"Liberal" study illustrates failed "liberal" immigration policies
Posted Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 10:58 am
The Center for American Progress has released a study (press release) that claims it would cost at least $41 billion a year to deport all illegal aliens. It (probably falsely) assumes that there are just 10 million illegals here, and it assumes that 2 million of those would deport themselves.
From the WaPo's "$41 Billion Cost Projected To Remove Illegal Entrants":
The people who've got us into this situation were past and present administrations, including presidents Bush and Clinton.
And, the CAP is closely affiliated with the Clintons.
So, the same people who helped get us into this mess are now providing us with a strawman figurine of how much correcting their failed policies would cost us. And, they're proposing a solution in the Kennedy-McCain mass amnesty. The mind reels thinking up a proper analogy, perhaps involving building contractors and ending up in small claims court.
Also, isn't Hillary Clinton now supposed to support border security and control over illegal immigration?
From the WaPo's "$41 Billion Cost Projected To Remove Illegal Entrants":
"We do need to know what enforcement would cost," [Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies] said, "but [the study] is a cartoon version of how enforcement would work."The study is not just a cartoon, it's even funnier than KOTH or the Simpson's: it shows the opposite of what they intended to show.
...Will Adams, a spokesman for Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), an outspoken advocate of stronger immigration laws, called the study an "an interesting intellectual exercise" by liberals that is "useless . . . because no one's talking about" employing mass deportation as a tactic.
"No one's talking about buying planes, trains and automobiles to get them out of the country," Adams said. "The vast number of illegal immigrants are coming for jobs. Congressman Tancredo wants to go after the employers."
The people who've got us into this situation were past and present administrations, including presidents Bush and Clinton.
And, the CAP is closely affiliated with the Clintons.
So, the same people who helped get us into this mess are now providing us with a strawman figurine of how much correcting their failed policies would cost us. And, they're proposing a solution in the Kennedy-McCain mass amnesty. The mind reels thinking up a proper analogy, perhaps involving building contractors and ending up in small claims court.
Also, isn't Hillary Clinton now supposed to support border security and control over illegal immigration?
Comments
Melanie Alston-Akers (not verified)
Thu, 07/28/2005 - 06:05
Permalink
Here's your chance to comment directly on this report -- to one of the authors! Moving Ideas is sponsoring an online discussion with immigration experts from across the political spectrum for a lively discussion about what's next for U.S. immigration policy and how it could affect your community.
TODAY: July 28, 2-3pm
http://www.movingideas.org/chat/Immigration/Immigration.php
Featuring:
* Raj Goyle, Senior Policy Analyst for Domestic Policy at the Center for American Progress.
* Mark Krikorian, Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.
* Michele Waslin, Ph.D., Director of Immigration Policy Research at the National Council of La Raza (NCLR).
http://www.movingideas.org/chat/Immigration/Immigration.php
John S Bolton (not verified)
Wed, 07/27/2005 - 03:54
Permalink
It is highly contradictory for the report to acknowledge that we can deport a million or so a year for a few billion, while deporting only twice that many would cost ten times as much per year. On this kind of estimate, deporting 1.2 million would be ~5 billion, 1.4 : 8 b, 1.6 : 14b, 1.8 : 24b and 2 miilion would cost the dreamed up 40 billion. If there were such an escalating cost, it would show up towards the end of the period of five years, not at the end of each year of operation. It could not escalate so steeply as that either; economies of scale and improvements of efficiency would compensate for any tendency to catch the easiest first.
perroazul del norte (not verified)
Tue, 07/26/2005 - 11:46
Permalink
What a joke, the bogus report totally evades the issues of tightening up verification procedures through on-line systems and the fining and jailing of employers who violate the law.