Your Ad Here
2007 May 17 Thursday
US Senate Proposal For Massive Illegal Alien Amnesty

The US Senate has reached a political deal with US Senate Democrats and some US Senate Republicans for a massive illegal alien amnesty encompassing 12 million or more illegal aliens and their families. Ted Kennedy led the Democrats in creating this potentially disastrous legislation.

The crux of the complex plan announced by Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), Democrats' chief negotiator on the deal, would give currently illegal immigrants a path to U.S. citizenship by allowing them to apply for permanent residence after working for eight years in the U.S. Applicants would have to pay penalties of $5,000 and would have limited ability to bring in family members. Kennedy, chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee, called the compromise "the best possible chance we will have in years to secure our borders and bring millions of people out of the shadows and into the sunshine of America."

For corporations which want to pay their engineers and software developers lower salaries the proposal would double to triple H1-B visas.

One positive aspect of the bill comes from restrictions on chain migration.

In perhaps the most hotly debated change, the proposed plan would shift from an immigration system primarily weighted toward family ties toward one with preferences for people with advanced degrees and sophisticated skills. Republicans have long sought such revisions, which they say are needed to end ``chain migration'' that harms the economy.

Family connections alone would no longer be enough to qualify for a green card - except for spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens. Strict new limits would apply to U.S. citizens seeking to bring foreign-born parents into the country.

Care for the parents typically gets dumped onto American taxpayers.

Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation estimates this amnesty could cost American citizens $2.5 trillion.

Giving amnesty to illegal immigrants would increase the costs outlined in this testimony. Some 50 to 60 percent of illegal immigrants lack a high school degree. Granting amnesty or conditional amnesty to illegal immigrants would, overtime, increase their use of means-tested welfare, Social Security and Medicare. Fiscal costs would go up significantly in the short term but would go up dramatically after the amnesty recipient reached retirement. Based on my current research, I estimate that if all the current adult illegal immigrants in the U.S. were granted amnesty the net retirement costs to government (benefits minus taxes) could be over $2.5 trillion.

The $2.5 trillion cost estimate understates the cost for several reasons. First off, that does not include the cost to people who are victims of crime and the cost of avoiding crime victimhood. Second, it doesn't include costs from successive generations of low IQ descendants of the amnestied first generation of low IQ immigrants. Third, it doesn't include the higher cost of housing as higher population densities push up housing prices. Fourth, it doesn't include the health costs of pollution due to higher population densities. Fifth, it doesn't include the deadweight cost of higher taxes to subsidize the immigrants.

The higher taxes will slow economic growth as will other effects of having a lower IQ society. You might think only lower IQ people will receive lower salaries. But the slope of a curve of per capita income versus national average IQ is too steep for only low IQ people to pay a price for having lower IQs. Countries which have low average IQs pay less to higher IQ technical workers as compared to countries which have higher average IQs.

The US Senators are hopeless cases. Some represent capitalists who want cheap laborers. Others just want to pose as acting on noblesse oblige. Still others want to bring in more Democrats as voters. For a variety of reasons the best interests of the commonwealth are not their chief concern.

We have reached the time where we need to send letters, emails, faxes, and phone calls toward our Representatives in the House. The Senate slime are firmly in the devil's camp. Time to make massive efforts to persuade our House reps and the public at large that we need real border enforcement and a huge reduction in immigration.

Update: Lawrence Auster argues that liberals see nothing to protect in America as a group of citizens with a common culture or entity.

Itís not that the senators seek the destruction of America as a concrete historical entity. Itís that, as liberals, they have no concept of America as a concrete historical entity. And that is why there is no real deliberation. There can only be real deliberation and debate if there is something substantive to talk about. But for our leaders, there is no substantive thing called America that is at stake in this immigration bill. There is just a varied collection of special interests, human needs, and economic issues, all filtered through constituent pressures, and all overlaid by the Prime Directive to be tolerant and non-discriminatory.

Those who believe in a "proposition nation" think of America more as a secular religion which anyone can and even should join. I lack their secular faith and find it repellant.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2007 May 17 11:44 PM  Immigration Economics


Comments
birch barlow said at May 18, 2007 1:09 PM:

How did people ever get this idea that bringing in lots of poor, uneducated, unskilled people would be good for the country?

What Washington is doing is complete insanity. All low-skill immigration should be stopped immediately, and life for illegal aliens already here should be as difficult as possible. Any kind of legalization for this mass of riff-raff should be out of the question.

I actually tend to agree with elites and multi-culti types who think white middle America is dull and low-brow. But bringing in an underclasss is definitely not the solution to this. Poor Mexicans tend to be considerably more dull and low-brow than white middle Americans already are (quite an achievement). Elite whites need to stop projecting what they see white middle America as lacking onto poor, low-skill immigrants.

Even successful immigrants have their downside. The Left and ethnic rabble-rousers seem to be quite effective in inflaming humanity's destructive tribal tendencies and using them to advance left-wing causes (and more importantly, lefty political figures themselves). Conservatives must call out the Left and the Democratic Party for what they are: politicos who will take advantage of the worst and most destructive aspects of human nature to gain power (in the case of their appeals to non-whites and Jews, tribalism, racialism, cliquishness, and related pathologies).

I am starting to wonder if the main reason for lefty opposition to evo-psych is really due to straight ideology, and how much of it is simple fear that their craven, power-seeking and status-seeking motives become painfully obvious under the light of reasoned analysis.

None of this is to say that conservatives are perfect, or even an easily identifiable entity, as there are so many pseudo-conservatives out there. And while it has been greatly suppressed by the modern political atmosphere, the existence of white tribalism and nationalist-socialist ideas amongst those who identify as conservative should not be ignored, even though non-white nationalism and socialism have much more mainstream acceptance.

Mensarefugee said at May 18, 2007 8:40 PM:

Liberals should be shot.

Randall Parker said at May 18, 2007 8:44 PM:

birch says:

I am starting to wonder if the main reason for lefty opposition to evo-psych is really due to straight ideology, and how much of it is simple fear that their craven, power-seeking and status-seeking motives become painfully obvious under the light of reasoned analysis.

I think intellectuals want to believe they can imagine how a society can be. They want to think the mind is powerful enough to reshape people into whatever order they decide they want to see. To accept the limitations of the mind is disempowering. They don't want that.

Ideologies are ideals about how society should be. They are moral visions. Why are ideals considered to be so, well, ideal? I suspect it is an outgrowth of a basic human need to feel moral. People are going to hold political opinions in moral terms. They feel moral thoughts about other humans.

I also think opposition to a more realistic view of human nature comes in part from people's views of themselves. Restraints on how much others can be reshaped are also restraints on one's own possibilities.

John S Bolton said at May 19, 2007 12:35 AM:

There's another way that questionable ideals and moralizing can be used most insincerely, exploitatively and merely rhetorically.
That is to choose your political disputes so as to position yourself to
smear the opponent as violating some ideal,
which may be ruinous to practice, but very easy to smear with.
An example just like the present topic, would be Karl Rove saying:
"you just don't want brown people to get anything".
The answer to that sort of smear method should be to say:
you may have to use smears, just because no convincing arguments for your position exist.
The present wrangle is uncommonly macchiavellian, though.
One can tell definitely that it is,
by the way that public knowledge and participation has been suppressed,
yet with an issue that the public has every right to know every detail of.

purenoiz said at May 19, 2007 7:32 PM:

Mensarefugee said at May 18, 2007 08:40 PM:

Liberals should be shot.


Wow, talk about the highest of the low brow. Kill those you disagree with! Where have I heard that before, oh yeah Al Qaeda believes in that policy, are you a terrorist there refugee?


Bad politics that has both sides falling over themselves to sign into law. If the president signs it does that make him a liberal?

Stephen said at May 19, 2007 8:13 PM:

If you don't want more immigrants, then you need to change your political system. Better change it quick because in five years this current batch of new citizens will be lobbying politicians to let in their relatives. Next time the pressure will be just that little bit more effective because there are more people wanting it, and the time after that there'll be still more pressure, and so on.

It works like compounding interest.

John S Bolton said at May 20, 2007 12:25 AM:

It is still not too late for phone calls to get through before monday afternoon, when they want to vote on cloture.
I have a suspicion though, that those who choose a Spanish-language option when calling some of these offices may have a hugely greater chance of getting through.
By now, it looks very much as though citizens must lobby their government as if they were foreigners; at least on this issue of legalization for the illegal aliens, and perhaps many others.
If so, then one may still participate as if disfranchised for being of origins operating under legal disability, or its de facto equivalent.
If you know enough spanish to say:
por favor, no- on 1348, and nothing else, perhaps you can go around the exclusion.

m said at May 20, 2007 4:23 AM:

"One positive aspect of the bill comes from restrictions on chain migration."

You don't really think any of those much touted "enforcement" provisions will ever be implemented,do you?
This just another "amnesty now,(no)enforcement maybe(not)later" scams.
Jorge has already demanded the fines be dropped.

"I actually tend to agree with elites and multi-culti types who think white middle America is dull and low-brow."

Where as you are,of course,deeply intellectual,sophisticated,cosmopolitan and gifted with refined taste in high culture.One of the modestly named "Brights".

Get thee to a coffee shop before ye be tainted with the heresy to be found here,oh enlightened one!Run! Run!

h-man said at May 20, 2007 11:14 AM:

"You don't really think any of those much touted "enforcement" provisions will ever be implemented,do you?"

M
What's funny is that there are already adequate legal provisions to cut 80-90% of illegal immigration via employer sanctions and deportations without any increased border security. For instance imagine the repercussions of having the Justice department merely bringing 3-5 thousand civil suits per year for five consecutive years against construction companies, restaurants, manufacturing facilities. Such suits are easy to file with minimum initial evidence. Companies would scramble immediately to cooperate. Not to mention 100's of criminal actions against individuals. There has not been a good faith effort to enforce our laws for the past two administrations. Rather than fret over new provisions Bush would gain credibility to start enforcing the law now, then an amnesty could honestly be negotiated.

"white middle America is dull and low-brow"

Birch

Thanks pal.

m said at May 20, 2007 3:41 PM:

"For instance imagine the repercussions of having the Justice department merely bringing 3-5 thousand civil suits per year for five consecutive years against construction companies, restaurants, manufacturing facilities."

I actually happen to think we'll get the same results when the coming recession eliminates the discretionary income that supports those industries that employ most illegals,hotels resturants,construction,etc.
Not to say I don't support that idea.

By discretionary income,I mean credit card debt and asset bubbles,our "prosperity thru debt" economy is a short term strategy at best.

birch barlow said at May 22, 2007 10:33 AM:

^
It's hard not to conclude that white middle America is generally dull and low-brow with all the entertainment pseudo-news schlock out there (what person with more than two brain cells to rub together cares about Brittany, Paris, and all the other mindless celebs who btw aren't even that hot anyway?).

That's not to mention garbage like the Kansas school board pushing creationism, or the lame rubbish that often comes out of the mouths of religious pseudo-righties.

In any case I am speaking in generalities here; while white middle America may be dull and low-brow in general, it does not follow that every resident of (say) Kansas fits this description.

Randall Parker said at May 22, 2007 8:48 PM:

Birch,

White people have average IQs of 100. Does that make them dull? I guess it depends on your standards.

birch barlow said at May 23, 2007 2:57 PM:

"White people have average IQs of 100. Does that make them dull? I guess it depends on your standards."

Well, I'm not speaking strictly of IQ; some of this is a matter of taste. I would find living in an area with almost nothing but whites for tens or hundreds of miles around, regardless of IQ, to be dull and suffocating.

Of course then, I may suffer from the same disease as many lefty elites--a generalized misanthropy, with a hope that outside groups (specifically in my case, high IQ East Asians) are relatively immune from what annoys me so much about society. Admittedly this is probably fantasy; while East Asian females (for example) may be less demanding, less emotional, less non-scientific, less attracted to "badass" guys, and less obsessed with facades of high status (on average) than whites or other groups (not to mention far better looking by my tastes), they probably still are these things to a large, disturbing, and deeply irritating extent.


Advertise here. Contact randall dot parker at ymail dot com
Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©