Should we deport illegals?

[Ernest Money]

(Repost from earlier thread; original appears corrupted)

Ernest Money wrote
> >Why do you strongly oppose rounding up illegal Mexicans and sending
> >them back to Mexico?

El Castor wrote:
> Fair question. I like Mexicans, at least the ones I come in contact
> with, more than a lot of native born Americans. Let's face it, around
> here if you want a meal cooked, roof repaired, fence post replaced,
> lawn mowed, or house cleaned or painted, it's going to be done by a
> Mexican -- and I use the term loosely to mean any kind of mostly
> illegal Hispanic.

Around here? You mean in the US?

> Mexicans work harder and are more conscientious than
> most Americans. My wife volunteers at a local K-4 school helping kids
> with their reading. The parents are frequently Mexican, and are
> uniformly grateful -- more than can be said for the parents of many
> indigenous kids. One Mexican woman has given my wife two $50 gift
> cards. The woman cleans houses for a living, we don't need or want the
> money, but she won't take no for an answer.

This is a short-term way of looking at the issue. First & second
generation immigrants are usually more diligent and ambitious than
later generations. The important point is that through Latino
immigration, legal and illegal, we are not merely acquiring some hard-
workers to mow lawns and shovel snow, we are permanently transforming
US demography, not necessarily for the better.

> And, Mexicans tend to be
> good Catholics

Depends what your definition of *good* is. 53% of births to Hispanics
are out-of-wedlock (cf 29% for non-Hispanic whites); Hispanic women
have substantially higher abortion ratios than non-Hispanic white
women (195 vs 140 abortions per 1000 live births, see
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6108a1.htm#Tab12). A
majority of Latinos favor same sex marriage. If these are "good"
Catholics, I wonder what it takes to be a lousy one.

> and seldom blow themselves up -- as opposed to the
> Muslim immigration to Europe.

Not much of a recommendation; any immigrant group has got to be better
than Muslims. Large scale Muslim immigration in Europe simply shows
that they are even crazier than we are, and we are crazy enough.

> My best friend in the neighborhood is
> the legal son of illegal parents. He owns a successful business, surfs
> as a hobby, has a daughter who is a ballet dancer, has his son in
> every little league type of activity that exists, and is a fiscal
> conservative.

..and is thus not a typical Latino; Latinos gave the presidency to
Obama in 2012. Conservatives, fiscal or otherwise, would not have done
that.

> I have a degree in economics and a life long interest in the subject.
> There is a good argument to be made that illegal immigration is a plus
> for the economy and a net boost for jobs, not only for the immigrants,
> but for indigenous Americans, although I admit that there is an
> argument that they may create more mid-level jobs while costing the
> lower strata of the work force employment by out competing them.

The counter argument was best summed up by Mark Krikorian in the
National Review: Is it wise to import a 19th century workforce into a
21st century civilization?

There is a fundamental flaw in the notion that the importation of
large numbers of unskilled workers benefits the economy, simply
because firms that employ them say so. Consider the case of the tomato-
growing industry in California:

QUOTE.
Economist Philip Martin of the University of California likes to tell
a story about the state's tomato industry. In the early 1960s, growers
relied on seasonal Mexican laborers, brought in under the government's
"bracero" program. The Mexicans picked the tomatoes that were then
processed into ketchup and other products. In 1964, Congress killed
the program despite growers' warnings that its abolition would doom
their industry. What happened? Well, plant scientists developed oblong
tomatoes that could be harvested by machine. Since then, California's
tomato output has risen five times.
END QUOTE.
Why U.S. Doesn't Need Guest Workers By Robert Samuelson
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/03/importing_poverty.html

> Then there is the fertility issue. Left up to the indigenous Caucasian
> population, we would soon be experiencing the same kind of negative
> population growth they are seeing in Europe and Japan. Take a look at
> the situation in Italy -- not nice.

This issue hinges on whether Latino immigrants and their descendants
will be a net positive for the economy. All the indicators (including
the IQ data which you cite) are that they will not be.

> That said, I believe we should quit paying lip service to sealing the
> border, and actually do it -- tight as a drum.

But why, given all the (alleged) benefits to the US that you have
listed? Why not have a "Come one, come all" immigration policy?

> Sovereign nations like
> the United States have a right and obligation to make their own
> decisions about immigration, but don't send the ones home who are
> already here -- except genuine criminals.

The ones who are here are lawbreakers.

> Seal the border, deny anyone
> who is not a citizen most of the trappings of our welfare state, but
> give those who have roots a path to citizenship.

..so that I will continue to get my meal cooked, roof repaired, fence
post replaced, lawn mowed, house cleaned or painted ...

> And, yes, I know it's
> not that simple, but we should be able to figure it out.

For some of us it is simple: close the border and implement E-Verify;
no amnesty. Done.