South Carolina voters hit back at Graham

[CARLHAYDEN]

South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham has been busy the last few weels expressing his hatred for the voters of South Carolina, and now, according to Insider Advantage, the voters of South Carolina are expressing their dislike for Graham.

Graham’s approval plunges on immigration 
By Aaron Blake 
June 22, 2007 

Sen. Lindsey Graham’s (R-S.C.) approval rating is taking a pounding in his home state as a result of his strong support for a bipartisan immigration reform bill, a new poll showed Friday.

Graham’s approval rating has sunk to 31 percent and he has a 40 percent disapproval rating, according to a poll released Friday by Atlanta-based InsiderAdvantage. The new poll points to Graham’s support for the Senate immigration bill, which includes a path to citizenship, as a likely reason for his apparent unpopularity.

His disapproval among Republicans is higher — 46 percent — than among Democrats —30 percent.

Only 21 percent of respondents approved of the immigration bill, while 63 percent disapproved. When asked whether they approved of Graham’s “efforts to reach a consensus among his colleagues” to pass the bill, 24 percent approved and 51 percent disapproved, including 57 percent of Republicans.

 

[CARLHAYDEN]

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.

[CARLHAYDEN]

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.

[CARLHAYDEN]

[

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.

Well, lets take your rather long winded and baseless assertions.

First, do you understand the difference between immigrants and sorjourners.  The people who came to this country "the influx of Germans, Irish, Italians, Poles and Jews " not only came to this country lawfully, but were immigrants.  Most of those who enter this country illegally are sorjourners who have no intention of becoming American citizens.

Second, why is it when liberals lose an argument that they resort to calling those with different views of being guility of "veiled racism"?  I don't care what country they come from or what their racial/ethnic background is, but those who enter this country should do so lawfully.

[CARLHAYDEN]

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.

Do you have ANY comprehension of the difference between "the citizenship process" and people legally entering this country?

Now, there are good arguments for allowing more highly skilled foreign nationals to enter this county, particularly in the area of nursing, but that has absolutely nothing to do with citizenship!

[CARLHAYDEN]

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.

Well, lets take a look at your assertions, one at a time.

First, employers who pay their illegal employees off the books (cash) do not pay Social Security contributions (technically its not a tax).

Second, when I pointed out that todays illegal entrants are different from yesteryear's legal immigrants in two critical ways, you seem to have acknowledged my point indirectly, but tried to change my point by alledging assertion that "many" (you never answered my question as to how many, or what percentage constitutes "many") "of these illegals move to America permanently."

Third, as to your assertion that "Their presence helps the U.S economy" and "Just look at the stats. 9/10 of economists not named George Borjas agree that illegal immigration is good," aside from ROTFLMAO, I suggest you check the following by Robert Rector:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/sr14.cfm

[CARLHAYDEN]

Can you please explain to me how supporting the immigration bill means Graham has an antisocial personality disorder?

so·ci·o·path (ss--pth, -sh-)
n.

    A person affected with an antisocial personality disorder.

soci·o·pathic adj.

I suggest you review the tantrum Graham threw when Sen. Obama offered a relatively mild amendment.

I would also suggest you check out some of the threats he issued, and names he called his constitutents.

You might also want to check out his threat to offer an amendment to imprison illegal aliens.

[CARLHAYDEN]

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.

Well, lets review.

First, yes, illegal aliens DO adversely impact the wage structure and employment rate for American workers with relatively low job skills.  The group most adversely impacted are young black men.  Now, I won't question whether you support importing foreign nationals to displace blacks because you are a racist, as that would be a tactic employed by a liberal (oh, I forgot, they're calling themselves "progressives" now).

Second, yes, as a group, illegal aliens are less likely to assimilate that prior immigrant groups.  As I previously noted, not only did they either arrive here and/or remain here illegally as contrasted to prior immigrant groups, but they are also largely sorjourners who merely see their time in this country as a temporary expedient to get enough funds to return home in confort.

Third, yes, a bilingual society does have many problems.  Check out Belgium, Canada or numerous other societies.

Fourth, please stop the stupid name calling.  I support enforcement of existing laws, which does not make me a "nativist."

Fifth, I hope you will study economics, and perhaps someday have an adequate grasp of the subject matter.  You may "believe" lots of things, but that doesn't make them true.  Tell me, do you "believe" that for every drop of rain that falls, a flower grows?  Do you "believe" the world is flat?  Do you believe the absurd stories of Michael Moore?

Sixth, I never said that we should "we shut the border," as you allege, but rather that we should endeavor to secure the border.  One of the reasons quite simply is that currently the land borders (both north and south) are so porous that terrorists can rather easily infiltrate.

Seventh, you may "support unloading billions of American dollars to rebuild dilapidated infrastructure in rural Mexico," but I do NOT!  As to my recommendations as to how to "solve this problem" of foreign nationals (they are not all Mexican as you seem to believe) illegally entering the country, let me note much of the problem with economic inefficency in Mexico has to do with the massive government corruption in that country.  Currently "remittances" are propping up Mexico's economy.  If we close off the illegal financing of Mexico, they may just have a revolution which will deal with the oligarchs who really run the country.

Eighth, contrary to your misunderstanding, wishing doesn't make things happen.

Ninth, you really should take some time to study border security.  I don't know of anyone wants an "electric" fence.  Congressman Hunter has provided extensive information about the fence structure being used sucessfully in San Diego.  Now, I would recommend that the addition of a wide and deep ditch (similiar to the tank trap which surrounds much of DMAFB) followed by a berm, and then the double fence, with the acess road, and followed by electronic monitoring towers would be the most effective approach.



 

[CARLHAYDEN]

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?

[CARLHAYDEN]

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.

[CARLHAYDEN]

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.

Yes, you are full of tricks (among other things), but you really seem to be having problems dealing with reality.

First, the American economy is a "mixed" one, NOT "pluralistic," as you asserted.  Please learn the correct basic terms.

Second, to answer you question "Do you realize the schools, the post office, the fire department, the police etc are all institutions run for the public good," the answer is NO!  You really should investigate reality. 

a. The Post Office is a byword for arrogant incompetence.  If it weren't a legal monopoly, it would probably go out of business.  We have organizations like UPS, FedEx, etc. because the Post Office is such a poor provider of services.

b. Many areas in Arizona take advantage of one of the most cost effective (private) fire departments in the United States called "Rural/Metro Fire Department. "

c. As to schools, my son attends a private school, which is much better than the government school he attended a couple of years ago.  Maybe you should consider attending a private school.

So, as anyone willing to look at reality, there is no need for socialism.

Third, with respect to the subject of income inquality, its extent and causes, well, that's an enormously complex subject which you do not seem to comprehend.  Perhaps in addition to starting a thread promoting socialism (which IS a dirty word), you might want to start one to discuss "Income inequality: Its Extent and Causes."

Fourth, would you please cite where I advocated "tarrifs"?

Fifth, I can think of many terms to describe the "Foreign Affairs" magazine, but "venerable" is not one of them. 

[CARLHAYDEN]

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.

You really need to go back and reread my response.