What Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) has to say about Amnesty and Tax-Dollar Drain,

Outside of the usual articles from Bloggers like myself and other opponents of illegal immigration, here is a very eye-opening correspondence by an insider of the Washington beltway. While others fudge the truth or downright lie or release rancid propaganda to the masses. Here are some bitter truths that this Representative from Texas is availing us of the ugly truth and the calamitous situation sending us into a black bottomless pit of American bankruptcy.

Rep. Lamar Smith states:

President Obama and Congressional Democrats have been talking about giving amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. Tax Day seems like a good time to examine the impact that such a policy would have on your wallet.

Start with education. Using the average annual American public school elementary and secondary education costs, the Federation for American Immigration Reform has estimated that the total cost of K-12 education for illegal immigrant minors and the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants is $28.6 billion a year.

Then there’s health care. If illegal immigrants are covered in the health care bill (there is not a strong verification mechanism to ensure they won’t get benefits), it would increase the bill’s costs between $10-$30 billion. Of course, it won’t matter if illegal immigrants receive amnesty since the new law requires health care coverage for everyone.

Social Security is another area of great concern. Claims by amnesty advocates that illegal immigration can “save” Social Security are false.

Last year, the Social Security Administration (SSA) ran the numbers at my request. Here’s what they found: For a single 25-year old male with very low earnings, today’s value of his and his employer’s contributions to the Trust Fund will fall $15,596 short of the value of the Social Security retirement benefits he will eventually receive. A single female will receive $20,936 more in benefits than she pays into Social Security. If the immigrant is married but the sole wage-earner, the couple will eventually drain the Trust Fund by $52,460; if the immigrant is married to another very low earner, the drain on the trust fund will be $39,037. The legalization of one million illegal immigrant couples who work for very low wages would be a $101 billion blow to taxpayers. And amnesty for all illegal immigrants would multiply this figure many times!

When it comes to taxes, amnesty supporters like to say that illegal immigrants will pay their “fair share” of taxes after being granted amnesty. This is deceptive.

Low-skilled workers often pay no taxes and receive a check from the Internal Revenue Service in the form of the Earned Income Tax Credit. Putting illegal immigrants on the IRS rolls will actually cost the federal government money.

Since most illegal immigrants have less than a high school education and have well below average incomes, even those illegal immigrants who pay taxes pay far less in taxes than they (and their families) consume in taxpayer-supported benefits. Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation found that the average immigrant household headed by an immigrant without a high school degree receives over $19,000 more in total government benefits each year than it pays in federal, state and local taxes!

But the impact goes far beyond these direct costs.

There are nearly 16 million Americans out of work, and about 8 million jobs are held by illegal immigrants. By simply enforcing immigration laws already on the books, we could create millions of job opportunities for American citizens and legal immigrants who played by the rules and entered the U.S. the right way.

Instead, the Obama administration has all but abandoned worksite enforcement efforts. Administrative arrests are down 87 percent; criminal arrests of employees are down 83 percent; criminal arrests of employers are down 73 percent; the number of criminal indictments are down 86 percent; and the number of criminal convictions is down 83 percent since 2008. This insults unemployed and underemployed American workers who need the jobs held by illegal immigrants.

The hit is on your wallet! Illegal immigrants are a fiscal drain on American taxpayers. And the Obama administration’s policies only make it worse.

That means if you are brown-skinned and leave home without a wallet, you are in trouble.

If I’m not mistaken this is a law in most states already. If you are asked to produce identification by a law enforcement officer, you have to. If you can’t they can detain you until your identity can be confirmed.

“We’re codifying into law, if the governor signs this, racial profiling, discrimination under the Constitution,” he said on MSNBC last night, adding that the bill is “fundamentally racist.”

I disagree that this is a violation of the Constitution. Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and California bear the brunt of this issue and the Constitution gives a large amount of latitude for states to govern themselves. If Arizona wants to allow their peace officers to request documentation from an individual, with “reasonable suspicion”, that’s Arizona’s choice, right? Everyone is just assuming cops will only approach Latinos.

This may well be the case. Knowing what I know of Republicans they are a fairly discriminatory group and this is Republican legislation. No doubt about that. But is it so horrible that law enforcement is being given a degree of latitude to exercise their personal judgment? I know there are thousands, if not millions, of examples on record where police have abused their power. But what’s the problem with saying “Hey, can I see your ID?”
If you don’t have ID, and can’t prove your identity, the police should probably be dealing with you anyway.

Just the way I see it.

“Everyone is just assuming cops will only approach Latinos.”

Right. And will the Latino cops approach whites?

This law is racist, discriminatory and unAmerican. If you two commenters up there can’t see that, you’re blind.

Arizona didn’t cause the immigration problems. Washington caused the problems and Washington can fix them. Nothing meaningful will be done however because current policy drives down wages. Our corporate masters hate two things. They hate paying taxes and they hate paying us.

I’m not blind. I have a problem with providing a safe haven for illegal immigrants. If this law relieves some of that pressure on our economy, that’s a good thing.

And is it really racist to acknowledge that the majority of illegal immigrants in this country are Latino? Caucasians aren’t streaming across the Canadian border. People aren’t fleeing Germany or Ethiopia to come here illegally. Indians aren’t flooding the Eastern seaboard, slipping in under the cover of darkness. Many immigrants arrive here legally and take the proper steps to make sure their status remains legal.

Acknowledging that most of the illegal immigrants in this country are Latino isn’t racist. It’s a fact. It’s a logistical situation, not a stereotype. We share a very large, unpopulated land border and have an economic climate that is conducive to a desire to be here instead of there. That’s not racist. It’s reality.

I think its silly that whenever the motivation for legislation can be identified with a particular race, creed, culture, or religion, it’s automatically discrimination. When did we become so scared of our own shadows that we had to hide from reality?

That, my friend puravida, is blindness.

Of course everyone has to present identification to police officers when asked, but the asking has to be based on some reasonable suspicion. And you don’t have to present evidence of citizenship, only evidence of identity.

Arizona is turning itself into a ‘papers please’ state just as the number of non-white Hispanic babies surpassed the number of white babies in Arizona.

This is the Arizona GOP’s Prop 187. Good luck with that, it’s worked so well for the California GOP.

It is an attempt to legalize racism. “Hey mexican, can I see your ID?”
I’m guessing that you are white.

Does anyone know what constitutes proof of legal status? I expect that a Green Card will be acceptable (although I may be wrong) for a legal immigrant and a passport with appropriate visa for a visitor, but what about citizens? Will a Driver’s License suffice for citizens? We all know how easily those are faked, will you have to wait while the officer confirms the License with the DMV (or whatever AZ calls it)?

If the cops are against it, they could put a stop to it really fast by asking basically everyone, regardless of color, for proof of legal status.

Does it really matter considering that just looking different is enough to cause questioning?

Again, the focus of this effort is to cut back on illegal Mexican immigrants. Of course they will be asking Mexicans. If the problem was illegal African immigrants or illegal Chinese immigrants they wouldn’t be asking Mexicans.

Am I the only person here that this makes sense to?

It makes no sense. So, being stopped because someone looks Mexican is ok with you. They aren’t here as tourists. Why not go after the people that hire illegals instead of this?

Nowhere in this legislation does it say it’s legal to stop someone for looking Mexican. I’m not denying that some police officers may do that. But let our judicial system do it’s job in that case. If someone feels their civil rights have been violated there are avenues to pursue that issue.

The type of opinions you’re expressing here seem to be along the same lines of the fear mongering that we’ve all bemoaned for the last 10 years.

So, being stopped because someone looks Mexican is ok with you.

“Hey mexican, can I see your ID?”

You’re attempting to incite emotional responses here instead of examining what I said in a rational way. And as far as

I’m guessing that you are white.

now who’s being racist and stereotypical?

An irrational law cannot be examined in a rational way.

Again, I’d submit that talking to Mexican people about their legal status when the issue at hand is the legal status of some Mexicans is a completely rational solution.

It is not rational. It is only racist.

You’re operating on the assumption that the police officers in Arizona have nothing better to do than drive around looking for Latino people to stop. You’re also assuming that police officers in Arizona are of such low moral fiber that they could not be counted on to uphold the letter and spirit of the law.

I think these assumptions, taken at face value, are irrational. I think at their core they are simply fear driven.

KrisAinCA,

When did “probable cause” become downgraded to “reasonable cause” as per our national Constitution?

Of course, from the Bush/Cheney Effect, America took a turn for the worse. So, expecting white America to recognize and address the “problem” of racism, will be long in coming.

BTW, I live in Arizona and I support Grijalva’s “public call” for an economic boycott of Arizona, should Brewer permit this legislation to come into public policy, either with or without her signature.

And for Brewer, when she got her start in the Legislature, she was considered a mainstream conservative. Today, she is outlier among the Republicans. Her three challengers are coming at her from the Far Right as per the Tea Party. Therefore, she is not a political model that Chicanos can look up to for the sake of future Progress. And she recognizes that this legislation has been addressed strictly on a partisan basis, with Democrats in opposition, and with all Republicans voting in favor of this legislation. Grijalva is correct, in that it’s private racism projecting into the public arena.

Jaango

The letter and spirit of the law are to assume that Hispanics are here illegally until they prove otherwise. Being presumed guilty is not one of the founding principles of the US. Counting on the police to be better than the politicians is not the way things work.

“Reasonable suspicion” to me, at least, means the same thing as “probable cause”. Can you show me legal precedent from Arizona that says otherwise?

If a police officer has “reasonable suspicion” that you’re driving under the influence he can ask you to step out of your car and submit to field sobriety tests. Is that discriminatory? In that instance, and many many others, a trained peace officer’s “reasonable suspicion” is equated to “probable cause”.

I’ve said many times in my prior comments that I am not insisting that there would be no abuse of power. We can count on abuse of power. That’s why this forum exists. What I’m saying is there are other avenues to address those civil rights violations. This legislation does not violate civil rights. It opens the door for random police officers to violate peoples’ civil rights. If that happens there are systems in place to deal with it.

But what’s to stop an AZ statie from pulling over a Latino and asking him for documentation today? If said statie puts in his report that he thought said Latino was under the influence and was simply seeking identification, that would certainly be okay under current law, right?

well put.

I live in an area that originally had a large influx of Puerto Ricans -brought into the area to work in the mushroom industry after the local farm ladies outgrew it. When the Puerto Ricans outgrew the job, the growers illegally flew in Mexicans to do the work cheaply.

Point being, there are a lot of Hispanics here who are born and bred Americans. But because many use Spanish, it is easily and oft automatically assumed they are “illegals”

I don’t see that assumption. I see what I said earlier:

I’d submit that talking to Mexican people about their legal status when the issue at hand is the legal status of some Mexicans is a completely rational solution.

and the same most certainly applies in the Southwest, Arizona included. It’s a matter of respect too.

How you determine who are Mexicans? They look Mexican. So, stop them and make them prove they are innocent. Going for a jog? If you look Mexican, better take your papers. Taking the dog out? Don’t forget your papers.

You may want to live in a police state, but I do not.

If the police decide that someone looks mexican enough but they are actually citizens, perhaps AZ could offer free barcode tatoos so that they don’t have to carry their papers all the time.

I’m still not seeing that. You’re assuming that police have an inherent desire to persecute and deport Mexicans. Or anyone with brown skin. I think you may have missed this

In fact, multiple police chiefs have come out strongly against the bill

and this

Law enforcement doesn’t want to spend all their time enforcing an untargeted police state against brown-skinned people

I think the lack of definition for the term “reasonable suspicion” is what’s causing the real disagreement here. If “reasonable suspicion” were changed to “probable cause” (which has established legal definition as pertaining to the Constitution) would you feel more comfortable with the legislation? Or if circumstances and events under which the documentation could be asked for were better defined?

Kris,

In your approach, the ‘intended result’ is that as a Brown Person, should I be challenged and asked for “my papers”, I have to take the time and money while hiring an attorney, to defend myself. If so, I cannot thank you enough for causing me the angst and anger for having to waste my money on silly legislation.

Apparently, you think that giving a law enforcement agency the ability to denigrate me, is just more “happy talk”. This legislation is an abomination for anyone who holds “high value” in citizenship.

BTW, after a twenty-year stuggle, the state law enforcement agency, the Department of Public Safety, finally entered into a legal agreement with the court not to racially profile, anymore. History doen’t rhyme but it can be a bitch and when Justice falls, it’s because a political operative had the opportunity to “point the finger”.

Jaango

Some of the police are smarter than the politicians. Still, the law is the law and the police are there to enforce it. A wink and a nod from some of them is not good enough. There will be plenty of racist cops will be more than happy to legally harass brown people.

See my post @27.

It seeks to be the legal establishment of racism because it is based only on race.

Nobody is saying you have to hire an attorney or fight anything in court. I think the legislation is aimed at people having to produce state issued ID or a Social Security Card, or green card, or visa, etc., when asked for it. If you don’t have any of those things, but are a legal citizen/immigrant resident, wtf?

I see the validity in your opinion there. I’d like to thank you for a very intellectually stimulating conversation this afternoon! Just for the record, I am opposed to this legislation. I don’t think its racist. For some reason that tag doesn’t fit for me. But it certainly isn’t right. My argument stemmed from the language in some of the quoted text in the original post, not the fundamental message.

Better always have your papers then. And you better hope the cop decides that they are in order. Do you carry your papers all of the time? I don’t if I’m just out walking or walking the dogs. Why should someone who looks “brown” not be able to do that?

Thanks. It has been stimulating for sure.

I never leave my house without my wallet. Which contains my credit cards, bank cards, a drivers license, a state issued ID card, and my social security card.

Not everyone does carry everything. If you look mexican, you will have to and still you will have to hope that the cop decides the papers are in order. Sure, they will probably figure things out eventually after a few hours down at the station. Why were you stopped? Only because of how you look. Is that what the USA is now?

jeez you are sure risking identity theft carrying your social security card around, what if you misplace your wallet?

Not recommended.

Kris,

History has beat your Argumentation.

In Phoenix, Arizona, anytime after sunset, the Cowboy Kops invade 40th St and Baseline, and African Americans are stopped for no rationale other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Alas, our Infamous Sheriff is preparing for this 15th Effort at Crime Sweep and which is code talk for ‘racial profiling’. And this Sweep is only conducted in a high density Spanish-speaking population environment.

And more to the point, this law won’t solve anything. Human smuggling organizations see Arizona as a distribution point and not a destination. This has occurred because the ‘organization’ has adjusted its strategies and tactics according to the Federal Response which has created a ‘funneling’ of Undocumented Immigrants out of Texas, New Mexico, and California, thus we are ‘enjoying’ the brunt of this political behavior from the Congress members from these respective states since Texas and California have far more votes than does Arizona.

And as to the Drug Cartels, the entrance point into the Law of Supply and Demand starts with the Demand here in the USA. Thus, the politicians don’t have to courage to address the Demand or for comprehensive rehabilitation. Regardless of the failure of our Elected and Appointed Officials, we in Arizona are rightfully to be recognized as the Alabama of the 21st Century.

Jaango

I completely support this piece of legislation. I am not racist by any means. The reason for my support is not Mexican immigrants, but ILLEGAL immigrants. Regardless of age, race, sex, creed, or color, people need to come into this country by legal means. I believe that the government has the right, and the responsibility, to deport those people that do not take the proper action to be legal.

I appreciate your point of view, and agree with you to an extent. I think there are deeper issues here that need to be addressed. The people who employ illegal immigrants, for example (which you cited earlier). As far as this issue of racism, or the others you cited in the first paragraph of your last post, I don’t necessarily agree with labeling them racist.

In an area where African American gangs are selling drugs and committing violent crimes in the middle of the night, is it racist to stop African Americans on the street in the middle of the night? It’s not because they’re African American, its because they’re there.

If you’re focusing your resources on a problem, and have limited time and money to do so, and that problem happens to be illegal latino immigrants, wouldn’t it make sense to focus those limited resources on an area where there is the highest concentration of latinos? That’s not racist, that’s logic.

I oppose this bill because I do believe it will lead to more violations of peoples’ civil rights. However, I think continuing to focus the conversation on racism, instead of the other issues, is detrimental to your cause. Its intellectual discussions like the one we’re all having here that can advance understanding. Just yelling “Racist!” from the roof tops doesn’t get the job done.

My argument was never about this being right or wrong, it was just about the reasons for it being wrong.

I appreciate your concern Elliot! I hadn’t thought of it that way.

Kristenh,

Sorry buddy, but you still don’t “get it”.

“illegal” is a community definition for criminalizing.

“undocumented immigrant” is a community definition for humanizing.

Need I say more?

Jaango

It’s illegal to be an undocumented immigrant. Therefore, an undocumented immigrant is an illegal immigrant, right?

my terminology may not be up to your standards, but my point is clear.

Kris,

Obviously, we agree to disagree and done in a respectful manner.

To wit, I have long advocated legislation that prohibits political parties from accepting memberships from bigots and racists. My fellow Democrats have had control of Congress for these past three years, and had the opportunity to pass this legislation, and chose not to address few if any Big Ideas, and much to my displeasure.

As to having to carry “the papers” many states do not require presenting a birth certificate in order to acquire a drivers license. And for most people, birth certificates are not carried on a daily basis and for obvious reasons. Consequently, the Department of Vital Statistics will be levying a small fee for every time their data base has to be queried, and more to the point, the employees work regular hours and thusly, requiring even more time spent at the police station. And anytime a cot and meal is provided, the taxpayer takes the financial hit.

Jaango

Obviously, we agree to disagree and done in a respectful manner.

I love the my fellow firepups for just this reason! I also share your disappointment with our current democrats on the federal and state (different state) level. Its pretty repugnant.

Have a great night Jaango, I’m outta here!

Kris,

“illegal” purports to a criminal violation of the law. Crossing the border without the proper paperwork is a civil violation. And therein is the difference, in my use of the appropriate terminology.

What this legislation is attempting to do is superced federal law from a civil violation to a criminal violation. Thus, a legal challenge will be mounted should this legislation become enacted into public law with or without the Governor’s signature. In the meantime, I can expect to be stopped by all manner of law enforcement agencies as I travel the highways and byways of my Sonoran Desert. Consequently, I will be ‘stopped’ repeatedly for just being alive and breathing or for my ability to walk on two feet. :-)

Jaango

What is a rational solution to the issue of people living in the US that do not have the legal right to be here?

Hello, again, librty.

Our immigration system is broken and it has become a joke.

The other day, I explained to some military vets that a “rich foreigner” can pledge a few million in assets and immediately become a ‘citizen’. In contrast, a ‘poor foreigner’ as in an Undocumented Immigrant has to trek through the Sonoran Desert for seven days and ultimately has to drink his own urine. I went further in order to explain that even an Army Ranger or a Navy SEAL can’t carry enough water for these seven days, and thusly, would be required to drink his own urine as well.

Now, if a rich person can buy a citizenship, should the price required for a ‘poor’ person be adjusted accordingly? Of course, Obama would NOT accept this concept since it would be odoriferous to his Neo-liberalism.

Jaango

I appreciate your reply jaango but don’t see a proposed solution in it, I don’t have one either.

We live in a very white portion of Minnesota but I am keenly aware of my families immigration history, very long ago on one side, not so long ago on the other.

My youngest daughter is 12, one of her best friends is a 1st generation American Mexican immigrant. She was born here after her Mother and Father immigrated and has two brothers, one is 15 and is a friend of my Son.

I had a good chuckle at school conferences a couple of weeks ago while talking with the Mother. To indicate how they have become so ‘Americanized’, their 15 year old son is failing one class, Spanish.

That is a shame for many reasons but it does say something doesn’t it?

In some parts of the country the melting pot is still melting and not boiling.

Now, if a rich person can buy a citizenship, should the price required for a ‘poor’ person be adjusted accordingly? Of course, Obama would NOT accept this concept since it would be odoriferous to his Neo-liberalism.

Sorry, had to read your reply again.

I agree. The price should be adjusted, like to zero. There should not be a price in dollars.

An individual willing to walk for 7 days while drinking their own urine should be respected, not condemned. (as long as illegalities aren’t their motivation)

As a military veteran, permit me to provide another prism from which to view immigration reform.

Back in the early 1970s, the Neo-libs did the work of their like-minded “kissing cousins”, the Neo-cons. Working in tandem, they eliminated the military draft, and in doing so, brought forth the notional that citizenship has “little value”, given that rich parents do not want their kids in the military. And along came Reagan and he lifted the caps on the portability of wealth, but not on labor. These two “bugs” of Democracy, define today’s approach to citizenship, one in which citizenship if fungible and the family’s wealth is portable, and leads to the conclusion among the poor that little value exists in citizenship. Especially when one-tenth of one percent of the population wears our nation’s uniform and the remaining 99% complain constantly about everything, and even when it’s inconsistent with their self-interest. But not for the Undocumented Immigrant who is seeking to put a potato and some meat on the table for the family.

However, I take it a step further, and in that I argue that a child born in the USA to Undocumented Immigrants, these parents should be moved to the head of the line for “naturalization” provided they have expressed an interest in becoming citizens of the USA. In doing so, we as a society, have respect for citizenship, we are respecting our “littlest citizens” by offering this citizship to their parents, and moreover, we are “honoring” ourselves for being prescient relative to America’s progress in the future.

And the other day, ABC News reported that a large group of retired miltiary officers considered the nuttritional value found in the National School Lunch Program, as inadequate since “fitness”, “fat”, “obesity” does not cause a military recruiter to achieve any success among these economically disadvantaged students. Thus, the ‘cry’ of the retired military officers for deeming this existing behavior as a “national security threat’. And these are the same admirals and generals who turned their backs on the Privates, Corporals, and Sergeants during Bush’s War of Choice.

I am sympathetic to your sentiments and would like to ask a couple of follow up questions.

If we as a nation were to provide the undocumented workers that are currently living here from all nations a fast track to citizenship, what do we tell those that have been waiting patiently their turn in line?

Secondly, if memory serves me correctly, our nation previously has provided a similar fast track to citizenship for undocumented workers. This would not be the first time. So how do we prevent having a constant influx of undocumented workers?