Odd title, this.

At what point do you stop blaming the illegals and start blaming the employers?

There are whole industries in the US (and Canada) that are wholly dependent on cheap, available migrant labour. California's strawberry industry is fuelled by it - workers with few rights, minimal pay, no support against injury, abuse or misuse...you are absolutely right in that to a degree nations choose their demographics but the prime culprit is ourselves - we employ the illegals (cheap nannies, gardeners, low-cost pickers, low cost day labor...the list goes on). Remove the wholesale use of cheap illegal labor as a viable, legal work expedient and you reduce the incentive to come to the job marketplace.

You can't just legislate it out of existance - the people aren't going to disappear and the illegals won't stop coming just because you've declared it so. In the end the single biggest factor that will stem the illegal tide will be the development of economic opportunities at home, rather then in the US.

... the prime culprit is ourselves - we employ the illegals (cheap nannies, gardeners, low-cost pickers, low cost day labor...the list goes on).

Who is "we," Kimosabe? I don't employ any illegals.

Remove the wholesale use of cheap illegal labor as a viable, legal work expedient and you reduce the incentive to come to the job marketplace.

It's already removed as a "legal work expedient"; it's illegal.

You can't just legislate it out of existance - the people aren't going to disappear and the illegals won't stop coming just because you've declared it so.

You can't just legislate murder or rape out of existence, either. You have to enforce the law. You have to constantly hunt down, arrest, prosecute and punish murderers and rapists and other criminals. It's already a felony for a previously deported illegal to be caught here illegally a second time; like the rest of our immigration laws, the law simply isn't enforced.

In the past, we didn't have a big illegal immigrant problem, because the authorities did their jobs. During the early 1950s, we had a million illegal immigrants in the Southwest. So the authorities rounded them up, and forcibly deported them back to Mexico. It was called Operation Wetback.

In the end the single biggest factor that will stem the illegal tide will be the development of economic opportunities at home, rather then in the US.

What is that supposed to mean? Are you saying that we should give billions of additional dollars to Mexico, or are you engaging in wishful thinking? Are you even aware that Mexico is one of the world's more prosperous nations? Didn't think so.

In any event, your post presupposes that America cannot control its borders, and that Mexicans and other illegals can flood us at will. But the border situation is due to the deliberate refusal of the federal government to do its duty, both in terms of border and interior enforcement.

"America will face a revolutionary mix of [1]ever-growing population pressure, [2]declining wages, [3]inflationary housing prices, [4]inequality, [5]interethnic strife, [6]budget deficits, and [7]political instability.

1. If half the world's population moved to America then she would still be less populus than England (where only 10% of land is inhabited).

2. Since cheap labour reduces costs there is no reason to suppose that real wages would fall. In fact increased specialisation would allow real wages to rise without creating as much inflation.

3. The main cost of housing is labour, not land. Cheaper immigrant labour would probably reduce house prices and modern technology allows us to live further from urban settlements.

4. a) Why is inequality a bad thing? It encourages economic activity. b) How does keeping the poor people in their own countries wih fewer opportunities reduce inequality?

5. I would understand (but not agree) if you said inter-cultural strife, but inter-ethnic strife? Isn't Michelle Malkin (the author of the book referenced) Chinese - does that create strife?

6. I'm not sure where you are coming from on this one. If it's a reference to welfare then why not remove the welfare benefits and see if people still come?

7. I assume that one is reliant on at least one of the above points being true.

...the werid thing is, as I was reading this, the Backyardigans were on in the background.

Interesting analogy

"America will face a revolutionary mix of [1]ever-growing population pressure, [2]declining wages, [3]inflationary housing prices, [4]inequality, [5]interethnic strife, [6]budget deficits, and [7]political instability.

1. If half the world's population moved to America then she would still be less populus than England (where only 10% of land is inhabited).

America already has four times as many people living here, legally and illegally, than England.

2. Since cheap labour reduces costs there is no reason to suppose that real wages would fall. In fact increased specialisation would allow real wages to rise without creating as much inflation.

When the supply of labor exceeds demand, wages fall. Econ 101.

Specialization doesn't become, because employers bring in H1-Bs (and holders of some other non-immigrant type work visas that escape me at present) and pay them half what they pay Aemrican technical workers.

3. The main cost of housing is labour, not land. Cheaper immigrant labour would probably reduce house prices and modern technology allows us to live further from urban settlements.

Land, not labor. And with immigration-induced population pressure, the cost of land, and thus housing, is exploding.

4. a) Why is inequality a bad thing? It encourages economic activity. b) How does keeping the poor people in their own countries wih fewer opportunities reduce inequality?

a) Up to a point, it's not bad, if it's not based on corruption and crime. After that point, voters demand and get egalitarian legislation. Or they revolt. b) See 2.

5. I would understand (but not agree) if you said inter-cultural strife, but inter-ethnic strife? Isn't Michelle Malkin (the author of the book referenced) Chinese - does that create strife?

Interethnic strife means that people from different groups based on race or national descent
would kill members of other groups based on race or national descent. What is unclear about that? And what does Michelle Malkin (who is an American of Phillipine descent) have to do with it?

6. I'm not sure where you are coming from on this one. If it's a reference to welfare then why not remove the welfare benefits and see if people still come?

It was tried in California, but rogue judges restored illegals' access to health and welfare programs.

7. I assume that one is reliant on at least one of the above points being true.

It's the other way around; one causes the others.

Chantal Stone: ...the werid thing is, as I was reading this, the Backyardigans were on in the background.

Interesting analogy

You get Backyardigans in the morning?! On what channel? We only get them at 4:30 p.m., and when they showed "The Secret of the Nile" again the other day, I missed it. Drat!

It comes on at 10:30 on Nickelodeon---part of the Nick Jr. line-up.

big fans, in my house

Think about this, gents. When I was going on target pracice a while ago, I got to talking to an unemployed chef. He told me of his dicussions with a caterer. It seems that the chef wanted NIS 5,000 for monthly wages - about $1,125 a month, and a reasonable amount to pay for a professional chef. The caterer blew up at him. "NIS 5,000 a month?" he screamed. "I could get three Arabs for that kind of money!" So, the caterer hired the three Arabs.

That's the effect of cheap labor. It kills an economy and creates a huge poor class exploited by a small upper class. That is what we have here in Israel these days. There is no such thing as "trickle down" when it comes to dignity or honor. When you are desperate for money, you do anything. There is no honor, there is no dignity; there is only desperation. The rich profit; the poor suffer.

Just something to think on, gents...

As someone who actually knows something about hiring servants, it's not that difficult to make sure your servants are legal if you're genuinely rich. You can easily get a work visa for servants from outside of the US and bring them in at fairly low wages - since you provide room and board - and be entirely legal about it. My grandparents brought all their servants over as teenagers from Ireland. In some cases they eventually got naturalized, others went home to Ireland and some stayed here for a very long time on work visas.

Today it's just as easy to bring over legal servants from other parts of the world, especially the poorer parts of Eastern Europe. It's easy to get work visas for workers from that part of the world, and easy to find competent, reliable and educated workers there who are eager to come to America. Paying taxes on their salary isn't that big a deal - there's a nice little form for it that comes with your 1040 - and the wages are likely at least partially tax deductible. Plus since you're providing room and board for them the actual salary you pay them is probably quite low - a couple of hundred dollars a week, on which the taxes are pretty minuscule. Plus, if you're rich enough to have servants, you're rich enough to have an accountant to do the taxes.

Dave

WORST egotistical, yet highly, DEEPLY insecure Opening Line of the Day:

NALLE: "As someone who actually knows something about hiring servants, it's not that difficult to make sure your servants are legal if you're genuinely rich."

In the race to display a disturbing need for self-validation via a friggin' internet discussion thread, you're running a close second to Al "I was the first to cuss the Dixie Chicks!" Barger.

Congrats!

Who is "we," Kimosabe? I don't employ any illegals.

Did you have any strawberry jam on your toast this morning? It's there courtesy of illegal pickers. Strawberries are one of the single most profitable agricultural products per acre (other than marijuana) in the US but only because the picking industry is dependent on low-wage illegals as pickers.

You may not directly employ any illegals but you indirectly benefit from the (ahem) fruits of their labors.

It's already removed as a "legal work expedient"; it's illegal.

No shit, Sherlock - that's the point. The legislation needs to be enforced and employers need to be on the hook for ensuring that they are only employing legal workers, otherwise you're just creating a revolving door of illegal wage slaves and an ongoing problem (i.e. the current system). Right now there are whole industries that use of illegal labor dominates...who do you think is rebuilding most of New Orleans right now? it ain't legal labor - but are the laws being rigorously enforced - NO.

Are you saying that we should give billions of additional dollars to Mexico, or are you engaging in wishful thinking? Are you even aware that Mexico is one of the world's more prosperous nations? Didn't think so.

No, I am saying exactly what I said - namely that populations are mobile, particularly in this day and age - and they will move to where they can build opportunities and lives. You can build a bigger fence, arm more guards, legislate all day long but as long as employers in the US (or anywhere else for that matter) are willing to hire illegals to do the jobs at a cheaper price, people will find a way in.

If and when economic opportunities improve in the locales that supply cheap labor, the supply from that region will diminish as their local opportunities rise. That doesn't mean the supply of cheap labor stops, just that it relocates - maybe they are coming in via ship from China, or West Africa etc.

And yes, I am aware of Mexico's state of "prosperity"...I also didn't specify Mexico in my post, genius, so read a little more carefully next time.

your post presupposes that America cannot control its borders, and that Mexicans and other illegals can flood us at will.

No, it doesn't, that's you spinning my comments for your own purposes. You can control your border at will - you can line up your army on the border and watch every foot like a hawk all day long and I couldn't give a rat's ass. The point is that there is a economic tipping point whereby the supposed gains you want to achieve by locking down your border don't equate with the costs of enforcement.

So you can lock your border down and check every ship entering the harbor, but at what point does it become farcical and end up costing you more resources then the illegals did in the first place?

There are lots of illegals who are paying taxes and not filing returns. Why do you think so many of them have bogus Social Security cards? This means that there's money being paid into Social Security that will never benefit the people who are contributing it.

And there are of perfectly legal Americans who are paid in cash, under the table.
That's illegal, you know. So is not paying state use/sales tax on out-of-state purchases (such as via the Internet), but I'll bet that none of the people doing all of the "But it's illegal!" bleating would never not pay their own taxes, would they?

S. Jones: I would definetely agree with number 13 and also with number 11. It is so easy for this man to blaim the immigrants for everything that goes wrong. Maybe we should declare war on Mexico next? Is that what you want?

Since Mexico is already at war with us, that is what I want.

How stupid are you guys if you can not see that Asia is buying our country step by step. Illegal immigrants are not buying property.

Of course, they are, with illegal mortgages subsidized by American citizens.

Would it be humanly possible for you to know less about the subject on which you opined?

But Japan will own most of the US very soon and then your hateful blogs won't help you either when you are sitting on the street and have not pc to write more BS.

Are you saying, the Japanese are going to come into my home and seize my pc? What the hell are you saying?

BTW, last I heard, the Chinese were lending us more money than the Japanese.

How is making true statements "hateful"?

Don't bother trying to answer -- your head will explode!

This discussion illustrates what I call the "Miyagi Principle of Law Enforcement". The name comes from the first Karate Kid movie, in which Mr. Miyagi tells his young pupil: "Karate do yes, okay. Karate do no, okay. But karate do maybe, clshk! Squish like bug!"

We have nearly 20 years of "immigration enforcement maybe" to undo. With either choice, we have a hefty penalty. Amnesty or deportation will cost us plenty; continued disregard of legal penalties for breaking the law is expensive as well, and builds contempt for the law generally in both US citizenry and foreign nationals.

We must choose: either enforce the law, or eliminate the law. Because what we have now is leading inevitably to Miyagi's prediction: "Clshk! Squish like bug!"

Chantal Stone: It comes on at 10:30 on Nickelodeon---part of the Nick Jr. line-up.

big fans, in my house

Mine, too. I looked up Nick on our Time-Warner remote, and it's on Channel 6. Fortunately, it was only "Sherman the Worman" today, so it was no big loss.

Jim Wynne points out: There are lots of illegals who are paying taxes and not filing returns. Why do you think so many of them have bogus Social Security cards? This means that there's money being paid into Social Security that will never benefit the people who are contributing it.

How do the SS card forgers know what numbers to use, i.e which ones haven't yet been assigned? Hell, maybe YOUR number has been used, and you will be credited with the benefit!

Isn't the SS Administration smart enough to suspect that something is wrong when the same social security number is being used simultaneously in San Diego and Boston?

Jim Wynne: There are lots of illegals who are paying taxes and not filing returns. Why do you think so many of them have bogus Social Security cards? This means that there's money being paid into Social Security that will never benefit the people who are contributing it.

So what? That some of those engaged in criminal enterprises are paying money to social security, in spite of themselves, is legally and morally irrelevant. No one forced them to commit the crimes of entering the country illegally, working illegally, and identity theft.

The issue you raised by implication ('Hey, we owe thse guys') only becomes one if you first deny that the individuals in question are committing crimes, and paying the money as part of a criminal activity.

And your suggestion that the illegals are somehow getting cheated is not only dishonest, but despicable. We owe these guys nothing.

Similarly, when Pete Rose was arrested for tax evasion, because of undeclared income from gambling winnings, he wasn't able to get off by pointing out that he had lost much more than he had won, and thus had not profited one dime off gambling, even though that was true. The IRS didn't owe Pete money. And so, off to the hoosegow, he went.

But Pete Rose is an American, so I guess that wouldn't cut any ice with you.

And there are of perfectly legal Americans who are paid in cash, under the table.

That's illegal, you know.

Duh! And your point is?

So is not paying state use/sales tax on out-of-state purchases (such as via the Internet), but I'll bet that none of the people doing all of the "But it's illegal!" bleating would never not pay their own taxes, would they?

I can only respond to your triple negative with a double duh!, so I guess your extra negative makes you the king of nihilistic, upside-down ethics.

(But I don't think your claim about Internet purchases is even true. I think you'd better come up with some law on that, to back up your claim.)

Guess what? The fact that Americans may not be saints does not justify foreigners running roughshod over our legal system. Only someone who has chosen loyalty to foreigners and disloyalty towards his own countrymen could delude himself that such pitifully fallacious arguments have any validity.

DrPat: This discussion illustrates what I call the "Miyagi Principle of Law Enforcement". The name comes from the first Karate Kid movie, in which Mr. Miyagi tells his young pupil: "Karate do yes, okay. Karate do no, okay. But karate do maybe, clshk! Squish like bug!"

We have nearly 20 years of "immigration enforcement maybe" to undo. With either choice, we have a hefty penalty. Amnesty or deportation will cost us plenty; continued disregard of legal penalties for breaking the law is expensive as well, and builds contempt for the law generally in both US citizenry and foreign nationals.

We must choose: either enforce the law, or eliminate the law. Because what we have now is leading inevitably to Miyagi's prediction: "Clshk! Squish like bug!"

"Miyagi Principle of Law Enforcement"? Excellent concept.

Dave: "As someone who actually knows something about hiring servants, ..."

I refuse to be imprisoned by servants. Most of the Masters I have seen live in fear of their servants. Refrigerators and washing macines were invented to set us free of domination by the people we would depend on.

My father-in-law had servants, and even in his last days lived in fear that 'Louisa' would leave him. Fortunately, his influence in Paris got him admitted to "The American Hospital", as it is called, where he had a splendid bungalow and could properly entertain his girlfriends, who were many by the time he reached 85. Thus, he was freed of the oppression of servants, instead having the care of Paid Medical Professionals (paid by somebody else, of course).

My mother-in-law was constantly haunted by the notion that the servants were cheating at the grocers. Sometimes she made forays into the markets to buy Large Pieces Of Meat, which she had no idea of how to cook since she had never in her 80 years spent an hour in a kitchen (she DID know that the kitchen in her house was downstairs someplace).

They were constantly burdened by the necessity to take servants with when they traveled. Even on their various assignations and escapades.

One need only consider the plight of Gully Jimsons patron in "The Horses Mouth" (a fine novel by Joyce Cary, and an excellent movie with Alec Guiness) who, upon receiving another crank call from Jimson says "I don't care if you kill me, I'm an old man, but please stop calling and upsetting the servants: they threaten to leave and are difficult to replace". Jimson is properly chagrined, and, of course, the patrons butler gives notice, thus throwing him into despair.

No, altogether the prospect of servants and other cheap labor is greatly overrated.

I'm so glad shark is worrying about my need for self-validation. Of course, if I actually had the mental problems he ascribes to me I'd be buying indentured from the Philippines, not talking about the practice of hiring servants as an observer.

Sounds like Bliffle's experiences are similar to mine. A generation or two ago servants were pretty common in upper class or even middle class households, though that need has now been filled by technology. And yes, I'd rather have my appliances than a handful of servants like my grandparents. It is nice to have a maid service come in once a week, though.

But the point is that it's still possible to get servants into the US on legal visas and it's not as expensive as you might assume. The servant market really isn't the issue here.

Dave

Stix earlier: Who is "we," Kimosabe? I don't employ any illegals.

Deano: Did you have any strawberry jam on your toast this morning? It's there courtesy of illegal pickers. Strawberries are one of the single most profitable agricultural products per acre (other than marijuana) in the US but only because the picking industry is dependent on low-wage illegals as pickers.

You may not directly employ any illegals but you indirectly benefit from the (ahem) fruits of their labors.

No, I don't. I am personally in the hole for thousands of dollars, paying for the education, medical care, social services, infrastructure costs and costs for the imprisonment of illegals.

Stix earlier: It's already removed as a "legal work expedient"; it's illegal.

Deano: No shit, Sherlock - that's the point.

No, it wasn't. You screwed up in your use of language, and then tried to put the screw-up on me.

Work on your English -- and your manners.

Stix earlier: Are you saying that we should give billions of additional dollars to Mexico, or are you engaging in wishful thinking? Are you even aware that Mexico is one of the world's more prosperous nations? Didn't think so.

Deano: No, I am saying exactly what I said - namely that populations are mobile, particularly in this day and age - and they will move to where they can build opportunities and lives. You can build a bigger fence, arm more guards, legislate all day long but as long as employers in the US (or anywhere else for that matter) are willing to hire illegals to do the jobs at a cheaper price, people will find a way in.

Wrong, again. Foreign populations seeking to enter the U.S. are as mobile as we permit them to be.

Deano: If and when economic opportunities improve in the locales that supply cheap labor, the supply from that region will diminish as their local opportunities rise. That doesn't mean the supply of cheap labor stops, just that it relocates - maybe they are coming in via ship from China, or West Africa etc.

And yes, I am aware of Mexico's state of "prosperity"...I also didn't specify Mexico in my post, genius, so read a little more carefully next time.

Of course, you were talking about Mexicans. You don't have plausible deniability. Don't pee on my leg, and tell me it's raining. (And that remark about illegals coming in by ship from Asia and Africa was a pathetic attempt to distract readers from thinking you were talking about Mexicans.)

"America already has four times as many people living here, legally and illegally, than England."

Closer to six times but England is the size of North Carolina so it remains much more populus.

"When the supply of labor exceeds demand, wages fall. Econ 101.

Workers are consumers and producers, ergo demand increases too. There is not a fixed number of jobs that everyone is competing for.

"Specialization doesn't become, because employers bring in H1-Bs [etc]... and pay them half what they pay Aemrican technical workers."

Specialisation occurs whenever comparative advantage can be attained.

"Land, not labor. And with immigration-induced population pressure, the cost of land, and thus housing, is exploding."

Only true when land prices are very high such as in city centres where most people don't live.

"a) Up to a point, it's not bad, if it's not based on corruption and crime. After that point, voters demand and get egalitarian legislation. Or they revolt. b) See 2."

a) Do illegal immigrants vote?
b) They'd still be unequal, just unequal somewhere else.

"Interethnic strife means that people from different groups based on race or national descent
would kill members of other groups based on race or national descent. What is unclear about that? And what does Michelle Malkin (who is an American of Phillipine descent) have to do with it?"

Kill them? Are you advocating this? The point about Michelle Malkin is that she is of Asian ethnicity (I apologise for getting the region wrong) while most Americans (including hispanics) are of European ethnicity. So surely she should be creating even more strife than Mexican immigrants?

"It was tried in California, but rogue judges restored illegals' access to health and welfare programs."

Can't help you with that one. Can you change the California constitution or get rid of the judges?

I'm still curious about the SS card question (#18) if anyone can enlighten me. Also how can any employer dare to risk the jail time and astronomical fines associated with having employees who are not covered by Workman's Compensation?

Mr. Stix:

I don't know if your state has a sales or use tax or not, but if it does, it's probably properly referred to by the latter description, which means that the tax is on use of purchased items. The reason for the distinction is that it allows states to tax purchases made outside their own boundaries. Where I live (Wisconsin) there is a line on the state tax return form for declaring out-of-state purchases.
There's a Wikipedia article on the subject here.

My point was that if you get your shorts in a big knot over the "illegal" in "illegal immigration," you'd better check the needle on your hypocrisy meter before making grand pronouncements.

The other point I was trying to make was that because illegal immigrants are paying into SS (for example) but not taking anything out, you and I benefit. It's a benefit that goes unnoticed, for the most part, and also serves to help balance whatever drain is being placed on service that illegal immigrants do receive.

Richard:

I don't think there's a connection between SS cards (genuine or otherwise) and WC. If an illegal immigrant presents reasonably-executed fake identification in applying for a job, after he's hired he's treated as though his SS number is genuine. He gets insurance (if it's one of the benefits of the job) and is covered by the employer's WC insurance.

Jim:

That make's sense. And I guess WC enforcement is pretty lax, as far as conducting gestapo-style raids to make sure all people working on the premises are properly covered.

But apart from the WC issue, I'm still wondering - if some illegal picks up a fake SS card in Tijauna that just happens to have my SS number on it, am I going to be pleasantly surprised with a higher than expected payout when I start collecting? Or is the SS Administation syfficently sophisticated to see that something is wrong with Juan Garcia using Richard Brodie's number?

There is supposed to be name/number matching going on. The IRS does it now. Over the last few years a lot of women who used their maiden names in applying for SS cards thirty years ago were forced to re-register under married names, if that was how they were filing income tax returns.
About eight or nine years ago I found out (after applying for unemployment compensation) that wages were being reported by someone using my SS number. I notified the SSA, and their response was that they wouldn't do anything unless I could show that I had actually been harmed somehow. I contacted the employers where the person was listed as having worked (there were two) and was told by one that the person no longer worked there, and the other told me they wouldn't give me any information. After a time (a year or so), usage of the number seemed to have stopped, and the person apparently never used the number for anything else, such as applying for credit.

About eight or nine years ago I found out (after applying for unemployment compensation) that wages were being reported by someone using my SS number. I notified the SSA, and their response was that they wouldn't do anything unless I could show that I had actually been harmed somehow.

Well, it would seem that not only were you not harmed, but that you were actually helped, by virtue of wage credits having been added to your account, which will result in you getting a higher SS payout when you retire! Congratulations on being one of the few lucky Americans (other than lawbreaking employers) able to get a small actual benefit from illegal immigration :)

Now why do you suppose that the INS doesn't try to get access to SS records so they could mine that data for multiple usages of a single number? Are we afraid that the ACLU would scream that illegals' "privacy" rights were being violated?

INS doesn't have the bodies. They do the best they can with what they've got, I think. A few years ago, in the smallish SE Wisconsin city where I live, a meat packing plant was visited by the INS and lost ~500 employees in one day. There was no liability on the part of the employer, because all of the illegals had presented plausible documentation upon being hired, and none of the illegals were deported because the INS lacked the resources to get it done.

There's a relatively simple answer: require employers to verify SS numbers with the SSA, and give them a simple means of doing so. It wouldn't solve the problem, but it would take a considerable hunk out of it.

There's a relatively simple answer: require employers to verify SS numbers with the SSA, and give them a simple means of doing so. It wouldn't solve the problem, but it would take a considerable hunk out of it.

There would be two cases:

1) the check resulted in two (or more) identical numbers - in which case ALL persons claiming that number would have to be investigated in order to determine which one was the American citizen;

2) the forgers got lucky and picked an unused number.

I don't know how sophisticated these forgers are. Do they forge a birth certificate to go along with the SS card, and then actually make an appearance at the SS office in Chula Vista so that the illegal who buys this bogus documentation from them really will appear completely legitimate?

1) the check resulted in two (or more) identical numbers - in which case ALL persons claiming that number would have to be investigated in order to determine which one was the American citizen;

I don't know who I hate more: the illegal immigrants (50 million if you count their children who should never have been granted automatic citizenship) or the blasted politicians who have milked dry the breasts of Lady Liberty in New York harbor to feed the millions who have come across our borders sans invitation (read save the businesses) by river, boat, truck and planes.

I guess I hate them both equally because one group are the takers-in-your face, and the other the givers-away gone amuk.

Heloise

50 million illegals with the childred added in? That would require all of the illegal parents to be married and have 8 children. That seems just a little improbable.

Dave

Actually, not so, Dave. In January 2005, Justich and Ng estimated that we already had over 20 million illegals, and the average Mexican woman bears four children over the course of her life.

If eight million of the illegals are women, and due to staggered ages they averaged only three per (as opposed to the Mexican average of four per woman, lifetime), that would give 44 million. It ain't 50 mil, but it ain't far off either.

Nicky, that math is still a bit off. 3x10 is 30 not 44. And I don't think anyone accepts the 20 million illegals figure except self-serving extremists.

Dave

Dave Nalle: Nicky, that math is still a bit off. 3x10 is 30 not 44. And I don't think anyone accepts the 20 million illegals figure except self-serving extremists.

Dave


Davey, the arithmetic is just fine; the problem is, you added wrong.

8 million illegal women +
(8 million illegal women X 3=)
24 million children +
12 million illegal men =
44 million

The "self-serving extremists" are two top Bear Stearns economists, Robert Justich and Betty Ng,
whom no one who knew what he was talking about would ever call "self-serving extremists."

"Mexico has a zero tolerance policy towards illegal immigrants; is America any less of a nation, or less deserving of respect?"

Mexicos attitude towards illegal immigrants from the south (Guatemala, etc.) is quite severe. Mostly, they are preyed upon freely by bandits and rapists (this seems to be a particular favorite) without protection from the mexican government, or any interest by mexicans at large. If you think that illegals in the US are badly treated you would be shocked by what happens in Mexico (you remember Mexico, right? Where Pres. V Fox describes US border protection as 'shameful').

As for ANY kind of immigrant from the north, like US and Canada, one can never be sure about ones status. You may lose your property or business at any time if a Privileged Family casts a covetous eye on it. And you may be freely abused physically just to make a point.

According to Wikipedia the birth rate in Mexico is 2.45 children born/woman. Quite high by comparison with most developed nations but not near 4.

Of course not all of the 20 million immigrants are from Mexico, many are Europeans who have overstayed their visas. The birth rate in most European countries is less than 2 children born/woman.

If all the other assumptions are correct (20m starting point, zero infant mortality), the number of children born to immigrants is probably in the range of 16-20m.

BTW, has anyone else noticed the ad google served for this article:

US Immigration law offices.
We open the door to the US for you

Nic: "When the supply of labor exceeds demand, wages fall. Econ 101."

Did you actually TAKE Econ101? Or is this your imagining of what must be in Econ101?

How about Econ102 and 103? Did you take those? Were you awake when the failings of Pop Econ WRT 'supply and demand' were discussed? Did you take Econ 201,202 and 203 where multivariate problems were explored with partial differential equations?

Bliff, assuming you've taken econ 101 through infiinity, did any of those courses tell you that excess availability of labor didn't depress the wage scale?

Dave

"did any of those courses tell you that excess availability of labor didn't depress the wage scale?

Workers are also consumers. Demand increases too.

True, Richard. But the increase in demand only adds to the increase in the need for workers.

Dave

Nalle: And I don't think anyone accepts the 20 million illegals figure except self-serving extremists.

Rather it is self-serving amnesty, open-borders, Hispanicization symps who accept the 12 million figure. Bush obviously wants the problem not to appear to be as bad as it is for political reasons. You want it not to appear as bad as it is because you'd like to see slave labor keep certain costs and prices low, and the future of America be damned.

ANY figure can only be based on a guess as to how many illegals are getting in completely undetected, and continuing to exist in the shadows, invisible to census takers and other government agencies. Nobody can know what the real number is. It could easily be 30 or 40 million.

The pitiful border control measures being proposed - very few more agents, incomplete wall, and national guard totally unimpowered to detain, let alone kick asses back into Mexico- will do nothing to diminish the numbers, as millions more are encouraged to flood in so they can take advantage of the coming amnesty.

So thanks to an abominably SEDITIOUS and TRAITORIOUS national legislature, and President, our country will continue to go down the drain into bona-fide Third-world status at an ever accelerating pace, so that the regime of one Vicente Fox can be relieved of its own self-created problems.