even to legal immigrants.

Oh and by the way. How do you plan on enforcing this? A social security card isn't proof of citizenship. Passports to be shown? Birth certificates? How? Who will the burden of proof be on the parents or the state? John and Paula Smith don't have bc or passports, so you're going to make them pay the $400(or so. The ammount goes goes up on a regular basis) to get citizenship for their child? If you don't think this can be seriously screwed up, I consider you read this. This is a bureaucratic jungle you're going to create besides it being unconstitutional at the moment.

The only way to change birthright is by ammending the 14th ammendment.

Mr. Jackson: I agree with F15C. I think that immigration labor is essentially free of supply and demand simply because of the sloppy way the government handles it. In my mind if supply and demand truly was in effect then if there were no jobs to be had (lack of demand) aliens would have no interest in coming here in the first place (lack of supply). But Dr. Kerlin states why this does not happen and it is simply due to the additional perks our country offers independent of the job itself. The government's lack of enthusiasm for enforcing the existing immigration laws allows resourceful and perhaps even unemployed aliens to quietly ease themselves into our already overburdened entitlement programs (public education, healthcare, etc). We know our entitlement system is overburdened and yet our government seems perfectly willing to ignore the greater strain more illegals will place on it. There may be others but that reason alone is enough for them to come here whether or not jobs are available. So, I think it is more than reasonable to have more control over this situation.

The argument that we need immigration to counter declining birthrates is vapid nonsense. We have everything we need in this country to counter such declines: horny men, and horny women.

The problem is that horny men and women who are of reproductive age are, in this day and age, the most heavily taxed people on the planet. This makes getting by, especially with children who are always in need of mainenance, an expensive proposition. They pay all the taxes and get next to nothing from the government in return. So long as tax policy rewards non-producers, who are generally of non-reproductive age (or welfare cases), over producers, this will always be a problem.

We pay old people to sit at home and do nothing. I can't tell you how many able-bodied men and women I know who are retired. We pay lazy people to sit at home and breed. These are exactly the wrong kind of people you want to breed (I'm not saying you should stop them, just that you shouldn't encourage them by giving them OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY.)

F15C!

Peter J: The illegal immigration problem in America is not an issue of labor economics primarily, it is an issue of national sovereignity.

It's an issue of national sovereignty IN YOUR HEAD, or perhaps on paper somewhere. Here, in the ACTUAL PHYSICAL WORLD, it is an issue of economics, period. Just like a 15mph speed limit isn't consistent with the way that people use automobiles, our immigration system (if you can call it that) isn't consistent with the economic REALITY in North America. Thus just like no one would obey a 15mph speed limit, our immigration laws aren't being obeyed.

Unless you believe that free trade demands removal of all borders and unrestricted (and possibly government/business subsidized?) travel between nations, then the 'free trade' argument fails.

First, this is a strawman. Second...it's also wrong! Do you think that the US economy would benefit if we erected restricted borders at our state lines? If so, please explain how that would work. If not, please explain how the laws of supply and demand are different on the CA-Mexico border than they are at the CA-OR border.

Yours/
peter.

To further argue my point, what countries have the world's highest birthrates? The ones that don't have huge welfare states. People there see children as an asset, not a liability (which is PRECISELY how we see it in Western countries). Furthermore, the LOWEST birthrates are in those European nations with mammoth welfare states.

Besides that, it is the welfare state that makes immigration so attractive to immigrants (legal or illegal) and so costly to citizens.

"I don't get it. Conservatives seem to understand the benefits of free trade. They seem to understand how the laws of supply and demand apply to capital, goods, and services, yet they seem cognitively unable to apply supply and demand to labor. And Jay, that's exactly the task before you. To effectively rebut the "economic argument," you are going to have to show how labor is exempt from the laws of supply and demand. Good Luck." - Peter Jackson

Peter, your argument's weakness is that it doesn't consider non-economic costs. If your next door neighbor decided he wanted to use his land to have a trash incinerating plant that might be perfectly OK - except that he's dumping dirty air into your airspace, as well. No doubt if that happened you would sue.

By that same token, there are costs - huge costs - to illegal immigration that can't be expressed in economic terms. The need for new prisons, roads, schools, water supplies and the like. The extra 30 minutes you'll spend sitting in traffic to get to work (in California, home to 10 million immigrants, people spend LOTS of time stuck in traffic). The guy in the free market utopia you posit who employs these aliens doesn't have to compensate you for that. YOU pay those extra taxes, not him. YOU lose those hours of your life, not him. Furthermore, what about all the assets that are owned by the citizens in trust - national parks, school systems, transportation networks, the military - tens of trillions of dollars worth. We and our ancestors have paid for those, but the immigrant who comes here today gets ownership in them at no cost.

I have always thought of myself as a conservative Republican, but the tendency of today's Republican Party to elevate economic issues above all else is a characteristic of fascism, not conservatism.

Peter,

Even Milton Friedman understands that you can't have BOTH massive immigration and a welfare state. If the chief guru of free market economics understands that, so should you.

Like it or not, we DO have a welfare state. Even if we eliminated every characteristic of what most people consider to be a welfare state, WE WOULD STILL have a welfare state.

DavidD!

But Dr. Kerlin states why this does not happen and it is simply due to the additional perks our country offers independent of the job itself. The government's lack of enthusiasm for enforcing the existing immigration laws allows resourceful and perhaps even unemployed aliens to quietly ease themselves into our already overburdened entitlement programs (public education, healthcare, etc). We know our entitlement system is overburdened and yet our government seems perfectly willing to ignore the greater strain more illegals will place on it.

This sounds to me like an argument against the welfare state. I apologize, but I have very little patience when it comes to arguments like Dr. Kerlin's. It's like building a house out of manure and then getting indignant when the flies show up.

And is it really the government's "lack of enthusiasm" for enforcement that's at fault here? We're very enthusiastic about enforcing drug laws, but look: Drugs. Are. Everywhere. We can't even keep drugs out of our prisons.

If the government ever successfully eliminates the People's right to own guns, will the criminals still have guns due to a lack of government enthusiasm?

If Hillary gets elected and we wind up with HillaryCare, will the months-long waiting lists and perpetually explosive health care costs be due to a lack of government enthusiasm?

Rather, David, I humbly suggest to you that there may be certain things that government just can't do, especially in certain ways. You know, just like there are things that all of us can't do. This is the reason we're called conservatives you know: because we believe in conserving the social rules and institutions that are most effective, like the rule of law and free markets.

Yours/
peter.

Illegal aliens are not only cheaters and line-cutters, but they are felons.

Here's the law that exists now and has for a while now, just disregarded by so many.

It's the disregard that offends so many of us, particularly when the felons (illegal aliens) become so obstinate and angry about "their" "rights" despite their felony/ies and many even laugh about the very idea of laws, immigration requirements and particularly, citizenship.

About mentioning illegal aliens/felons, Jay Tea, I'm very glad that you and a few other of us bloggers have because without that, the issue would still be being laughed at and ignored by our legislatiors. Among voters, too, unfortunately, the very subject has been suppressed and criticised as to those of us mentioning the issues involved/related, so, persistence is beginning to have a reward. And more and more people are beginning to stop being intimidated about discussing the subject.

I've always found your ongoing mention of felons/illegal aliens to be a very good thing. And, I thank you for doing so.

I think it never hurts to express these points over and over again, either, and that is: illegal immigration and illegal aliens in our country are not immigrants. They are felons.

Legal immigration involves an application process and people who follow legal means to seek citizenship in our country, and/or to gain legal residency and/or work privilege here. You apply, you substantiate, you meet qualifications, you wait your turn and abide by the behaviors requested of you and which you swear to abide by.

Illegal aliens, felons, are engaging in criminal behavior and arrive in the country and then remain here by dishonest, illegal means. They need to go home because their behavior indicates bad character and should be among the very last ever bestowed with citizenship.

Lastly, no special rights for people from Mexico. The United States Constitution applies to the United States and if the people of Mexico want a similar form of government and document, then create those for themselves. The United States is not Mexico and just because some people have ancestors from Spain does not bestow them with privileges no one else has, no special rights and privileges just because you have DNA from ancestors from Spain.

Alan!

Even Milton Friedman understands that you can't have BOTH massive immigration and a welfare state. If the chief guru of free market economics understands that, so should you.

Dr. Friedman is absolutely correct. You sort of answer your own question here, don't you?

Like it or not, we DO have a welfare state. Even if we eliminated every characteristic of what most people consider to be a welfare state, WE WOULD STILL have a welfare state.

And like it or not, as long as we do have a welfare state, we will have the problem of others around the world seeking to take advantage of it, regardless of how far we go in Sovietizing our borders.

Yours/
peter.

Peter,

The difference is that I can hide enough cocaine in a teeny-tiny pouch to keep me happy for weeks. It's. A. Bit. Harder. To. Hide. A. Whole. Human. Body.

Especially if he's flipping hamburgers at McDonald's and she's cleaning rooms at the Marriott.

And besides, the inability to enforce all the laws all of the time ISN'T an argument against any laws at all.

Peter wrote- And like it or not, as long as we do have a welfare state, we will have the problem of others around the world seeking to take advantage of it, regardless of how far we go in Sovietizing our borders.

Sovietizing our borders? That would only be if we prevent or shot people trying to escape.

Thanks, Bill, for pointing out the foolishness -- and falsehoods implied -- in many of those Leftist terms.

Peter,

So what's your argument? That WE CAN'T secure our borders? Or that WE SHOULDN'T?

Because we've made no effort to even try. Isn't it odd that the folks who say that "we can't" oppose ANY effort to even try?

They don't want us to kick the kids of illegals out of schools. They want us to let illegal kids attend public colleges, and at in-state rates. They want us to give them driver's licenses and car registrations. They want us to let them open bank accounts and take out mortgages. They want us to treat them at hospitals w/o questioning why they're here. They want us to give their children born here automatic citizenship (which is NOT required by the 14th A.) They DON'T want to allow local law enforcement officers to enforce immigration laws. And on, and on, and on.

They claim that we can't, but then make damned sure that we actually can't.

-S-!

I think it never hurts to express these points over and over again, either, and that is: illegal immigration and illegal aliens in our country are not immigrants. They are felons.

And...So what?

Call them heretics and apostates. Call them anythiing you want. Exactly what does it change in the actual physical world? Exactly nothing, including the fact that the vast majority of illegal Mexican migrants aren't dangerous criminals, but rather poor, humble, hard-working people simply looking for honest work.

You did hit on the problem though, -S-:

It's the disregard that offends so many of us [snip]

You're offended. That's it. You have an idea in your head that you don't like. It has nothing to do with the actual physical world.

Yours/
peter.

I think that immigration labor is essentially free of supply and demand simply because of the sloppy way the government handles it.

The government can no more "free" something from the laws of supply and demand any more than it can "free" something from the law of gravity.

Government can either choose to accept economic truths and thus respect the free market, or it can pretend they don't exist and proceed to cause everyone a lot of trouble. But economic reality never changes.

Even Milton Friedman understands that you can't have BOTH massive immigration and a welfare state. If the chief guru of free market economics understands that, so should you.

This is mostly true. I agree with Mr. Jackson's strong defense of the free market. Labor is as much of a market factor as anything else, subject as much to the laws of supply and demand (i.e., the price system) as wheat, steel, cars, oil, etc. I'm as much a believer in the free market as anyone you will find.

The problem with open immigration (which I wholeheartedly support) is that it immediately reveals the fundamental flaws of the welfare state. Starting with the school system, picking up the roadway subsidies, and finishing off with housing and food subsidies, we have a system of welfare that will draw people here. If/when we socialize the medical industry, it will grow exponentially.

(But Alan, Milton Friedman is not the chief guru of free market economics. Think more in terms of Ludwig von Mises.)

Peter,

On second thought I think you're absolutely right about everything. Let the free market reign! Let as many people come here as want to come here! 50 million? 100 million? 500 million? 1 billion? Sure!

I don't mind at all anymore, and neither should you unless you're a leftist racist hompophobic nativist with your eyes too close.

So the story has been told that when President Jimmuh Carter was visiting the Premier of China, he told him that he should allow his people to leave. "Sure," responded the Premier, "how many do you want?" Jimmuh said nothing further.

Alan (on your side of these issues)..."they" are getting the message now that WE are being firm and consistent and expressive about these problems.

For instance, I read not too long ago that banks in Wisconsin stopped providing home loans to illegal aliens (felons) because it proved bad for business after so many of us legal people expressed outrage about that. Now for the other banks in our other states...

I heard LaRaza spokesperson just the other day on television, opining about why she likes illegal aliens being provided with in-state tuition rates, that, in her words, "it levels the playing field."

I was wondering just what the "field" she thinks is being levelled actually is. Illegal aliens are not citizens, they aren't even here with student VISAs, they're in the country by illegal means. They aren't even ON "the field," they have not even presented so much as a qualification that enables them to receive ANYthing from American taxpayers, much less healthcare, housing, food, an education and so much more.

LaRaza represents people from, mostly all, Mexico who presume to conclude that whatever is in the U.S. belongs to them. That what U.S. citizens and residents have and participate in should be theirs just because Americans possess, build and/or have access to "it."

How this sort of crazed sense of inordinate right to possess American goods and services and even residency by so many is criminal. Truly, it's a criminal perspective learned and instructed in a culture that does not seem to comprehend how to do for themselves, so, they set out to take from America, and then feel self righteous about it, if you consider the very organization of LaRaza.

If Mexico wants the benefits and privileges of the U.S. Constitution, why haven't they written one of their own and then prospered from that? Only Mexico can answer that question but so far, few from there seem to even care, much less ask why.

And don't give me the BS reason that those who wrote the 14th ammendment didn't mean birthright citizenship to go to illegals. They didn't want Indians, Chinese and other cultures allowed to be citizens either. You want to follow that example?

There never has been written a better example of a Straw Man argument. What a crock!

Also, you seem inherently desire to selectively follow the Amendment drafters' intent; to wit, the children born to foreign diplomats residing here are not granted birthright citizenship. They are, by law, citizens of the countries that their parents are "under the jurisdiction thereof." Congress carved out this distinction based on its authority to "to enforce, by appropriate legislation" granted in section V of the Amendment. Congress has the absolute right to do write the "Anchor Baby" loophole out of existence, and it should.

Phinn,

The problem with free market economics is that it has to be two way. Sure, maybe it's OK to throw open the borders to any and all comers, but where can I go in return? China? India? Zimbabwe? Very few nations would show reciprocity. I doubt China would let me become a "citizen" for what little that may be worth.

The other mistake is to reduce everything to simple economics. Economics is important, but it's not everything. Social ties matter more. That's why we DO have public education. That's why people DON'T steal from their neighbors. That's why so many brave young men and women DO bother to join the ranks of the military, or the police dept, or the fire dept.

The fact is that a leftist sees the values of these social obligations in terms of pure economics. "Take X dollars from person A and give it to person B."

I'm sure there is a nation somewhere that has abandoned any pretense of the value of social ties and community, where every transaction is economic in nature. I'm equally sure that very few people, yourself included, would want to bother to live there.

You have to go more deeply than "free marketeer" vs. socialist. Because staunch free marketeers and ardent socialists have more in common than they'd like to admit. Most importantly, they both see money at the root of everything.