O's lawyers have no right to be involved in USSC case.
the USSC should be hearing the case that proves the O admin has been
preventing immigration authorities from doing their job ... and how
soon they should be removed from office
On Apr 25, 8:49 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Congressional Democrats Prepare to Curb States on Immigration"The Supreme Court hears arguments Wednesday over Arizona's immigration-crackdown law, but Democrats are already preparing for a potential loss by saying they'll try to pass legislation stripping states of the power to enact their own immigration rules." (Washington Times)Who speaks for individual rights?Immigration: An Abolitionist's CauseWhat Do We Accomplish By Shutting Out Immigrants?Ken Schoolland
> January 2002 • Volume: 52 • Issue: 1 •
> One of the most frequent arguments used against opening borders is that it would add to the welfare burden of the state and that innocent taxpayers will be compelled to pay for slothful immigrants.Slothful immigrants?Students in my international trade and finance classes always get a good laugh at the notion of "slothful immigrants." I ask my students to imagine that they are an employer facing two job applicants. The only thing they know about them is that one is an American and the other is an immigrant. Which is likely to be the worker who will work harder? They always always always say the immigrant is sure to be the harder worker.
> If it is logical on economic grounds to deport someone so that they do not become dependent on welfare, then it would make more sense to deport Americans on welfare than immigrants. But no one suggests that. Why?
> The people of America proudly declare every Fourth of July "that all Men Are Created Equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Yet citizens are presumed to have a right to be in the United States of America and immigrants are not. This is especially odd since all Americans, or their ancestors, were once immigrants themselves.
> Note the state control that is inherent in the circular logic of those who declare:
> "Newcomers cannot be allowed in, because the statemightcompel us all to pay the potential welfare costs for their upkeep."
> It is the same circular logic that is used to controlallthat we do, such as:
> "Citizens cannot smoke cigarettes or marijuana, because the statemightcompel us all to pay the potential medical costs for their illness."
> "Citizens cannot keep a child out of government schools, because the statemightcompel us all to pay the potential unemployment costs of inadequate training."
> "Citizens cannot keep their money out of the Social Security system, because the statemightcompel us all to pay the potential retirement costs of inadequate funding."
> Or, eventually, "Citizens cannot give birth to newcomers, because the statemightcompel us all to pay the potential costs for their upkeep."
> If one accepts this logic of the politician, then the right to all individual human action is lost to the state.
> Many free-marketeers champion individual freedom in virtually every other aspect of economics except immigration. They may accept immigration theoretically, but only after all forms of welfare have been abolished. Which is to say: "Not in my lifetime."
> If we truly believe in the notion of personal responsibility for individual actions, then we must hold politicians accountable for the welfare system, not innocent immigrants who had no say in the policy. It would be just as illogical as holding a refugee to account for the tyranny of a dictator that drove her from her homeland.
> Arguing the practical side, Julian Simon asserted that it is a misconception that immigrants, as a group, are a welfare burden on taxpayers. Immigrants do so much to contribute to the economic health of a country, and they pay more in taxes than they absorb in benefits, so the continuation of welfare benefits for citizens may well depend on their contributions.1Welfare DecayIs it correct to suppose that in-migration is caused by the existence of welfare? Evidence shows that the opposite is true.
> Proof can be found in migration patterns within America's 50 states, where there are no border guards and virtually no language and cultural barriers. Do people move between states to find the most welfare? No!Just the opposite.
> States that give the most welfare have the most out-migration. States with the least welfare have the most in-migration.
> Take my home state, Hawaii, for example. Hawaii is the most socialistic state in America, with by far the most generous welfare benefits of the 50 states. According to a Cato Institute study by Michael Tanner and Stephen Moore, the six basic welfare benefits in Hawaii (six among a possible 77 welfare programs) could provide a mother and two children with the equivalent of a pre-tax income of $36,000 or a wage of $17.50 an hour.2This is a lot of money and by the "welfare-magnet theory" should have attracted every welfare mom in America.
> It hasn't. According to recent Census data for the 1990s, Hawaii experienced a net domestic out-migration of 9 percent of the population to other states.
> In fact, all the top welfare regionsHawaii, Alaska, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and the District of Columbiaexperienced net domestic outmigration to other states. Hawaii has an ideal climate, fabulous beaches, wonderful people, but the economy is in decline. In fact, it is the only state in the nation that experienced real economic contraction the entire decade of the '90s. No wonder, since it has been chronically listed as the number-one "tax hell" in the country byMoneymagazine.
> The legislature feels it has to raise taxes to pay for the welfare, and by raising taxes the lawmakers drive people away. The same is true for the second-highest welfare state, Alaska, which had the second-slowest growing economy in the nation for a decade.
> Contrast this with states that grant little welfare. Mississippi provides only a third of the welfare money that Hawaii offers. In fact, the median income of aworkerin Mississippi is $6,000 less than what a family can get onwelfarein Hawaii. Did everyone abandon Mississippi to get on the gravy train in Hawaii?
> Just the opposite. In fact, all five states at the very bottom of the welfare listMississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Arizonaexperienced net domestic immigration from other states. The deserts of Arizona and Nevada, with some of the lowest taxes, were the fastest growing states in the nation.
> There's no doubt about it. In-migration is caused by opportunity, not by welfare. Of course, there are high-profile exceptions, but people who are too lazy to work are also too lazy to move away from everything that is familiar to them. This is generally true within a nation and even more so between nations. It is the courageous of the world who are far more likely to risk everything to go to a new and potentially hostile land where the language, the customs, and the people are all unfamiliar.Tyrant and Corporate WelfareThere are other forms of welfare, however, that do contribute mightily to migration.Top 5 Welfare States Hourly Wage Equivalent of Welfare (1995) Net Domestic Migration(% change 1990-99)Hawaii $ 17.50 - 9%
> Alaska 15.48 - 4
> Massachusetts 14.66 -4
> Connecticut ...
>
> read more »
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment