Should Illegal Immigrants get Welfare

[Giordano]

Yes, I am a "his"

For your first paragraph, all of this depends on what we as a nation want for the future of immigration. What I mean is do we want a yearly limit on the number of people, do we want to let in more educated people than not, etc. Do we want to pick and choose who comes or just let anyone in, first come first served? I think a nation has the right to set limits if they choose to. I'm not familiar with the constitutionality of any of this really, I'm just thinking out loud.

Long ago we accepted pretty much anyone who could get here (maybe that's a bit of an exaggeration?), but is that what we want now?

It is nice that we have been a haven for refugees and those seeking a better life, but we don't owe that to anybody. Perhaps the amount of these types of people we allow in should be proportionate to how well our economy is doing and how many people we can afford to help out. That would be a practical approach. Maybe everything I'm saying is already in the books and just not being enforced properly, I really don't know. It doesn't matter for this discussion I suppose.

People that are educated or have desired skills won't be such a burden on society. Then again, if we have a lot of qualified citizens out of work, we might not want too many of these people here either. That would indeed be a burden. Why do companies want to bring in skilled foreign labor? To save money, or to receive tax benefits? Surely most jobs, perhaps not all, could be filled by somebody already here. Perhaps that is something that needs to be thrown into the equation. I'm sure it already is, but we're just talking here.

In short, we should do what is best for our country, while also keeping in mind that people who are poor and unskilled can also benefit us down the road, and that we have always been a place people can come to try and make a better life for themselves.

From a purely skeptical position, one question I have is why should/do we care about refugees and poor people who want to come here? I mean we could simply say that if someone doesn't have something we want or need that we won't let them in. I am not saying that we should have that attitude - we never have, I'm just asking why. Understanding this would help determine how we set our rules for the future.

Politics and greed seem to get in the way of just about every aspect of our nation. Without the ability to stop that it is difficult to enforce anything consistently.

Just keeping the conversation rolling, I'm no expert.

As I mentioned, I am not certain exactly where I stand on this issue, but I am enjoying that our discussion is based on very practical aspects and facts. I think that I personally would agree with you and prefer a method by which the most highly trained individuals are legally allowed to immigrant to the USA, although I would like to also allow perhaps fewer, less skilled people in as well (such as my grandparents- I am personally very glad that they were able to come to the USA).

I recognize that determining the balance (trained/untrained) depends on the "carrying capacity" in each category. For example, my son is a computer coder, and I therefore have personal selfish reasons for not allowing too many foreign computer coders into the USA to compete with him for his job and salary. And I don't know how many openings there are in the USA for additional farm workers and restaurant staff such that accepting less-skilled immigrants in these areas may or may not significantly compete with legals who want these jobs.

I too am not an expert, and I believe any solution would be far from perfect, but I do think that these kind of conversations help illustrate the possibilities, even though we probably need more information to figure out the details.

 

[mgidm86]

So you have no evidence. Nice.

Also, immigrants get free medical in Canada. Does Canada have a huge illegal immigration problem?

Maybe they do, I don't know. They likely would if they shared a border with Mexico. The states with the highest amount of illegals, and by a wide margin, are California and Texas (about 40% of total illegals), both of which border Mexico. Although the number is declining (the list below goes up to 2009), about 50% of illegal immigrants are Mexican.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States

According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the countries of origin for the largest numbers of illegal immigrants are as follows (latest of 2009)

Mexico..............6,650,000.....62%
El Salvador........480,000........5%
Guatemala.........320,000........2%
-
-
India.................200,000.......2%
-
-
China................120,000.......1%

From the same article - and I don't usually go to wikipedia for this but I'm lazy today:

International polls by the Gallup organization have found that more than 165 million adults in 148 foreign countries would, if they could, move to the US, making it the most desired-destination country for migrants worldwide.

Apparently people would rather come to the US than Canada, or anywhere else.

Again from Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_in_Canada

Estimates made by the federal government account for 100,000 illegal immigrants who are still residing across Canada

...

A national poll revealed that two thirds of Canadians believe that any resident of Canada who is illegal should be deported. Considering factors such as: individuals who are positively contributing to the economy and who have studied in Canada that have the potential to contribute to the Canadian economy should also all be deported.

Interesting.

Thought I'd address this question since I'm not sure what else to add to the discussion with Giordano and logger, as we seem to be agreeing too much. I guess we just need to submit our proposal to the powers that be.

 

[mgidm86]

This quote from the above post shows that we can't just let in every person who wants to come here.

International polls by the Gallup organization have found that more than 165 million adults in 148 foreign countries would, if they could, move to the US, making it the most desired-destination country for migrants worldwide.

Perhaps other countries could help out by being "more desirable" places to live. Why do we have to do everything?

But seriously, this doesn't have to fall entirely on the US. The idea that the US is being too tough or unfair is absurd. Given these numbers, we are, if anything, too nice.

 

[Giordano]

This quote from the above post shows that we can't just let in every person who wants to come here.

Perhaps other countries could help out by being "more desirable" places to live. Why do we have to do everything?

But seriously, this doesn't have to fall entirely on the US. The idea that the US is being too tough or unfair is absurd. Given these numbers, we are, if anything, too nice.

"Wanting to" as an answer to a poll is certainly not the same as "would." I would probably answer "yes" if asked if I would "want" to live in Paris, London, etc. Yet there are many practical and other limitations, including patriotism, language, careers, etc., that would prevent me from manifesting that very vague "want" into an actual decision to go.

That said, I certainly believe that a large number of people would probably come to the USA if there were no legal barriers. Indeed, if I was in Somalia, I would try to come to the USA if I could (much as my grandfather came to the USA in the early 1900's in response to being poor and being attacked by Cossacks for being Jewish). As I have stated before, I am both proud of this fact, but it also leads me to conclude that we need legal barriers and better ways of designing and enforcing them.

The tricky part is deciding the numbers that we do allow in, and how to decide who. As mentioned, I think it has to be linked to a given category of job, and to how many more people, if any, could be absorbed into that type of job without significantly hurting American citizens. My guess is that we have more real openings for farm workers than for rocket scientists. But one has to take into account that a rocket scientist will likely pay higher taxes than a farm worker. I simply don't know the numbers, so I can't say how many more people we should allow in.

More generally, I think we are currently generous in some ways, but too stringent in others. I recently read an article in the NY Times Magazine about how we treat families who are fleeing oppression and violence in their homelands. From what I can tell, we are not being overly generous with many of these people. So I suspect that we also have to also consider these type of non-economic issues when deciding who to let in and who not.

In some ways, my joking ideal is that we could trade certain USA citizens one-to-one for certain immigrants. If we send 100,000 selected Americans out to other countries, that would leave room for 100,000 selected immigrants to come in. Perhaps we can begin with certain "celebrities?" But what other country would take them?