South Carolina voters hit back at Graham

[MarkWarner08]

Major plaudits for Sen. Graham for putting principle and good policy over petty politics.  While this immigration bill -- which has been disensgenously lbaled as amnesy -- isn't perfect, it's a strong first step towards recognizing the role illegal imigrants play in our economy and continuing America's place as a melting pot ofdipsare culutures.

As our population ages, we will need younger workers to fill the gaps in our workforce. Illegal immigrants  provide the labor that is essential to keep America competitive in the global marketplace. If you stop the flow of aliens into America, the companies dependent on their labor will just move their operations to Mexico or invest abroad. The fallacious argument that illegals cost Americans jobs is akin to saying tariffs save jobs.

Look at Bush's 2002-2003 steel tariff that according to Gary Hufbauer and Ben Goodrich of the Institute for International Economics saved 3,500 steel jobs, but cost steel users between 12,000 and 43,000 jobs. Similarly,  while illegal immigrants slightly decrease the wages of some American workers, they also lower the cost of goods and services, thus spurring growth in Aggregate Demand.
Incisive piece on this issue: http://www.slate.com/id/2168060

[MarkWarner08]

Major plaudits for Sen. Graham for putting principle and good policy over petty politics.  While this immigration bill -- which has been disensgenously lbaled as amnesy -- isn't perfect, it's a strong first step towards recognizing the role illegal imigrants play in our economy and continuing America's place as a melting pot ofdipsare culutures.

As our population ages, we will need younger workers to fill the gaps in our workforce. Illegal immigrants  provide the labor that is essential to keep America competitive in the global marketplace. If you stop the flow of aliens into America, the companies dependent on their labor will just move their operations to Mexico or invest abroad. The fallacious argument that illegals cost Americans jobs is akin to saying tariffs save jobs.

Look at Bush's 2002-2003 steel tariff that according to Gary Hufbauer and Ben Goodrich of the Institute for International Economics saved 3,500 steel jobs, but cost steel users between 12,000 and 43,000 jobs. Similarly,  while illegal immigrants slightly decrease the wages of some American workers, they also lower the cost of goods and services, thus spurring growth in Aggregate Demand.
Incisive piece on this issue: http://www.slate.com/id/2168060

We are not talking about stoping the flow of immigrants into America we are talking about stopping the flow of people who break our laws to come here. Also under this amesty bill not only would people who apply under it be able to stay they would be able to bring their familes to this nation, This would most likely mean over a 100 million new immigrants coming to this country over 50 years, That is insanity and would cause in many parts of the United States a complete breakdown of health and educational services as we would be put under tremdous pressure to provide halth care for people who can't afford it which means much higher health care cost for native born Americans and for people who are in the country legally and who are naturalized citizens, Also you would have to intergrate these tens of millions of new people and that is going to cost big time tax dollars and much higher txes imposed on US citizens, and even then this would most likely create a very large underclass of ill educated, very poor immgrants who failed to intergrate into American soicty and become sucessful and would live of welfare handouts and resort to lives of crime and other devent activites to make it by. Not to mention all this would create and open up old wounds left over from the days of racial tension, For example racial and economic issues between African Americans and Hispanics in the South have risen in recent times. So to end this this amesty bill brings more negatives then it does positives and it with the issue of border sercurity addresed in this bill we most likely won't get it, As Senator Clarie McCaskill(D-MO) pointed out that border security was promised in 1986 and we didn't get it.       

nice way to pull a stat out of your ass

Are you talking to me? If so, I'd hope you'd refrain from ad hominem attacks and instead criticize my views.

Source: http://www.mre.gov.br/portugues/noticiario/internacional/selecao_detalhe.asp?ID_RESENHA=23284&Imprime=on
It's weird that this Portugese website was the only place I could find this 2003 article by Robert Sameulson, a writer for Newsweek. Oh, well, here's the quote.

Direct quote: "Gary Hufbauer and Ben Goodrich of the Institute for International Economics, a think tank, estimate that tariffs preserved 3,500 steel jobs; by contrast, they think that the tariffs might have cost steel users between 12,000 and 43,000 jobs."

Quote from the Peter Peterson Insisitue for International Economics:
"About 3,500 actual and potential
jobs could be “saved” but at an
annual cost of $2 billion to the
steel users—or $584,000 per job saved."
Source: http://www.petersoninstitute.org/publications/pb/pb.cfm?ResearchID=51

Protectionism may help save some jobs, but the overall costs overwhelm any benefit of the tariffs.

[MarkWarner08]

Major plaudits for Sen. Graham for putting principle and good policy over petty politics.  While this immigration bill -- which has been disensgenously lbaled as amnesy -- isn't perfect, it's a strong first step towards recognizing the role illegal imigrants play in our economy and continuing America's place as a melting pot ofdipsare culutures.

As our population ages, we will need younger workers to fill the gaps in our workforce. Illegal immigrants  provide the labor that is essential to keep America competitive in the global marketplace. If you stop the flow of aliens into America, the companies dependent on their labor will just move their operations to Mexico or invest abroad. The fallacious argument that illegals cost Americans jobs is akin to saying tariffs save jobs.

Look at Bush's 2002-2003 steel tariff that according to Gary Hufbauer and Ben Goodrich of the Institute for International Economics saved 3,500 steel jobs, but cost steel users between 12,000 and 43,000 jobs. Similarly,  while illegal immigrants slightly decrease the wages of some American workers, they also lower the cost of goods and services, thus spurring growth in Aggregate Demand.
Incisive piece on this issue: http://www.slate.com/id/2168060

We are not talking about stoping the flow of immigrants into America we are talking about stopping the flow of people who break our laws to come here. Also under this amesty bill not only would people who apply under it be able to stay they would be able to bring their familes to this nation, This would most likely mean over a 100 million new immigrants coming to this country over 50 years, That is insanity and would cause in many parts of the United States a complete breakdown of health and educational services as we would be put under tremdous pressure to provide halth care for people who can't afford it which means much higher health care cost for native born Americans and for people who are in the country legally and who are naturalized citizens, Also you would have to intergrate these tens of millions of new people and that is going to cost big time tax dollars and much higher txes imposed on US citizens, and even then this would most likely create a very large underclass of ill educated, very poor immgrants who failed to intergrate into American society and become sucessful and would live ofo welfare handouts and resort to lives of crime and other devent activites to make it by. Not to mention all this would create and open up old wounds left over from the days of racial tension, For example racial and economic issues between African Americans and Hispanics in the South have risen in recent times. So to end this this amesty bill brings more negatives then it does positives and it with the issue of border sercurity addresed in this bill we most likely won't get it, As Senator Clarie McCaskill(D-MO) pointed out that border security was promised in 1986 and we didn't get it.       

Kevin, you do realize that many illegals pay taxes and that their employers pay double payroll taxes for them (12.4% for Social Security, when I last checked), so these workers are essentially providing solvency for the broken entitlement system. I seem to remember Bush circa 2005 lamenting the decline of the worker to retiree ratio as part of his ill-fated effort to privatize Social Security. If we send these workers back home, we'll lose those precious tax dollars and we'll likely be forced to make further cuts in this program.

[MarkWarner08]

Major plaudits for Sen. Graham for putting principle and good policy over petty politics.  While this immigration bill -- which has been disensgenously lbaled as amnesy -- isn't perfect, it's a strong first step towards recognizing the role illegal imigrants play in our economy and continuing America's place as a melting pot ofdipsare culutures.

As our population ages, we will need younger workers to fill the gaps in our workforce. Illegal immigrants  provide the labor that is essential to keep America competitive in the global marketplace. If you stop the flow of aliens into America, the companies dependent on their labor will just move their operations to Mexico or invest abroad. The fallacious argument that illegals cost Americans jobs is akin to saying tariffs save jobs.

Look at Bush's 2002-2003 steel tariff that according to Gary Hufbauer and Ben Goodrich of the Institute for International Economics saved 3,500 steel jobs, but cost steel users between 12,000 and 43,000 jobs. Similarly,  while illegal immigrants slightly decrease the wages of some American workers, they also lower the cost of goods and services, thus spurring growth in Aggregate Demand.
Incisive piece on this issue: http://www.slate.com/id/2168060

We are not talking about stoping the flow of immigrants into America we are talking about stopping the flow of people who break our laws to come here. Also under this amesty bill not only would people who apply under it be able to stay they would be able to bring their familes to this nation, This would most likely mean over a 100 million new immigrants coming to this country over 50 years, That is insanity and would cause in many parts of the United States a complete breakdown of health and educational services as we would be put under tremdous pressure to provide halth care for people who can't afford it which means much higher health care cost for native born Americans and for people who are in the country legally and who are naturalized citizens, Also you would have to intergrate these tens of millions of new people and that is going to cost big time tax dollars and much higher txes imposed on US citizens, and even then this would most likely create a very large underclass of ill educated, very poor immgrants who failed to intergrate into American society and become sucessful and would live ofo welfare handouts and resort to lives of crime and other devent activites to make it by. Not to mention all this would create and open up old wounds left over from the days of racial tension, For example racial and economic issues between African Americans and Hispanics in the South have risen in recent times. So to end this this amesty bill brings more negatives then it does positives and it with the issue of border sercurity addresed in this bill we most likely won't get it, As Senator Clarie McCaskill(D-MO) pointed out that border security was promised in 1986 and we didn't get it.       

Kevin, you do realize that many illegals pay taxes and that their employers pay double payroll taxes for them (12.4% for Social Security, when I last checked), so these workers are essentially providing solvency for the broken entitlement system. I seem to remember Bush circa 2005 lamenting the decline of the worker to retiree ratio as part of his ill-fated effort to privatize Social Security. If we send these workers back home, we'll lose those precious tax dollars and we'll likely be forced to make further cuts in this program.

Still many aren't and even with this the long term negatives of having a large illegal immigrant which refuses to intergrate into American soicety is a recipe for soical-economic disaster. Also considering that most illegal immigrants barely make enough income to put into the system means we aren't gaining much in the long run.   

I agree, the influx of Germans, Irish, Italians, Poles and Jews really created  a "soical-economic disaster." History is littered with misguided indiviuals who have sought to slow the inevitable tide of immigration. Just look at the anti-immigration Know-Nothing Party, which was composed of bigots who hated Catholics, Jews, and the Irish.

The great thinkers of the 20th Century, people like Einstein, emigrated to America.  They rightly viewed our country as a tolerant nation free of religious bigotry and government repression of free speech.  Blocking the exits for immigrants from Mexico who seek a better life and are willing to work for it, is xenophobic and immoral.

There's a reason most economists tacitly support illegal immigration -- because it helps the consumer and the supplier.  The economic justification for stopping the illegals doesn't exist, because rational thinkers realize the cutting off a cheap pool of labor hurts companies and consumers.

The only reason to oppose amnesty is veiled racism. If these were pale faced Canadians sneaking over the border, many of these same Americans riled up about Mexicans would likely be silent.  With the middle class facing rising inequality (Gini Index for U.S is now .47; Mexico is .52), the dark skinned immigrants from Mexico serve as a tempting scapegoat.  Ask yourself, what other rich country has such a long contiguous border with a poor nation? The rationale for their arrival is understandable, the services they provide are necessary, and granting them amnesty is the first step in the right direction towards ensuring America remains a beacon of hope for all of the world.

[MarkWarner08]

Major plaudits for Sen. Graham for putting principle and good policy over petty politics.  While this immigration bill -- which has been disensgenously lbaled as amnesy -- isn't perfect, it's a strong first step towards recognizing the role illegal imigrants play in our economy and continuing America's place as a melting pot ofdipsare culutures.

As our population ages, we will need younger workers to fill the gaps in our workforce. Illegal immigrants  provide the labor that is essential to keep America competitive in the global marketplace. If you stop the flow of aliens into America, the companies dependent on their labor will just move their operations to Mexico or invest abroad. The fallacious argument that illegals cost Americans jobs is akin to saying tariffs save jobs.

Look at Bush's 2002-2003 steel tariff that according to Gary Hufbauer and Ben Goodrich of the Institute for International Economics saved 3,500 steel jobs, but cost steel users between 12,000 and 43,000 jobs. Similarly,  while illegal immigrants slightly decrease the wages of some American workers, they also lower the cost of goods and services, thus spurring growth in Aggregate Demand.
Incisive piece on this issue: http://www.slate.com/id/2168060

We are not talking about stoping the flow of immigrants into America we are talking about stopping the flow of people who break our laws to come here. Also under this amesty bill not only would people who apply under it be able to stay they would be able to bring their familes to this nation, This would most likely mean over a 100 million new immigrants coming to this country over 50 years, That is insanity and would cause in many parts of the United States a complete breakdown of health and educational services as we would be put under tremdous pressure to provide halth care for people who can't afford it which means much higher health care cost for native born Americans and for people who are in the country legally and who are naturalized citizens, Also you would have to intergrate these tens of millions of new people and that is going to cost big time tax dollars and much higher txes imposed on US citizens, and even then this would most likely create a very large underclass of ill educated, very poor immgrants who failed to intergrate into American society and become sucessful and would live ofo welfare handouts and resort to lives of crime and other devent activites to make it by. Not to mention all this would create and open up old wounds left over from the days of racial tension, For example racial and economic issues between African Americans and Hispanics in the South have risen in recent times. So to end this this amesty bill brings more negatives then it does positives and it with the issue of border sercurity addresed in this bill we most likely won't get it, As Senator Clarie McCaskill(D-MO) pointed out that border security was promised in 1986 and we didn't get it.       

Kevin, you do realize that many illegals pay taxes and that their employers pay double payroll taxes for them (12.4% for Social Security, when I last checked), so these workers are essentially providing solvency for the broken entitlement system. I seem to remember Bush circa 2005 lamenting the decline of the worker to retiree ratio as part of his ill-fated effort to privatize Social Security. If we send these workers back home, we'll lose those precious tax dollars and we'll likely be forced to make further cuts in this program.

Still many aren't and even with this the long term negatives of having a large illegal immigrant which refuses to intergrate into American soicety is a recipe for soical-economic disaster. Also considering that most illegal immigrants barely make enough income to put into the system means we aren't gaining much in the long run.   

I agree, the influx of Germans, Irish, Italians, Poles and Jews really created  a "soical-economic disaster." History is littered with misguided indiviuals who have sought to slow the inevitable tide of immigration. Just look at the anti-immigration Know-Nothing Party, which was composed of bigots who hated Catholics, Jews, and the Irish.

The great thinkers of the 20th Century, people like Einstein, emigrated to America.  They rightly viewed our country as a tolerant nation free of religious bigotry and government repression of free speech.  Blocking the exits for immigrants from Mexico who seek a better life and are willing to work for it, is xenophobic and immoral.

There's a reason most economists tacitly support illegal immigration -- because it helps the consumer and the supplier.  The economic justification for stopping the illegals doesn't exist, because rational thinkers realize the cutting off a cheap pool of labor hurts companies and consumers.

The only reason to oppose amnesty is veiled racism. If these were pale faced Canadians sneaking over the border, many of these same Americans riled up about Mexicans would likely be silent.  With the middle class facing rising inequality (Gini Index for U.S is now .47; Mexico is .52), the dark skinned immigrants from Mexico serve as a tempting scapegoat.  Ask yourself, what other rich country has such a long contiguous border with a poor nation? The rationale for their arrival is understandable, the services they provide are necessary, and granting them amnesty is the first step in the right direction towards ensuring America remains a beacon of hope for all of the world.

I never said anything about blocking immigrants from Central America and elsewhere from coming into the United States, I want to see immigrants come to this country, However I wan to see them do it legally, and I wan them ti intergrate and contribute to our culture, I would be hypocrite to be zenophobic since I can trace my famile's heritage to non-English speaking nations.

Many of these people don't have the same options for immigration that your or my family enjoyed. "Coyotes" bilk thousands out of the poor Mexicans that are desperate for a better future. If you eased the citizenship process, these workers could come here legally.

[MarkWarner08]

Major plaudits for Sen. Graham for putting principle and good policy over petty politics.  While this immigration bill -- which has been disensgenously lbaled as amnesy -- isn't perfect, it's a strong first step towards recognizing the role illegal imigrants play in our economy and continuing America's place as a melting pot ofdipsare culutures.

As our population ages, we will need younger workers to fill the gaps in our workforce. Illegal immigrants  provide the labor that is essential to keep America competitive in the global marketplace. If you stop the flow of aliens into America, the companies dependent on their labor will just move their operations to Mexico or invest abroad. The fallacious argument that illegals cost Americans jobs is akin to saying tariffs save jobs.

Look at Bush's 2002-2003 steel tariff that according to Gary Hufbauer and Ben Goodrich of the Institute for International Economics saved 3,500 steel jobs, but cost steel users between 12,000 and 43,000 jobs. Similarly,  while illegal immigrants slightly decrease the wages of some American workers, they also lower the cost of goods and services, thus spurring growth in Aggregate Demand.
Incisive piece on this issue: http://www.slate.com/id/2168060

We are not talking about stoping the flow of immigrants into America we are talking about stopping the flow of people who break our laws to come here. Also under this amesty bill not only would people who apply under it be able to stay they would be able to bring their familes to this nation, This would most likely mean over a 100 million new immigrants coming to this country over 50 years, That is insanity and would cause in many parts of the United States a complete breakdown of health and educational services as we would be put under tremdous pressure to provide halth care for people who can't afford it which means much higher health care cost for native born Americans and for people who are in the country legally and who are naturalized citizens, Also you would have to intergrate these tens of millions of new people and that is going to cost big time tax dollars and much higher txes imposed on US citizens, and even then this would most likely create a very large underclass of ill educated, very poor immgrants who failed to intergrate into American society and become sucessful and would live ofo welfare handouts and resort to lives of crime and other devent activites to make it by. Not to mention all this would create and open up old wounds left over from the days of racial tension, For example racial and economic issues between African Americans and Hispanics in the South have risen in recent times. So to end this this amesty bill brings more negatives then it does positives and it with the issue of border sercurity addresed in this bill we most likely won't get it, As Senator Clarie McCaskill(D-MO) pointed out that border security was promised in 1986 and we didn't get it.       

Kevin, you do realize that many illegals pay taxes and that their employers pay double payroll taxes for them (12.4% for Social Security, when I last checked), so these workers are essentially providing solvency for the broken entitlement system. I seem to remember Bush circa 2005 lamenting the decline of the worker to retiree ratio as part of his ill-fated effort to privatize Social Security. If we send these workers back home, we'll lose those precious tax dollars and we'll likely be forced to make further cuts in this program.

Mark, where do you get your assertions?

When you use the term many, are you trying to say most, more than a third, at least some?  Please be a little clearer.

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/37/10128

Would you agree that employers have to pay the 12.4% tax on their employees? Back to your sojourners point, many of these illegals move to America permanently. Their presence helps the U.S economy.

Just look at the stats. 9/10 of economists not named George Borjas agree that illegal immigration is good.

[MarkWarner08]

Major plaudits for Sen. Graham for putting principle and good policy over petty politics.  While this immigration bill -- which has been disensgenously lbaled as amnesy -- isn't perfect, it's a strong first step towards recognizing the role illegal imigrants play in our economy and continuing America's place as a melting pot ofdipsare culutures.

As our population ages, we will need younger workers to fill the gaps in our workforce. Illegal immigrants  provide the labor that is essential to keep America competitive in the global marketplace. If you stop the flow of aliens into America, the companies dependent on their labor will just move their operations to Mexico or invest abroad. The fallacious argument that illegals cost Americans jobs is akin to saying tariffs save jobs.

Look at Bush's 2002-2003 steel tariff that according to Gary Hufbauer and Ben Goodrich of the Institute for International Economics saved 3,500 steel jobs, but cost steel users between 12,000 and 43,000 jobs. Similarly,  while illegal immigrants slightly decrease the wages of some American workers, they also lower the cost of goods and services, thus spurring growth in Aggregate Demand.
Incisive piece on this issue: http://www.slate.com/id/2168060

Mark,

You are absolutely and totally wrong.

Graham has no principles, he's just a sociopath and may be doing drugs.

Have you seen some of his antics of late?

His vicious attack on Obama was just one of his many loony antics.

So, Carl, what's you beef with illegals? Are you worried about the negative pressure they put on wages? Are you worried that they don't assimilate as quickly as other immigrant groups? Are you worried that you, an American, may have to live in a bilingual society (oh, the horror!)? I'm not going to accuse you of racism because you're much too intelligent and worldly to fall to that level.  So what drives your support of the nativist postion?

I'm a student of economics and I believe that these people are an essential part of our workforce. Should we shut the border to satisfy radical fringe groups like the Minutemen? Why?

Unless you support unloading billions of American dollars to rebuild dilapidated infrastructure in rural Mexico, thus enticing American companies to move south, how can you solve this problem?

In Spanish, there's a term, "querer es poder,"  which rougly means "where there is a will, there is a way.' Build a fence, they'll find holes. Build an electric fence, they'll find other ways.

[MarkWarner08]

So, Carl, what's you beef with illegals?

Now, I would like to further elaborate on additional problems with illegal aliens.

First, identity theft.  Have you ever had to take the time to correct records where identity was stolen and it cost you a nice sum of money?  I have, and it was a time consuming process, occasioned by the act of an illegal alien.

Second, lets turn to criminal activities of illegal aliens, above and beyond illegally entering the country.

a. Motor vehicle theft.  A significant source of revenue for illegal aliens is to steal motor vehicles in Arizona and run them into Mexico.  Even if the Mexican cops end up with the vehicle, it will never be returned.

b. Drug smuggling.  One of the major ways that many illegal aliens pay their coyote is by smuggling illegal drugs into this country.  There is currently a major fight among the coyotes over who controls the drug smuggling into Arizona.

c. Violent crime.  If you want, I can give lots and lots and lots of cases.  Yes, I personally know many people who have been victims of such crimes.  Some of the instances really should be included in "strange but true."
 
Third, medical care.  The former Surgeon General (Richard Carmona) used to head the trauma unit at Tucson Medical Center.  It had to be shut down because of costs of treating illegal aliens.  So now patients in many instances have to be transported additional miles to a trauma center, thereby endangering their lives.

Fourth, taxes.  A large percentage of the school district, city, county and state government budgets go to cover the cost of illegal aliens (medical care, education and law enforcement).  Now, I can think of a lot of purposes that money could be spent on if we did not have the illegal aliens here.

Do you need more?

Carl, Let's begin with some basic refutations.

To your identity theft point, I cede this point to you because the stats back you up. If the U.S eased the guest worker process, fewer illegals would have to resort to such dangerous deceptions to enter America.

To your crime assertions, I direct you to this article which largely rebuts your spurious point that illegals are causing a crime wave in America: http://www.azstarnet.com/news/171109

To your medical point, I'd like to point out the main cause of the health care crisis in America is not illegals, but in fact, the rising cost of prescription drugs and the way insurance companies are systematically denying service to the poor.  Socialized medicine in countries like England and France has incurred massive deficits, but unlike the U.S, which spends the most on health care while getting the least of any industrialized nation, their systems work.

Here are some good articles that help rebut your final point about taxes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/business/05immigration.html?ex=1270353600&en=78c87ac4641dc383&ei=5090&
http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/taxes.asp
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0321/p02s01-ussc.html
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040415/news_1n15taxes.html

[MarkWarner08]

You REALLY need to reread the article in the Arizona Daily Star that you cited.

Legal immigrants do have a low crime rate, illegal aliens do not.  Please do not try to confuse the two.

Also, I understand you favor socialism as the answer to all problems.  However, facts indicate that you are wrong here as well.

Why don't you start a thread where you promote socialism,

Oh, and BTW, as John Dibble if he can tell you who Ludwig von Mises was and tell you about the Mount Pelerin Society.  I was priviledged in my youth to meet and speak with the great man (I have a treasured autographed copy of one of his books) and have been also priviledged to talk with members of the society I mentikoned.

I have a question for you. Is the American economy capitalistic or socialistic? Trick question... it's a pluralistic system. Do you realize the schools, the post office, the fire department, the police etc are all institutions run for the public good, without a profit incentive? These tenets of American life are socialistic in nature. It's important to balance Adam Smith "Invisible Hand" with programs that cater to the basic needs of society.

The reason for the rise in income inequality include the decline in union membership (unions can restrict the supply of labor thus increasing the salaries), the rise of globalization, and the massive tax cuts for the rich which started with JFK. Is globalization bad for some workers? Yes. Has it helped America continue to grow at the fastest rate of any industrialized economy? Yes.  By incorporating socialist programs (free education) with aggressive job retraining programs, we can help American workers prepare for the future.

Socialism is not a dirty word, but neither is globalization.  Economic populists on both the left  (David Sirota) and the right (Pat Buchanan) ignore the positive virtues of globalization and instead seek temporary fixes such as a tariffs, which in fact backfire. Your efforts to restrict the flow of workers into America will hurt America's economy in the future. Just look to a recent article in the venerable Foreign Affairs which notes while the rest of the world is facing a future labor shortage, America, largely due to illegals from Mexico, will be able to continue to grow in the future.

[MarkWarner08]

You REALLY need to reread the article in the Arizona Daily Star that you cited.

Legal immigrants do have a low crime rate, illegal aliens do not.  Please do not try to confuse the two.

Also, I understand you favor socialism as the answer to all problems.  However, facts indicate that you are wrong here as well.

Why don't you start a thread where you promote socialism,

Oh, and BTW, as John Dibble if he can tell you who Ludwig von Mises was and tell you about the Mount Pelerin Society.  I was priviledged in my youth to meet and speak with the great man (I have a treasured autographed copy of one of his books) and have been also priviledged to talk with members of the society I mentikoned.

I have a question for you. Is the American economy capitalistic or socialistic? Trick question... it's a pluralistic system. Do you realize the schools, the post office, the fire department, the police etc are all institutions run for the public good, without a profit incentive? These tenets of American life are socialistic in nature. It's important to balance Adam Smith "Invisible Hand" with programs that cater to the basic needs of society.

The reason for the rise in income inequality include the decline in union membership (unions can restrict the supply of labor thus increasing the salaries), the rise of globalization, and the massive tax cuts for the rich which started with JFK. Is globalization bad for some workers? Yes. Has it helped America continue to grow at the fastest rate of any industrialized economy? Yes.  By incorporating socialist programs (free education) with aggressive job retraining programs, we can help American workers prepare for the future.

Socialism is not a dirty word, but neither is globalization.  Economic populists on both the left  (David Sirota) and the right (Pat Buchanan) ignore the positive virtues of globalization and instead seek temporary fixes such as a tariffs, which in fact backfire. Your efforts to restrict the flow of workers into America will hurt America's economy in the future. Just look to a recent article in the venerable Foreign Affairs which notes while the rest of the world is facing a future labor shortage, America, largely due to illegals from Mexico, will be able to continue to grow in the future.

So you agree with me? Great to see that you've released yourself from the yolk of intellectual oppression that is the CATO institute.

[MarkWarner08]

Interesting tempest, but I doubt it'll escape the teapot.  I don't see a credible primary challenger for Graham out there now, and there is zero chance there will be one unless this bill actually passes, which I doubt, at least in its current form.  Even then, the question is who would bell the cat?  The mice of the General Assembly have their own seats to run for and they can't run for both their current seat and Graham's under South Carolina law.  Even if Ravenel should prove to be innocent of his cocaine charges, that won't happen in time for him to break his pledge and run for Senate in 2008.  Beasley has his own baggage as he proved by his performance in his 2004 Senate run.  Maybe Andre Bauer will run against Graham, but he barely beat Campbell in the Lt. Gov. primary last year and then only because Campbell ran a poor campaign that convinced people the only reason he was running was because he was his father's son.  Graham's a proven campaigner and I doubt if the Kyle Busch of South Carolina politics can beat him.

It'll take a well funded millionaire outsider to defeat Graham in the primary and the well-funded millionaires mostly support this bill.

Whats Hodges position on abortion? He's still young and if he's moderate to conservative, and doesnt support the immigration bill, he can possibly give Graham a run. He probably doesnt have any written down position on the immigration bill either.

Hodges is running a successful consulting firm in Columbia, South Carolina. Unless Graham implodes, I'd doubt Hodges would run in a Presidential Election Year for a Federal office.