JuanCarlos
New member
Do away with the anchor baby loophole--having a baby here does not gain a free ticket in. Deport the parent--but the baby stays. Put the baby into foster care until legal adoption can be arranged.
While this may surprise some folks, this is an idea I have proposed myself (though not here) and I agree with...sorta. The only problem I have is that I'd want to see the current state of our foster/adoption system drastically improve before I'd be willing to implement it.
But yes, I fully agree that A) the child should most definitely be a citizen and B) the parents should be able to use the child as an "anchor."
Though I'd say once the child is an adult they should be able to sponsor the parents as family members to get them in, if they choose. Make it a "delayed reaction." Gets rid of a lot of the welfare-related problems, since the parents don't get to come over until the child is grown and can (in theory) take care of him/herself.
Answer: Not a positive. Based on a false premise about cheaper products & services. Low cost illegal wages + actual cost to social system = much more than a legal worker cost the community.Positives from illegal immigration have been mentioned. Economic stimulation, a larger tax base for many forms of taxes (property, sales, etc.), cheaper products and services in many sectors
Maybe more, maybe "much" more...I didn't claim that this positive wasn't offset by other negative impacts. Merely that there was a positive, and that it does by nature of being a positive help offset the negative aspects. Again, people smarter than you or I are still trying to figure out the "net" economic effect...and I'm thinking that on the whole it's a negative. Just a smaller negative than is often claimed, when the "big picture" is looked at.
I also noticed you skipped right over the larger property/sales tax base. As well as the many illegal workers who contribute to Social Security but will never draw it out. Positives, no?
Answer: That is really reaching. Are all childcare centers operated by illegals? I don't think I want to make the effort on this one.cheaper availability of childcare allowing skilled workers to be more productive, etc).
No, not all childcare centers are operated by illegals. Nor are all housekeepers/in-home nannies illegals. But the illegals provide a larger labor pool for these services, thus driving down prices. Sucks if you're a white housekeeper, but it does allow people (especially wives/mothers) more time to pursue more productive careers that housekeeping. If more people can afford childcare/housekeeping, that means they can pursue further education/careers. If mom is working as anything from a teacher to an engineer to a cashier at Wal-Mart, the economic effect is theoretically positive.
Of course, one could go argue that the social impact of two-income households is negative...and I'd agree it's profoundly negative. But economically it makes our country more productive, and that is a positive. A positive that is offset by other negatives, of course...but still a positive.
Note that I'm not making a claim that the overall effect is positive (though some economists have claimed that the economic effect is, though small). I'm just saying if you focus solely on the negatives and dismiss all the positives you're going to get a hideously skewed picture of the overall effect illegal immigration has.