Immigration policy reform

Part 2:  Penetrating the myths

By William C. Shelton

(The opinions and views expressed in the commentaries of The Somerville News belong solely to the authors of those commentaries and do not reflect the views or opinions of The Somerville News, its staff or publishers.)

Twelve million people now live in the United States illegally, more than at any previous time. There are many solid reasons why the United States should have a rigorously enforced immigration policy. However, these reasons have little to do with certain myths that have entered this debate. Among these myths are contentions that undocumented immigrants are disproportionately violent criminals, shirk paying taxes while exploiting generous social services, take jobs from American citizens, and threaten public health.

Formulating effective immigration policy requires a comprehensive understanding of immigration’s underlying reality, including beneficial and harmful impacts. Verifiable evidence published by federal agencies and peer-reviewed scientific journals are generally a better source for developing this understanding than the allegations of such professional gadflies as CNN’s Lou Dobbs.

Mr. Dobbs tells his audience, for example, that one-third of U.S. jail and prison inmates are not U.S. citizens. U.S. Bureau of Justice statistics say that in 2005, 6.4 percent of all federal and state prisoners were not citizens, down from 6.8 percent in 2000.

Men, age 18 to 39, comprise the vast majority of the prison population. Among this group, 3.5 percent of native-born Americans are incarcerated, as opposed to 0.7 percent of immigrants, both documented and undocumented. In other words, the rate at which native-born Americans are in prison is five times greater than that for immigrants. This holds true for every ethnic group, without exception. Native-born Hispanic men, for example, are 7 times more likely to be in prison than foreign-born Hispanic men.

The National Academy of Sciences, Cato Institute, and the Social Security Administration all agree that immigrants who are here illegally contribute substantially more in taxes than they consume in services. Undocumented immigrants pay sales taxes. The Social Security Administration (SSA) estimates that about 75 percent of them pay payroll taxes, to the tune of about $8 billion annually that they will never be able to claim. As of 2005, SSA’s “suspense file,” containing paid-in taxes that cannot be matched to a social security number, was at $519 billion, leading irreverent types to suggest that we finance the coming social security crisis by relaxing immigration enforcement.

Undocumented immigrants are ineligible for welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, and most other public benefits. Determined individuals can game the system. But a University of California Study found that only 2 percent of illegal Mexican immigrants had ever received welfare, and only 3 percent got food stamps, while 84 percent paid taxes. A Princeton University study of 6,000 undocumented Mexicans found that 7 percent had received Supplemental Security Income, and 5 percent or less had received AFDC, food stamps, or unemployment compensation. The U.S. Department of Education and the Census Bureau say that in 2000, only 1.5 percent of elementary schoolchildren and 3 percent of secondary children were undocumented.

As for taking jobs from Americans, the conservative Cato Institute found that immigrants do not increase joblessness, even among lowest-paid workers. Cato could find “no statistically reliable correlation” between immigration and unemployment. The more liberal Brookings Institution observes that, “The largest wave of immigration to the U.S. since the early 1900s coincided with our lowest national unemployment rate and fastest economic growth.”

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services data show that recent immigrants are healthier than U.S. natives in almost every particular. General health indicators like birth weight and infant mortality are better among babies born to immigrants than to U.S.-born mothers. Interestingly, the longer that they live in the U.S., the more immigrants’ health indicators decline.

Advocates for strict immigration enforcement who are themselves the descendants of immigrants are fond of pointing out that their ancestors came here legally. That’s a morally and emotionally satisfying distinction, but it’s also somewhat misleading.  Before 1921, there were no immigration laws. My paternal grandmother’s family fled the Irish potato famine. When I try to imagine what would have happened if U.S. immigration law had existed then, I cannot, in turn, imagine the family patriarch saying, “Dang, if we went to America, we’d be illegal aliens, so we’ll just stay here and starve.”

The 1921 immigration law put strict quotas on “undesirable” Eastern and Southern Europeans, like…Italians. So, they came in illegally, in droves. Within four years, the Immigration Service estimated that 1.4 million illegal immigrants were living here: “The figures presented are worthy of very serious thought, especially when it is considered that such a great percentage of our population ... whose first act upon reaching our shores was to break our laws by entering in a clandestine manner.” Sound familiar?

Discovering the reality behind inflammatory anti-immigrant rhetoric does not lessen our need to get control of illegal immigration. Instead, it can help us understand how best to do so.

Comments

[Imux]

Wow, if you think closing the borders and raiding employers is liberal "moonbat"-ness, then forget it- you're too far gone.

Really, what's it like to be so mad all the time?

Posted by: Craig | October 25, 2007 at 01:59 PM

Whomever advocates violating principles of the US Constitution should be immediately stripped of US citizenship. Then they can beg some South American banana republic for asylum.

Posted by: Election | October 25, 2007 at 02:00 PM

Craig, I told you already that you're on the team now. Welcome aboard. It's the nonesense about the constitution that is still of concern.

Why do you think that OUR constitution would extend to non-citizens? It doesn't. It never will. When I said suspending habeas corpus - I am talking that illegals are not entitled to habeas corpus and other protections for citizens. The problem is the libaloon position is that our rights should be extended to them. They should NOT. I am not advocating suspending HUMAN rights for them. I don't think they should take a beating on the way out.

[Ron Newman]

You are advocating suspending constitutional rights for everyone, citizens included, because that is the only way your nutty plan could be carried out.

[Craig]

Thanks, Ron- you beat me to the punch.

[Norski]

Solh - You said "Also, I think it's important to use the right words when describing vital issues such as this one. Illegally entering this country is a misdemeanor, *not* a criminal offense." Are you aware that violation of Pollution Laws and violation of the Endangered Species Act are also considered misdemeanors? If Illegal Immigration is somehow less of a crime because it is a misdemeanor then so is dumping toxic waste and hunting endangered species.

[Imux]

You are advocating suspending constitutional rights for everyone, citizens included, because that is the only way your nutty plan could be carried out.

Posted by: Ron Newman | October 25, 2007 at 02:10 PM

Thanks, Ron- you beat me to the punch.

Posted by: Craig | October 25, 2007 at 02:12 PM

No. You fools. I just explained (again) that the illegals do not have equal protection under our laws. Agree or Disagree?

If you're an american and/or legal then you are entitled to all the protections. Because you lefties think that law enforcement can not enforce the laws without trampling our constitution then we should do NOTHING. I'm saying law enforcement can adequately enforce immigration laws (deportations) without trampling the constitution.

Checking papers randomly is no different than drunk driving roadblocks. I personally believe illegal immigrants cause as much - if not more - damage than drunk drivers. We enforce that law by random checks on drunk drivers. Why can't we enforce illegal immigration by random checks? Illegal is illegal.

[Grog29]

This issue will kill the Democrats in November 2008. All they have are the Marxists, Moonbats,
Libaloons, and Illegals. Why are they spending so much time on illegal alien foreign squatters who can't vote?

[Ron Newman]

Because driving a car is considered a privilege (that's why we have licenses), not a Constitutionally-protected right.

[Ron Newman]

The Constitution protects my right as a citizen to quietly enjoy my apartment, or to walk down Broadway, without a policeman asking to see my papers. Period. It protects your rights too, except that you want to throw them away.

Who raised you? Benito Mussolini?

[Ron Newman]

Sorry about the unclosed bold tag -- let's see if I can turn it off.

[Election]

Imux, why don't you do something about it? Organize some big party/rally where you invite all the illegal aliens and then call the Feds and tell them they are all there.

Ah, forgot, typing shit on a keyboard while eating cheerios is easier.

[Election]

Not Benito Mussolini. Simply parents with defective genes.

[Imux]

The Constitution protects my right as a citizen to quietly enjoy my apartment, or to walk down Broadway, without a policeman asking to see my papers. Period. It protects your rights too, except that you want to throw them away.

Who raised you? Benito Mussolini?

Posted by: Ron Newman | October 25, 2007 at 02:38 PM

Sorry about the unclosed bold tag -- let's see if I can turn it off.

Posted by: Ron Newman | October 25, 2007 at 02:40 PM

Imux, why don't you do something about it? Organize some big party/rally where you invite all the illegal aliens and then call the Feds and tell them they are all there.

Ah, forgot, typing shit on a keyboard while eating cheerios is easier.

Posted by: Election | October 25, 2007 at 02:43 PM

Not Benito Mussolini. Simply parents with defective genes.

Posted by: Election | October 25, 2007 at 02:44 PM

Please, let me explain this slowly so you two can understand it. We need to start enforcing our immigration laws. Do you agree or not? ANSWER THAT QUESTION. DO NOT AVOID THE QUESTION plase.

ICE - today - breaks down doors and raids employers and houses that they suspect where illegals congregate. Expand this so that local cops - when pulling someone over - can check legal status if they suspect the person(s) are illegally here. If they are - detain them - give them a quick hearing - if they can't justify why they overstayed their visas(s) then give them the 'ol punt over the border. Can you two get that through your heads? I know that Ron has some manlove going with the illegals, but Election had more hope for you.

[Ron Newman]

So someone knocks on my door and I can't find my papers (which I am not legally required to have, anyway). ICE notices I am white and that I speak English, so they decide to deport me to .... Toronto? London? Sydney?

[Election]

There is a huge difference between what you suggest here and the other suggestions of cops going home to home. I hope you realize that. I'm fine with cops checking on someone immigrant's status if they are pulled over for some other infraction.

[Election]

Guantanamo!

[Imux]

So someone knocks on my door and I can't find my papers (which I am not legally required to have, anyway). ICE notices I am white and that I speak English, so they decide to deport me to .... Toronto? London? Sydney?

Posted by: Ron Newman | October 25, 2007 at 03:15 PM

There is a huge difference between what you suggest here and the other suggestions of cops going home to home. I hope you realize that. I'm fine with cops checking on someone immigrant's status if they are pulled over for some other infraction.

Posted by: Election | October 25, 2007 at 03:16 PM

Election, I knew there was hope for after all. Yes. You and I (and I think Craig, grog, fwwest, norski) are on the same page now. Ron (and the libaloon fringe running rampant in this city) does not want our illegal immigration laws enforced at all. Hence, he/they avoids answering the question.

Do we all agree that:
ICE - today - breaks down doors and raids employers and houses that they suspect where illegals congregate. Expand this so that local cops - when pulling someone over - can check legal status if they suspect the person(s) are illegally here. If they are - detain them - give them a quick hearing - if they can't justify why they overstayed their visas(s) then give them the 'ol punt over the border.

Ron, we might have to forgo the whole house-to-house idea after all. So - for now - you'll have no worries when you're "entertaining" the boys from brazil in your trailer. Though you never did answer my question: We need to start enforcing our immigration laws. Do you agree or not?

[Yorktown Street]

Factual information:

It is true that non-citizens do not have all the rights of citizens. In the past 30 years, the Supreme Court has ruled that non-citizens:

Cannot be barred from receiving welfare benefits and public education, but...

Can be excluded from serving on juries.

Can be barred from serving as police officers and public school teachers.

These are just a few examples, but they show you cannot figure out what rights immigrants enjoy (whether they came here legally or not) by guessing, or assuming, or shooting from the hip. One law journal article put it this way: "Immigration law is notoriously complex."

None of this means that non-citizens lack rights altogether. The Supreme Court has said that due process may be different for non-citizens than for citizens, but it cannot be absent. So, under our constitution, it is currently legal to deport someone without appointing a lawyer to represent them. It is not, repeat, not legal to deport them without a full hearing.

[fwwest]

Now that evryone's juices are flowing,I never stated or intimated anything about danger or getting mugged. I said take a walk on the way home from work at NIGHT and see how you feel. I also suggested telling your wife,mother.etc. to do the same,alone,and see what you get for that.
BTW when did Foss Park become East Somerville. Last time I looked it was part of the Winter Hill section of the city. East Somerville begins at McGrath Hwy.,and includes Cross st. Franklin St,lower Pearl st.the Aves,( for the newbies,that's the section behind the library and the old Bway where the streets are named for different states)
What I really wish could happen is for Mike Capuano,Gene Brune ,and all their cohorts responsible for opening the gates to the city back on or about 1980 to have to live there and raise their kids and grandkids there,and while they were at it take all the people that think what's going on is just terrific along with the people that are perpetuating it today. Let them all have to live there in harmony with their neighbors.
It's one thing to say it's great,no problems,and then go off to live in another part of the city,or out of the city/state altogether.

[Ron Newman]

I sometimes commute by bike through this area at night (on Pearl St, not Broadway) and have never felt myself to be in any danger.

[fwwest]

You continue to read into it something that I never said.
I never once said anything about danger.
Again I will say if there is nothing wrong with the area in question,why are there so many people disturbed with what goes on there. I guess an area that is home to members of one of the most dangerous street gangs in the world ,whose members raped two handicapped girls ,one by dragging her out of her wheel chair,and are protected by the people who live there,can't be all bad. We should be greatfull we have such a place and that it breeds people like this. If you feel it is so great,why is it not anyones first choice to live.and why have so many people left? If you don't already live there,why don't you,and after a year come tell us how well things are going.

[Grog29]

"Non-citizens" can be here "legally" or "illegally".

Legal alien non-citizens do have certain rights. Illegal aliens have far fewer. American citizens have the most.

Got it Yorktown?

"Non-citizens" can be here "legally".
"Illegal aliens" are not just "non-citizens", they are present "illegally" in the country.
Get it???

[Solh Zendeh]

Norski,

I guess those particular examples didn't occur to me. But... I was responding to a previous post that said:

"Would you defend and protect anyone else who has broken the law and committed a criminal offense, perhaps someone who has robbed someone"

The above explicitly, as far as I know, stated an untruth - that illegal immigration is a criminal offense. Weather it *should or should not* be one is a different matter, but that is the reason I wrote what I wrote.

The truth is that certain actions are worse than others. Robbery, which is stealing something under explicit or implied threat of violence, is worse than illegal immigration. Robbery is also worse than killing some bird as far as I am concerned - and I guess our current laws agree with me.

Dumping toxic stuff is another matter. But anyway, at the time I was just calling for people to try to understand and use the correct words when talking about this because the words you use matter.

PS there is one thing that Grog and I agree with completely: "This issue will kill the Democrats in November 2008". I lean democratic (or rather, away from Republicans), but GD, I see so many (liberal) people defending:
1. breaking the law
2. breaking the middle class
3. completely misunderstanding basic supply and demand

Simply because they can't stand *how* people like Imux and Grog express what they want. Hey, Imux sounds like a goon to me too, but the idea of ignoring or encouraging immigration of millions of unskilled workers at this time just because you don't like him and what he says is suicidal.

There is not enough to go around PERIOD. We are lucky and they are not. I encourage you to work for a more fair world, but creating a massive underclass of poor unskilled people in this country is just unbelievably short sited - *and will not fix the problem nor assuage your first world guilt*.

[Skizix]

Why do supporters of illegal immigrants try to get around the issue of the Illegal entry aspect of the issue? The present situation has nothing to do with the past immigration of our ancestors through Ellis Island and can't be compared. I lived in Europe for a period and I can tell you that without valid visas, residency cards, etc. you were pretty much screwed, even in Italy. So to try to disguise amnesty as anything but is a total slap in the face to those who take immigration control seriously, particularly those who entered this country legally. BTW, why don't we "Push 1 for Spanish" rather "Push one for English"? I think we all know the answer to that one.

[Bill Shelton]

I go away a few days, and some yahoo posts the following over my name:

True. Although I don't think Imux is racist, in the sense that he would be against shooting illegal immigrants on the spot, I do believe he is a disgusting bigot. Sorry Imux, I did not want to give the impression that I like you. In fact, I think you are a rather miserable human being. But that is just my personal opinion.

I did NOT post that, and I don't think that identity theft is a an amusing little prank. Jamie, if you've got this jerk's URL, would you please ban him or her?

[it *is* funny]

Woah, Bill. I totally thought it was you. Thanks for clarifying.

[Ron Newman]

I also thought it was you.

[James Norton]

Bill -

Welcome back. Missed you this morning. Well, I did check on the comment as you pointed out - I also thought it was you who posted it - the person who used your name is a regular poster on here. Rather than just ban the person - how about I make a clear cut statement on here?

If the knuckleheads on here want to hijack the fake identities on here, have at it - but - if I find out anyone is hijacking someone who has the balls to post using their own name...well, I will not hesitate to ban them in the future. That goes for anyone at any time.

How's that for fair enough warning? I think maybe I should sit down after the election and actually post JN's Rules on here.

JN

[Bill Shelton]

I don't appreciate name calling by Imux, or anyone else posting here. I get that his name calling is more about humor than about malice, but most don't seem to. When you can't see someone's devilish grin, it's easy to take offense.

I believe that what all of us who live here share is more important that our differences. And I believe that we do have to find a way to fix an immigration system that is broken and undermining the authority of legal order.

The best evidence that I can find says that illegal immigrants contribute more in taxes than they take in services, they are less likely to be criminals than native-born Americans, and they do not spread disease. I wrote this column because I think that focusing debate on whether or not these myths are true is a distraction from how best to fix an immigration policy that is a bad joke.

I don't agree with Imux that we should just go house-to-house and round up anyone who can't prove their citizenship. But his is a legitimate point of view shared by a significant portion of people in our community. Denying that is as useless as denying either that having 12 million people here in violation of the law of the land is a problem, or that the economy could not function effectively without some portion of those people. Also, as much as I might disagree with Imux's solution, I don't see anyone else who disagrees with it posting their own solution here. Well, Sohl is an exception to that statement.

The stated opinions of everyone who posts here are based on their lived experiences, which are just as authentic as everyone else's lives and experiences. The more that we share and listen to each other's experiences instead of name calling, the sooner we can craft policy that honors everyone's experience and has a good chance of being enforce.

[Bill Shelton]

Thank you, Jamie. That seems eminently reasonable.

[Election]

Bill Shelton, you are clown. (Grin).

[Election]

Seriously, Bill, I thought it was you as well.

[Yorktown Street]

But all of us, regardless of how we got here, are protected against illegal search and seizure by the 4th Amendment. That means you can't go house to house. You have to have probable cause--and an accent or a brown skin are not probable cause.

[Bill Shelton]

Election,

If someone using my name attacks a person instead of an idea or specious evidence, that's "probable cause" to suspect that the poster is not me. I generally avoid name calling, although when some coward uses my name, the strain of resisting name calling has me shaking like a dog trying to pass a peach pit.

BTW, Yorktown Street's interpretation of the 4th Amendment was established in case law long ago.

Bill

[Imux]

That means you can't go house to house. You have to have probable cause--and an accent or a brown skin are not probable cause.

Posted by: Yorktown Street | October 26, 2007 at 03:49 PM

York, I've aleady backed off the whole house-to-house search idea as everyone kept throwing the constitution ("it's just a goddamn piece of paper!") in my face.

We've now brought the discussion (except for Ron) to a consensus that: ICE - today - breaks down doors and raids employers and houses that they suspect where illegals congregate. Expand this so that local cops - when pulling someone over - can check legal status if they suspect the person(s) are illegally here. If they are - detain them - give them a quick hearing - if they can't justify why they overstayed their visa(s) then give them the 'ol punt over the border.

We now just need to get our local politicians to see that the wind has shifted in regards to illegals and we are demanding action and an end to being a sanctuary city.

[Imux]

Bill, at first I didn't think that post was yours, but the writing was pretty good and I just HAD to respond.

Thanks for clearing up that is wasn't you after all. I'm guesing Ron or Election was behind it, but who knows or cares now anyway.

Anyway, you're still one of the better treasonous, seditious moonbats around! ;>)

[Ron Newman]

I don't post under the names of other established users here. Ever.

[James Norton]

Election and Ron Newman, you are both sons of bitches liberals. You are ruining this country with your political correctness. Imux, you are just a washed up bum with dreams of glory. Willam Shelton, get some plugs.

JN

[Ron Newman]

somehow I doubt this is the real JN.

[Election]

No way this is James, unless he's drunk.

[James Norton]

Everyone -

Of course it is not me. Jackasses. And yes, this asshole has been banned. I love the comment "unless he's drunk" that's awesome! Can you say banned? It's like trying to run a kindergarten on this weblog sometimes. And so what if I have been dipping into the Redbreast tonight at home on my deck? elle oh elle. Ok stop laughing, if you actually got that.

Smoochies

the REAL HNIC - JN

[Imux]

The point is that the winds have shifted and unless you came off the mayfloro from Italy with my uncle, get out of my face. If your last name doesn't end in a vowel you don't belong in Somerville, that's all I'm saying. OK?

Anglo-saxon moon-bats: what part of "buh-bye" don't you understand, the "buh" or the "bye"?

Furthermore, why don't you anonymous cowards just post with your real names? Then there wouldn't be anymore confusion about who's the real Imux, Ron Newman, Jamie Norton, etc. My name is Imux, I'm in the phone book - I'm right after "Jacko" and before "Madonna" and "Prince".

And don't give me anymore b.s. about not wanting to stand behind my "racist" (in your opinion) commentary with evidence or even a hint of popular opinion. When I say the "winds have shifted" you can take it to the bank, or my name isn't Imux.

Regards,
Imux

[Imux]

And don't give me anymore b.s. about not wanting to stand behind my "racist" (in your opinion) commentary with evidence or even a hint of popular opinion. When I say the "winds have shifted" you can take it to the bank, or my name isn't Imux.

Regards,
Imux

Posted by: Imux | October 27, 2007 at 01:00 AM

Obviously, the twisted post above was not posted by me. It seems Election/Observer or whoever the ahole is that likes to post under other's names still has not gotten a life. Good look to him/her.

[Ron Newman]

This is why the Somerville News needs to have a login - registration system! Everyone but JN seems to understand this.

[Election]

Ron, I agree, but even a login system would not solve the problem. People can still create multiple logins and post under multiple names. A bit more laborious, I suppose, but not that difficult. I suspect this is one reason why JN does not bother. The other reason is that the software he's using for the blog may not support a login system.

[cabbie]

Ron is absolutely correct.

But it's Norton's site and he makes the rules.

In addition to the obvious always knowing who is who with certainty I would ask Mr. Norton to take under consideration that if users had to register he could be hitting us with email from his advertisers (legal as long as we're allowed to opt out). A well targeted email list is capital in this day and age. On top of that his job of booting those who are out of line would be as simple as deleting an email. Much easier than sorting through data and matching up ISP addresses or how ever it's done at present. Also more precise since right now two people could be sharing the same internet connection and both get booted...at least theoretically.

Thanks to all the spoofing of user names it's getting so you can't tell who is really saying what. Which is a shame because some meaningful exchanges happen here on occasion.

Signed -

ImuxvonElectiondeNewmanlaNortonvonTrickydeYorkvaSheltonvanSohlesGrogdelaKatevonItIsFunny

[Election]

Cabbie, what are you talking about? For these kinds of things anybody who's not an idiot provides a one-time e-mail address or some kind of junk e-mail service they don't use anyway. These kinds of blogs are just like a big high schools. The discussion level always spirals down to the level of intelligence of the stupidest people on the blog. Not much that can be done with this system.

[Ron Newman]

A registration system would not solve every problem, but it would ensure that once the names "Imux" and "James Norton" and "Ron Newman" and "cabbie" are registered, nobody else could use them.

[Election]

True, it would solve the name abuse problem...

[Imux]

Just to bring everyone back to the main point of the article and that was that -- I think -- we all now agree that Somerville and our politicians need to end this "Sanctuary City" garbage and that local cops - when pulling someone over - should check legal status if they suspect the person(s) are illegally here. If they are here illegally - detain them - give them a quick / "full" hearing - if they can't justify why they overstayed their visa(s) then give them the 'ol heave-ho!

If we all agree on this -- and it certainly sounds like we do -- then we just need to get our politicians to see that the wind has shifted in regards to illegals and that we are demanding action about the illegal alien problem in the city.

Oh... and did anyone else notice that the governor of NY just got called on the carpet on his a$$kissing of illegals and now is backing off. We can change policy here too. We just need to get our politicians to hear our opinions and for them to stop listening to the vocal minority (moonbats/libaloons/PDS'ers) who want to bring more cheap labor in to undercut real wages.

[Ron Newman]

OK, let's say the police pull me over and ticket me for driving 40 mph in a 30 zone. How exactly do they decide that they do or do not suspect I am an illegal alien?