One Republican congressman gets it right. Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Co.) writes an interesting summary for National Review Online of what a real "day without [illegal] immigrants" would be like. It sounds pretty good to me.
While I encourage you to follow the above link and read the article for yourself, I wanted to highlight some of the interesting facts Rep. Tancredo brings to light regarding the burdens illegal aliens present in various states.
With regards to America's health-care system, Tancredo writes that if the illegals actually took the day off from using our health care, "hospital emergency rooms across the southwest would have about 20-percent fewer patients, and there would be 183,000 fewer people in Colorado without health insurance. OBGYN wards in Denver would have 24-percent fewer deliveries and Los Angeles’s maternity-ward deliveries would drop by 40 percent and maternity billings to Medi-Cal would drop by 66 percent."
Regarding the effects of illegals on crime, Tancredo writes, "Youth gangs would see their membership drop by 50 percent in many states, and in Phoenix, child-molestation cases would drop by 34 percent and auto theft by 40 percent."
Regarding the burden on tax-payers and public services, "Colorado taxpayers would save almost $3,000,000 in one day if illegals do not access any public services, because illegal aliens cost the state over $1 billion annually according to the best estimates. "
I've heard a lot of staggering statistics on the subject of the burdens illegal aliens place on tax-payers, but these are ridiculous. Can it really be true that L.A.'s maternity wards would see a 40% drop in births? That nearly half of their daily maternity patients are illegal aliens? Can illegals really be costing the state of Colorado over $1 billion a year?
No wonder Rep. Tancredo is fed up and taking a stand, even when that stand is unpopular with his own party leadership. I guess illegals aliens aren't costing Indiana enough yet. Maybe Sen. Bayh won't be concerned until we start seeing numbers like those in the southwest. Apparently, President Bush isn't concerned with the statistics either.
The American tax-payers cannot pay for everything and everyone under the sun. We are sick and tired of paying for programs to support those who will not support themselves and willfully choose to break our laws. We do not want to lose good jobs to law-breakers. We do not want to lose our language and culture. We do not want to lose our America...but our leaders seem determined to give it away.
13 comments:
If illegals continue to protest for their "non-exsistant rights" in this country, I believe any support the American public may have will vanish.
Janice,
I couldn't agree with you more. The more I hear and see images of law-breaking, illegal aliens demanding the same benefits that law-abiding, tax-paying legal citizen have, I get a little more frustrated.
As I've said all along, I have absolutely no problem with legals immigration. I have a real problem with those who want to come here, break our laws, burden our citizens and take from those of us who try to do things legally.
Part of me wants these protest rallies to continue because they are only hurting the illegals' cause. The more demanding they appear, the less appealing they are. (Of course, this fact appears totally lost on our leaders...)
Regardless of the numbers in Indiana, Evan Bayh would base all decisions on what would be best for... Evan Bayh.
Lot of facts get distorted when Tom Tancreado talks of immigration. President and Karl Rove just tolerate this guy because he has considerable clout in the house. He's Al Sharpton of Republican party.
A legal immigrant
perspective.
Anonymous 1, you say Tancredo's facts are distorted, but yet you don't give us any examples or hard evidence to prove he's wrong. Care to share any?
One need not go beyond his article to see how he twists the facts/statistics to put his point of view. Any section of the population could be painted badly by selective use of statistics. Overwhelming majority of non-citizen Hispanics, this article targets, are hardworking people who just want to provide something for their families. This is not a group which would do any harm to us in form of terrorism.
I'd rather have you believe what he says than involve in time-consuming search for "hard evidence".
Anonymous, you said: "I'd rather have you believe what he says than involve in time-consuming search for 'hard evidence'."
Tancredo backs up his assertions with statistics and evidence. You have only given us your opinion. While I certainly respect your right to have that opinion, that doesn't mean you are correct. Until there is evidence to back up your allegation that Tancredo is distorting the facts, I can only assume you do not like his position, and that, absent facts to support your position, you are left with simply attacking Tancredo.
You also say: "Overwhelming majority of non-citizen Hispanics, this article targets, are hardworking people who just want to provide something for their families."
That may be true. However, it does not change the fact that they are here ILLEGALLY. This country has laws by which everyone must abide. If those hardworking non-citizen Hispanics want to work here and provide for their families, there are laws that allow them to do so. All we are asking is that the laws be followed. If the illegal aliens don't want to play by the rules that apply to everybody else, why should they get special treatment? It is the attitude that they are somehow above the law that is the biggest slap in the face to average Americans and to immigrants who have come to America the correct way and followed the established rules.
Everyone can have their own assertions with a given set of data. With agenda, those assertions are nothing but propoganda. It comes down to how you or your nation wants to treat a stranger.
You said "If those hardworking non-citizen Hispanics want to work here and provide for their families, there are laws that allow them to do so. All we are asking is that the laws be followed."
You tend to over-estimate the legal channels in US immigration.
If this was really there we would not have had 11 million underground
population.
Anonymous, you said: "Everyone can have their own assertions with a given set of data. With agenda, those assertions are nothing but propoganda."
That can certainly be true. It also is true that assertions based on a given set of data can be accurate. Just because the speaker has an agenda doesn't mean that his analysis of the evidence is incorrect. If so, no analysis would ever be correct, as each person has some agenda they are promoting. Again, all you have done is say that Tancredo is biased and his facts are wrong because he has a viewpoint with which you disagree. If his facts are wrong, or if he has distorted them to support his "agenda" and thereby created "propoganda," fine. All I'm asking is that you prove that to me. If you can, I will agree with you that we shouldn't rely on Tancredo's numbers. Otherwise, I see no reason to doubt them, whether Tancredo himself has an agenda or not.
You also said: "It comes down to how you or your nation wants to treat a stranger."
Actually, it comes down to how that stranger wants to treat our nation. The USA has long welcomed immigrants from all over the world. This has nothing to do with whether America is willing to accept immigrants. This has to do with whether the immigrants who want to come here are willing to do so in accordance with our laws. If someone wants to be an American, they should be willing to follow America's laws. To do otherwise is offensive to America and all those who are here legally. It demonstrates that those individuals are not willing to treat this country and its people with respect.
You said: "You tend to over-estimate the legal channels in US immigration. If this was really there we would not have had 11 million underground population."
Actually, I don't overestimate it at all. I understand that there are limitations and restrictions on the number of immigrants and the way they become citizens. Those restrictions are there for a reason, however. They are there because our government has decided that they are necessary for any number of reasons.
The problem comes when illegal aliens pour across the border ignoring the rules that apply to everybody else because they want to live here and take advantage of what America has to offer without standing in the same line as those from other countries who are willing to respect this country and follow its laws. Yes, it may take a long time to accomplish. That doesn't mean that you get a free pass and can disregard the law though. You still haven't explained why those who don't follow the rules that apply to everybody else should get special treatment.
If you don't like the immigration mechanisms in place, lobby to have them changed - that is legal. Ignoring and breaking the law is not.
Let me take the statement "Los Angeles’s maternity-ward deliveries would drop by 40 percent" from Tancredo.
Does he assume 40 percent foreign born population in LA cause 40 percent deliveries? Does he think that all foreign born population in LA are illegals? Would you care to guide me how he came up with that figure?
"Does he assume 40 percent foreign born population in LA cause 40 percent deliveries? Does he think that all foreign born population in LA are illegals?"
No, the linked article specifically states that if you removed the illegal aliens from LA, there would be 40% fewer births and Medi-Cal maternity billings would drop by 66%. This does not mean that 40% of the population in LA is foreign born (although that may very well be the case since the U.S. Census Bureau reports that, in 2000, 36.2% of the people in Los Angeles County were foreign born - that most certainly is over 40% now) and that therefore the number of births to illegals must also be 40%. Tancredo's statement also does not mean that all of the foreign born population in Los Angeles are illegals.
What it does mean is that 40% of all births in Los Angeles are to illegal aliens, and that 66% of all Medi-Cal maternity billings are attributable to illegals. In other words, the statement in the article is pretty straightforward and doesn't mean either of the things you have suggested.
I have no idea where Tancredo got his statistics, but that doesn't mean they aren't accurate. Besides, whether I know where he got his numbers is not the point. The point is that you are claiming Tancredo is distorting facts, but yet you don't present anything that backs up your claims. I do have to take my hat off to you, though: you make the allegation that Tancredo's numbers are a distortion of facts, you provide no evidence to support that allegation, and then you challenge me to tell you where he came up with those numbers. That was an impressive slight of hand to divert attention from the fact that you haven't supported your claims. However, it seems to me that you have it backwards. The facts have been presented by Tancredo. If they are incorrect or distorted, then tell us why. The ability of the rest of us to read Tancredo's mind and determine where he obtained his statistics is irrelevant.
Interestingly, however, let me share the following with you that suggests his numbers are probably correct: According to Madeleine Pelner Cosman, Ph.D., Esq. in The Journal of the American Physicians and Surgeons, in the Spring of 2005, "In 2003 in Stockton, California, 70 percent of the 2,300 babies born in San Joaquin General Hospital's maternity ward were anchor babies, and 45 percent of Stockton children under age six are Latino (up from 30 percent in 1993). In 1994, 74,987 anchor babies in California hospital maternity units cost $215 million and constituted 36 percent of all MediCal births. Now they account for substantially more than half."
Anchor babies, as the term is used by Dr. Cosman, are those born to illegal aliens.
Similarly, the Federation for American Immigration Reform reports that, "One-third of the patients treated by the Los Angeles county health system each year are illegal aliens, according to county health officials. In 2002, the county spent $350 million providing health care to illegal aliens, according to the Department of Health Services. Officials said that if that money had been available, the county could have avoided the closure of 16 health clinics and possibly two hospitals, as well as cuts in services."
Those are the numbers I found with just some quick searching. Although Dr. Cosman's numbers relate to Stockton, California, those, plus the ones from FAIR, make it quite clear that Tancredo's numbers for Los Angeles are more than reasonable.
It is evident that we are unlikely to agree on this issue. I have asked you to support your claim that Tancredo's facts are distorted and only represent "propoganda." In response, you have not done so and have simply asked me to explain to you where Tancredo came up with his numbers. If you have evidence to suggest those numbers are wrong, I am willing to listen. Otherwise, I see little point in continuing to cover the same thing over and over.
Yes, many illegal aliens are hardworking people who want to provide for their families. However, regardless of the actual numbers, illegal aliens also are an extreme burden on the U.S. economy and U.S. taxpayers. The bottom line, it seems to me, is that this country has laws that must be followed. If a person wants to come to this country, then he or she should abide by the procedures that are in place. To break the law and to then expect special treatment is an insult to this country and its citizens.
You said "It is evident that we are unlikely to agree on this issue."
I agree.
Post a Comment