Coulter on Immigration
Todd ·
January 15, 2012 at 10:24am
On the most recent Ricochet Podcast, Ann Coulter spent some time discussing immigration. Specifically, she complained that the problem with illegal immigration is that businesses get their cheap labor while the "rest of us" have to pick up the tab for the increase in welfare payments, public education, etc.
Some questions for Ann:
- You said that you can't imagine a world where immigrants have a different classification (a "red" or "blue" card), that makes them ineligible for citizenship or government benefits? Well, why not? I find a world where there are outright bans on certain kinds of immigration to be far more unreasonable than a system that allows people to come here voluntarily knowing full well that they will not have access to government programs and the ballot box.
- You mentioned something about wanting more immigrants from Scotland and Switzerland. You are entitled to that opinion, but as a matter of national policy, who is going to make those decisions about which kinds of immigrants we do and do not want, and in what numbers? Do you really trust the politicians in Washington? As with most things, isn't that best determined by the marketplace? Why do you trust politicians on this issue more than the people?
- You seem to believe that the government has the right to dictate to US citizens whom they can and cannot hire (national security concerns notwithstanding). How is that consistent with any notion of limited government? Where in the Constitution does it say that the Federal government can prohibit US citizens from hiring people who happened to be born in another country?
- And finally, why this obsession with a fence? What is this, the Eastern Bloc?
- Comment (114)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
Comments:
Oct '10
Re: Coulter on Immigration
ctruppi
The original poster's argument is that in a free society an employer should be allowed to hire anyone they want.
Yes, we do have restrictions, but not for good reason in my opinion. I don't think we need child labor laws, or at least the kind we have now where child labor is banned (but for some reason we do allow children to work 90 hr weeks between schoolwork and volunteering and extra curricular activities.)
The reason we don't have child labor today is because we are wealthy, and we can afford to not have our children work and instead send them to school. Child labor was waning at the time child labor laws were put into place.If they had been put into place 100 years earlier, it would probably have been a death sentence for certain families.
Today, the fiercest advocates of child labor laws are unions, whose primary job it is to reduce labor market competition, and the people those laws hurt the most are probably poor teenagers from inner cities, who may have to resort to black market activities to make ends meet.
Jan '11
Re: Coulter on Immigration
ctruppi
As a "legal" immigrant myself, I find it your viewpoint offensive to folks like my parents who worked their butts off, went through the legal channels and never took a dime of gov't services.
I'm very interested in the steps your parents took to become legal. Can you explain what those were and how long ago this was? And whether or not they'd be able to do it all over again with the current policies.
May I also suggest that neither Todd or I am in favor of immigrants receiving the benefits of government services. And, speaking for myself [I think Todd would agree but can't be sure of it], I think far too many people, citizen or not, are a drain on taxpayer-funded government services.
Apr '11
Re: Coulter on Immigration
LowcountryJoe
Help me understand what's driving this [and the disdain for international trade] so that I can better craft my arguments or be persuaded to think differently myself. · Jan 16 at 9:37am
I can't speak for the disdain of int'l trade as I'm all for it. As for the Xenophobic remark, please understand that many of us on the right cringe when we hear this type of characterization. We've grown numb to the chorus of "you're racist if you want to limit welfare" you're "homophobic if you want marriage to be between a man and woman", etc. We hope that we don't have to succumb to these labels for an honest, reasoned opinion here at Ricochet where we know that folks like you really have the same goal in mind - limited gov't with liberty and prosperity for all. We just have different ideas of how to get there (and it's both interesting and fun to mix up with you to hear different ideas). As for the reason we want limited LEGAL immigration is that we don't think that the current model is economically and culturally sustainable. Period!
Apr '11
Re: Coulter on Immigration
LowcountryJoe
I'm very interested in the steps your parents took to become legal. Can you explain what those were and how long ago this was? And whether or not they'd be able to do it all over again with the current policies.
May I also suggest that neither Todd or I am in favor of immigrants receiving the benefits of government services. And, speaking for myself [I think Todd would agree but can't be sure of it], I think far too many people, citizen or not, are a drain on taxpayer-funded government services. · Jan 16 at 10:19am
I was only 6 when this process took place in '69, so I don't know the particulars. I know that at the time the USA was liberalizing immigration in places like Itlay (my birth country). My Dad went through the normal channels - I assume that meant going to the US consulate in Naples where we lived. He moved here for 2 years by himself and worked 3 jobs (walking to all of them as he didn't have a car) until he could pay for my Mom, 3 siblings and me to make the trip. (cont'd)
Oct '10
Re: Coulter on Immigration
ctruppi
As for the reason we want limited LEGAL immigration is that we don't think that the current model is economically and culturally sustainable. Period! · Jan 16 at 10:19am
Have you ever considered that we can't afford not to have more immigration?
Think about the Federal budget. Two big ticket items, defense and interest on debt - do not increase when we get more immigration. Instead, those costs are spread across more people.
The other big ticket item that is threatening to bankrupt our country is transfer payments to older people. The problem we are having is that there aren't enough workers for all of the people that are going into retirement. Immigrants tend to be younger workers, so they will help pay for these programs.
We usually celebrate the fact that people want to come to our states or cities. For example, Michigan and Detroit are desperate to have people to move there, while Texas brags about the huge inflows of people.
But for some reason, as a nation, we all of a sudden think it's bad when people want to come here.
Edited on January 16, 2012 at 7:51pmJan '11
Re: Coulter on Immigration
LowcountryJoe
I *may* be more informed on the strictness of U.S. immigration policies, which I think should be made more liberal. It's the policies which create the legality problem to begin with.
Thank you for the kind words. ·
I'm not going to give up on you, Joe. You have a kind heart, but kind hearts, acting irresponsibly, can get into trouble.
Obama's Attorney General, along with the Director of Homeland Security, have declared that they will not enforce our immigration laws - but only for those that break those laws. Moreover, the AG has aggressively fought every state law that seeks to comply with federal immigration laws. What are the results?
There are more than 12 million illegals living, working and on the welfare roles in this country. They exhaust community resources budgeted for their known populations, thereby limiting services paid for by legal residents. Is that fair? They have taken jobs from Americans at a time when unemployment is at an all time high. Is that fair?
Every nation has the duty to protect it's borders and set certain limits on immigration, otherwise, it's not really a nation. Is it?
Apr '11
Re: Coulter on Immigration
I do agree that there should be no gov't services for immigrants (and most citizens!!). I can tell you that this is a pipedream until (a) the boder is secure, and (b) we get a great handle on who's here. My wife has spent considerable time working in social services groups aimed at the latino community (many knowingly "illegal"). From her experience, these folks come here with very little understanding of lots of things, but know lots about gaming the system to squeeze every drop they can from it. My wife was actually fired because she reported one family that was double-dipping. The system is completely rigged.
Another word about Anne Coulter's call for more people from Switz and Sweden. I don't think there is any nefarious "whitening of the US" meaning behind this. These countries are typically cited because it's where Bill Gates' and Steve Jobs' ancestors hail from (I'm pretty sure these are the 2). What she's saying is that we need more Gates and Jobs - regardless of skin color.
Apr '11
Re: Coulter on Immigration
Todd
Have you ever considered that we can't afford not to have more immigration?
Think about the Federal budget. Two big ticket items, defense and interest on debt - do not increase when we get more immigration. Instead, those costs are spread across more people.
The other big ticket item that is threatening to bankrupt our country is transfer payments to older people. The problem we are having is that there aren't enough workers for all of the people that are going into retirement. Immigrants tend to be younger workers, so they will help pay for these programs.
But for some reason, as a nation, we all of a sudden think it's bad when people want to come here. · Jan 16 at 10:49am
Edited on Jan 16 at 10:51 am
Who said it's BAD when peple WANT to come here?
Your math doesn't work either vis a vis the "spread across more people" statement. A legal immigrant working, paying taxes and not in the shadow ecnomy, YES. An illiegal, working for cash, not paying taxes and typically a net recipient of govt largesse, NO!!
Jan '11
Re: Coulter on Immigration
ctruppi
As for the reason we want limited LEGAL immigration is that we don't think that the current model is economically and culturally sustainable. Period!
I appreciate the tone on this one. As to the quoted above, I can understand the culturally sustainable argument. Though I'm not sold that it would be all that problematic since 'the market' could not sustain everyone coming here all at one time...nor does everyone wish to migrate here for that matter. Economically, though? More people => more economic activity => more economic growth.
Would you bet against Julian Simon on this subject?
Jan '11
Re: Coulter on Immigration
Anon:
There are more than 12 million illegals living, working and on the welfare roles in this country. They exhaust community resources budgeted for their known populations...Is that fair?
No, it's not fair. But Is it really true that all 12 million of those estimated illegal immigrants are on the dole? Besides, I've already stated that I would stop this if it were up to me. And I would stop it for natural *most* U.S. citizens as well.
*some people are born with disabilities so severe -- and with family members who cannot provide adequately enough -- that society probably should step in.
Yes! This is absolutely fair. Americans should have to compete for income-earning opportunities; it sends the right signals and should move people to productive action, not whine and snivel. Besides, the influx of new people creates even more demand => more consumption => more growth => therefore more income-earning opportunities. Quite frankly, it's better that the labor is performed here rather than abroad if making work is the goal, right?
Jan '11
Re: Coulter on Immigration
ctruppi
Who said it's BAD when peple WANT to come here?
No one on your side of the argument has actually said this nor do they likely think it. I think we'd all be worried if no one wished to come here as that would be a bad sign.
ctruppi
Your math doesn't work either vis a vis the "spread across more people" statement. A legal immigrant working, paying taxes and not in the shadow ecnomy, YES. An illiegal, working for cash, not paying taxes and typically a net recipient of govt largesse, NO!!
You just agreed that the math adds up when these people are legally allowed in and they're operating out from the shadows. So how come when you read Todd's comment, you didn't read it as though Todd (and I) are wanting an increase in legal immigration -- an increase because our policies and legislation would be relaxed and liberalized to allow for an increase in legal immigration?
Jan '11
Re: Coulter on Immigration
Sorry, Joe, I give up.
Edited on January 17, 2012 at 12:53amSep '10
Re: Coulter on Immigration
Why should Mexico be advantaged in the immigration flow into the USA?
In the past immigrants came from diverse countries and assimilated. They came because they wanted the American dream, they admired America for what it is/was.
Today illegal immigration comes predominantly from one country - people who speak a common language and are now such a demogrphic force that businesses and government has had to alter the language. Now there is much less incentive for this group to learn English or to assimilate in any way.
Illegal immigration eclipses legal immigrants by a factor of at least five, possibly ten or more.
This is America. We have a democracy. Therefore, we cannot have large groups of people within our borders who have a different set of rules applied to them for very long without losing our democracy. So, at some point these people will have to be given the vote. It's inevitable.
If this group mostly comes from the same country , with a shared language and values, mostly are poor economic refugees and uneducated in democratic values, and/or are hopelessly imbued with a socialist mindset. Easily swayed by the rhetoric and racism of La Raza, etc., then:
Sep '10
Re: Coulter on Immigration
then the balance will be tipped and we will lose everything this country has stood for.
Those Hispanics who are legal and assimilated to the point where they vote, tend to vote for Democrats by about 65%. (as citizens they have a perfect right to vote as they wish, of course -I'm just reporting facts).
Those who have recently come here are even more likely to vote for the class-warring, pandering Democrats. They are more likely, being less educated for the most part than their currently legal counterparts, to believe the class rhetoric of the Democratic party. They are more likely to indulge in racial and cultural solidarity.
You magnanimous Republicans are selling your country out and you don't even know it.
You might as well convert to the Democratic party now and get it over with.