By Bruce Robinson
WHEN THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY reported last fall that “border apprehension has dropped to its lowest level in nearly 40 years,” the Wall Street Journal summarily declared the problem of illegal immigration to be no more. (See “Illegal Immigration Collapse,” Sept. 25). That, of course, was part of a timid effort to convince presidential candidates Romney, Santorum and Gingrich to make their peace with La Raza.
But wait a minute! Wasn’t DHS the same federal agency that urged Attorney General Eric Holder to block Arizona from enforcing existing federal immigration laws? Is it possible DHS was in fact ordered to minimize the apprehension of illegal immigrants? Certainly, that policy would be consistent with the White House’s executive order circumventing Congress and implementing provisions of the Dream Act.
Perhaps more to the point, neither DHS nor the Census Bureau has an accurate record of how many illegal immigrants now live in the United States. These agencies probably stopped counting decades ago. The non-government Pew Hispanic Center reported that in 2005 there were between 11.5 and 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. According to a recent CBS News report, DHS claims 63 percent of all illegal immigrants here today arrived before 2000. So, if there are 12 million here today, that means only 4 million have been added since 2000.
Yet, according to the “Land of Less Opportunity” chart cited in the Wall Street Journal’s Sept. 25 column, an average of 1.4 million illegal immigrants have been “apprehended” every year since 2000. That would mean way more than 12 million illegal immigrants have been apprehended since 2000!
The math gets even fuzzier when we consider all the “anchor babies” born to illegal immigrants over the past 40 years. According to one reliable source, in 2008 alone there were 344,000 such children born here. One could therefore reasonably add another 3 million to whatever the total illegal immigration population may have been in 2000.
To establish some kind of reasonable and realistic baseline, let’s begin with the assumption that there are at least 15 million illegal immigrants living in the United States today. That’s 2.2 million more than the total number of currently unemployed U.S. citizens. So what are some of the taxpayer costs associated with services to this ghost population of 15 million people?
• All local, state and federal civil agency services, including public safety and transportation, legal representation, law enforcement and correctional facilities;
• All medical services covered under Medicaid, including emergency hospital, maternity, pediatric and pharmacological services;
• All food and nutrition services including use of government-issued food stamps, community-based food banks, and various public and private charities;
• All public education services, including K-12, community college, and now (under the Dream Act) four-year degree and academic scholarship programs;
• Various banking and credit agency services, including mortgages, car loans, credit and ATM card services;
• All sanctuary city benefits, including immunity from deportation even in the case of a felony conviction;
• Easy and wide-open path to full citizenship through the provisions of the Dream Act.
Any immigrant willing to break our laws and pillage our treasury to come here is also likely to bring ignorance, intolerance and violent crime to our “land of the free.” Any politician willing to open the floodgates to this global detritus will only dishonor “the home of the brave.”
Sharing is caring!
Excellent review of this very difficult situation. I would like to hear from some local folks on what their resolve to this issue would be. It might be eye opening.
i wonder where these immigrants get the idea that they are welcome here…it’s as if someone put up a sign stating “give me your poor, your tired, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”
Ignorant and intolerant? Look in the mirror.
“give me your poor, your tired, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”
Excellent point Hose-A!
We have always been a nation of immigrants and we always will be. Let me be the first to say that I for one welcome any immigrant willing to go through the process to legally come to this country, as did those many thousands who saw that sign just before they disembarked at Ellis Island.
The legal immigrants are the ones most hurt by those willing to bypass the law by thwarting the system.
Only those with a false agenda continue to equate the two as being equal.
I’m sure most would agree that illegal immigration is a problem. However, by the end of this column, I’d become distracted, and I’m left to wonder/worry whether “global detritus” is meant to be synonymous with, or used in the same nature as, “Untermensch”. As an aside, I’m familiar with Godwin’s law.
E-pro stated: As an aside, I’m familiar with Godwin’s law.
Yet you are more than willing to embarrass yourself by inferring that the desire to control who we allow into our country and there by controlling our costs in support of many of them is akin to Hitler’s National Socialist movement.
DDL – Perhaps you should read my comment more carefully before you let your emotions get the better of you. I made no comment about anyone’s “desire to control who we allow into our country”. My point was that using a term like “global detritus” to generally describe folks that come into the country illegally, is worrisome. Are all those people that cross our southern border illegally ne’er-do-wells? The majority of these folk come here from dire situations, and work hard to try to make better lives for themselves and their families. General I thought the article was OK until the apparent malevolence reared its ugly head. If you support the use of derogatory language to generalize a group of people, then perhaps it is you that should be embarrassed.
Actually, e-Pro, it is you that should be more careful in both reading Bruce’s column as well as my comment. My emotions were well in check when I took exception to your inferring that the wording used was possibly akin to “Untermensch”, had you read Bruce’s column more carefully you would have seen that he was referring to a very specific group of people; those “willing to break our laws and pillage our treasury to come here”.
I am not embarrassed in the least to consider willful criminals and those who take advantage of our country’s generosity in derogatory terms.
Ah yes, the old “I’m rubber and you’re glue”. The fact remains that you misinterpreted my comment, and I think you know that. Yes, I still believe the use of derogatory terms to describe a group of people can be considered bigotry. Whether you think I should be embarrassed by that is really here nor there. BTW – “willing to break our laws and pillage our treasury to come here”, does not make any sense. Don’t they first have to come here to break our laws and/or pillage our treasury?
You say, “My emotions were well in check when I took exception to your inferring that the wording used was possibly akin to “Untermensch”. For what its worth, taking an exception to something, and subsequently making reactionary comments; I would consider that to be a little emotionally charged. Again you don’t have to agree with me.
“Don’t they first have to come here to break our laws and/or pillage our treasury? “
You are parsing words (i.e. ignoring ‘willing’) and avoiding the real point: no one is willing to stand up and state that open borders are destroying the nation. Republicans do so out of fear of being labeled; be it ‘greedy’ or as ‘bigots’, Democrats do so because they seek to pander to their constituency.
The fact remains: we as a nation need to control who is allowed in.
As to your labeling this as bigotry, so be it, as you seem comfortable with false labels.
As for me, I will continue to support those immigrants who respect the law, while you seem to be willing to support those who do not
Are open borders destroying this nation? That just might be. Just add it to the list of many things that can be perceived as destroying this nation. I’m not talking about a strict partisan list here either. Again let me refer back to my opening statement: “I’m sure most would agree that illegal immigration is a problem.”. However, I fear that my statement might not have been concise enough. Ultimately, I don’t exactly see how second-guessing and the imposition of self-righteousness is accomplishing anything here.
It is clear that you have a stubborn resolve, and you plainly have had thoughts of how you would change things in this country. Alas, those thoughts will likely never come to fruition, as it seems that there is comfort in just emoting and bickering on an online forum. Talk is cheap. Perhaps you fear being labeled as a greedy-bigoted republican? By the way, had there been any previous inference to republicans vs. democrats in our exchange? It seems to be yet another product of second-guessing.
On the topic of false labels, I’ve seen elsewhere in the Herald where some folks (perhaps you) have called the President of the United States a socialist. Yet, little old me implies that some scantly-read columnist made a statement that harkens back to a theme that was prevalent in Nazi Germany. How dare I?! Should we be led to believe that that we, or any other country in the world, are immune to the folly of repeating history? There is more than one way to destroy a nation.
E-Pro, You have touched on a wide array of issues and subjects, your comments are in italics:
it is clear that you have a stubborn resolve anyone who holds firm beliefs can be termed stubborn. Funny, when I was a Democrat, I was also called stubborn, yet I recognized the failed policies of that party and switched, which is contrary to the idea of stubbornness.
Perhaps you fear being labeled as a greedy-bigoted republican? I cannot prevent the false labels of the small minded and find such labels to be something not to be feared, but something more along the lines of the typical attacks made by those who cannot otherwise support their opinions with facts. They tend to find comfort by diminishing those whom they have deemed to be their inferiors.
had there been any previous inference to republicans vs. democrats in our exchange? Not sure why this is even mentioned as I clearly placed blame on both parties. Solving the problems of this country will take political actions and there are no effective third parties.
false labels.. some folks (perhaps you) have called the President… a socialist. I myself have not directly called him that, I will say this though: His past, his mentors, his basic political philosophy of “fairness”, “share the wealth”, class warfare, “Community organization”, Acorn, political appointments (Van Jones and numerous others) all match a philosophy which is in alignment with the teachings of Marx. To try and deny that commonality is in alignment with Saul Alinsky. Progressives hate such labels when directed towards them, but do not hesitate to label others in the lowest terms: Bigot or Nazi.
“ that some scantly-read columnist” Again with the cheap shots? This time also reflecting on the Herald? Tsk, tsk
There is more than one way to destroy a nation. Indeed there is and the path to destroying this nation is being prepared right here in California.
Now, is this horse dead? Can we stop beating it and move on?
Let me just remind you that it was you who pulled the horse out of stable, saddled it up, and rode it out to the desert until it dropped dead. There is at least one happy vulture.
“Ah yes, the old “I’m rubber and you’re glue”.
Exactly!
Outstanding DDL.
It’s really too bad conservatives are against gay marriage because you two seem made for each other.
As well should you.
Directed at Mr. Livsay of course.
Mike I am a conservative and I am not against gay marriage. Just watch what you say about folks witthout knowing . Just another comment on subjects you know nothing about. As a conservative Mike that is an insult to me personally and the gay community. I support the gay community. Do you Mike? You should be ashamed of yourself for making such a nasty comment.
Oh! I stand corrected. So if you can get DDL on board there should be no obstacle for you two. Once Prop. 8 is done away with, that is.
The Livsay response reeks of phobia.
What phobia are you talking about. Another remark about someone that you know nothing about. Just what do you want to know about me Mike. Also include this goofy phobia freak.. Personal attacks take you two to lowest level possible. Just what is driving you two?
Why is it an attack to suggest love? Love is beautiful.
Mike if you and Phobia want to hammer my politics. Go to it. But you really have gone beyond just differences politically. I do not believe in censorship, but you two may want to take a good look at how you comment.
Right back at you pal!
Enviro you shown your emotions very well. Yes there are two sides. I do believe you are on the Democrat/Progressive/Liberal/Socialist side of the street. No one has a problem with that. It does appear that you have some fear of being identified as just what you are. Myself I am Rebuplican/Conservative. I have no problem with what I stand for. The borders are a problem as you also say. But there is no question they are being protected by the left side in a very strong way. This reminds me of how the mayor glorified the Coda car. 70% made in China 1996 model. At the same time the left goes haywire over Walmart and their products made in China. Coda locally is paying $ 9.60/12.60 for 25 workers and the left is all excited. Why you may ask do I bring this up? Simple, the left supports government support of illegal immigrants and at the same time pays below poverty level wages. Now tell me about that.
I must apologize. I’m unclear as to what this in response to.
That’s a stretch.
I( would suggest you mread your comments.
Same to you pal.