Monday, August 22, 2011
Immigration Dean Rebuked For Villegas Comments; Motion to End 287(g) Filed
Posted by Jonathan Meador on Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 3:30 PM
Although Nashville is approximately 1,200 miles from the Mexican border, you'd be forgiven for thinking it was within stray-bullet-striking distance of Juarez, given the bevy of local immigration-related goings-on.
Firstly, lawyers from the Southern Poverty Law Center and the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild are backing local immigration attorney Elliott Ozment in filing a motion to "end the 287(g) immigration agreement between Nashville and federal authorities," according to a press release issued today.
Per the language of the 287(g) agreement, agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement are supposed to work with the city's "primary law enforcement agency," which is defined under Nashville's Metro charter as the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department — except for the fact that MNPD isn't the fed's designated 287(g) point man: The Davidson County Sheriff's Office is. D'oh!
The Scene has already chronicled how well the results of that supra-legal civil rights-trampling agreement are working out. (Hint: Not so much.)
According to NIPNLG attorney Trina Realmuto:
"Nashville’s 287(g) agreement conflicts with decades-old precedent from the Tennessee Supreme Court, in which the court rejected a similar attempt by the Davidson County Sheriff’s Office to usurp the enforcement functions belonging to the Nashville Police Department. Through this lawsuit, we are asking the district court to enforce both state and federal law by striking down the 287(g) agreement."
Secondly, Mayor Karl Dean is facing criticism from a prominent supporter over comments he made regarding the damages trial for Juana Villegas, the Mexican immigrant who went into labor while shackled under DCSO's authority following a minor traffic offense in July 2008.
In an email intended for Dean's eyes only, Bass, Berry & Sims attorney and Conexion Americas board president David Esquivel lambasted the mayor because "[he] has a history of standing up for the immigrant community.
"I e-mailed him because I think his comments on the Villegas case are out of step with his past words and actions," Esquivel wrote in an email to the Scene. "And I think he is a person of good conscience who wants to do the right thing."
Esquivel's letter is as follows:
Mayor Dean,Since this incident first happened, I have followed it with interest. So far as I can tell, these have been your only publicly reported comments on the matter:
“We are able to identify and report individuals who are here illegally and have been charged with a criminal offense, while at the same time remaining a friendly and open city to our new legal residents,” Karl Dean, the mayor of Nashville, said in a statement on Friday. (New York Times, 7/20/08)
“This case as it has been portrayed does not represent what Nashville is about,” said Mayor Karl Dean. “The sheriff’s office has already changed its policy regarding pregnant inmates. … They are never restrained unless they are likely to harm themselves or others. That was the right thing to do.” (Tennessean, 8/19/11)
As a child of immigrants, someone who has worked strenuously for human rights, a resident of Davidson County, and a supporter of your campaigns, I am deeply disappointed with your lack of compassion and leadership in this case. This case "as it has been portrayed?" You insinuate that Juana and her advocates have taken some benign set of circumstances and unfairly portrayed them in a negative light. These facts don't need any "portrayal" to make them horrific and offensive. They do that quite well on their own.
Nashville "remain[s] a friendly and open city to our new legal residents." Coming only 2 weeks after Juana gave birth to her son, Gael, I think it is fair to paraphrase this comment as follows: Nashville is a welcoming city for legal residents, but it is open season on undocumented residents, up to and including putting you in shackles and chaining you to your bed during labor, and refusing to let you call your husband so that he can be with you during the birth of your child.
I understand that this is a litigated matter and that you are not able to speak completely openly in public. But as a trial lawyer, I feel comfortable saying that the following comment would not prejudice Metro's legal position: "What happened to Juana Villegas should never happen to anyone again, whether they are documented or undocumented. Fundamental human decency does not depend on citizenship status."
Conexion Amercias is currently engaged in a public promotion to "change the conversation" about immigrants in Nashville. I hope you will take that to heart and considering saying something — anything — that expresses sympathy and common decency to a woman who deserves an apology from Metro government. We need your leadership to help change the conversation. So far, at least in your public comments, I believe you have only added fuel to the fire of intolerance in our city.
Regards,
David Esquivel
Comments (50)
Showing 1-50 of 50
Before gast, Angry White Patriot! (!), and Donna Locke start in, how about the rest of us give three cheers for David Esquivel? Hip hip . . .
like
dislike
Uh Gast (Gast????? interesting tag name), that sentence is very, very poor Spanish.
Spanish professor: It gets the job done. How should it read? "Hay mucho...?" Here's an idea: If an American applies for work at any employer in the United States and the employer has illegals working for him, he must hire the American. If the employer cuts back on his work force and has illegals and Americans working for him, he must lay off the illegals first. If the employer only has illegals working for him or a preponderence of illegals working for him, everybody in management involved in their employment shall be fined.
Min,
Are you willing to pay part of any damage done by illegal aliens who would have been deported under this program? Otherwise you are satisfying your ego at the expense of the rest of us. Why don't you ask the lady in California who had her husband and sons killed by an illegal with a criminal record who was still in America because of a city's refusal to deport such people? I am sure she would love to discuss the price she has paid for your self-satisfaction.
"Otherwise you are satisfying your ego at the expense of the rest of us."
Hey, that's the American way, dude.
Americans used to do the jobs immigrants are now doing, Don't you remember? How much would our unemployment numbers drop if illegal immigrants were deported and Americans retook their jobs? A few weeks ago 3,000 ex-cons showed up for a job fair looking for work. If we deported 3,000 illegals and replaced them with ex-cons, would that make sense? For those who use taxis, twenty years ago the industry was 99% American, now it's nearly all foreign. How's that working out? Not well for Americans who used to drive taxis. American carpenters used to make a good living; no more. But the whole argument about illegal immigration is just another example of hypocrisy from the left. The left claims to champion the working man. That's true until the working man has a job that can be done by an immigrant. Then the working man can get the hell out of the way and find something else to do.
I understand you Brother Gast! And if I had a kid and they were taking Spanish with "Spanish Professor" I would yank them from that class faster than you can say "arriba!" Hey "Spanish Professor," how do you say libtard in Spanish?!?!! Libtardo! LOL!!!!!
"Hey "Spanish Professor," how do you say libtard in Spanish?!"
I think that comment says it all. If that's the best you've got, you've got nothing.
Well, I like that Ritchie Valens song....
And ... Conexion Americas is overdue for some investigation. I bet y'all won't be doing it.
Southern Beale: You have no response for my last comment? Your attitude craps all over American workers and you refuse to acknowledge the problem.
Funny thing, under the Metro Charter, the Sheriff's Department isn't even a law enforcement agency, the MNPD is, and the State's constitution is amended to reflect that. It's part of what it took to get the Metro Charter passed back in 1962.
"Americans used to do the jobs immigrants are now doing, Don't you remember? How much would our unemployment numbers drop if illegal immigrants were deported and Americans retook their jobs?"
The simple truth here is that Americans are typically not doing the jobs immigrants do in this country, and haven't for generations -- longer than both of us have been alive. There are no more manufacturing jobs, as globalization brought on by large, Republican-coddled multinational companies has seen to it that other countries manufacture our goods for us. And the remainder of the jobs -- Agricultural and service jobs -- have been filled by itinerant workers since the turn of the _previous_ century. Those types of jobs are typically too seasonal, too low-paid, and too risky to rely on as a career and make ends meet for the bulk of the American population. Would Americans take these jobs if suddenly businesses ceased to employ illegals or the far larger body of work-visa itinerant workers? Possibly, but only if they planned to live outside the United States or at a level _below_ that of the minimum measure of poverty level.
"A few weeks ago 3,000 ex-cons showed up for a job fair looking for work. If we deported 3,000 illegals and replaced them with ex-cons, would that make sense?"
Not to most companies in the service industry. Due to rising insurance costs, many companies refuse to hire ex-cons because they are allowed by loose insurance regulation to declare these employees to be potential "risk-order loss" candidates. Hiring them would introduce liability in loss claims that insurers can (and have) used to escape payouts. This regulation loosening came about as part of industry deregulation under President Bush.
"For those who use taxis, twenty years ago the industry was 99% American, now it's nearly all foreign. How's that working out? Not well for Americans who used to drive taxis. American carpenters used to make a good living; no more."
Personal anecdotes at best. My brother works as a carpenter, and his worksites are like a UN meeting but there are plenty of American faces(or should I say white? you mean WHITE American faces, don't you?).
Just so you're aware, the Taxi business has been largely deunionized because that business lost Federal protections related to collective bargaining years ago. The Federal government (under a Republican administration, of course) allowed Taxi companies to assign their workers "independent contractor" status. Since that time, nearly 40% of the workforce is Driver Owned Vehicle, who are required to lease their car and registration from a taxi broker but assume all costs for vehicle maintenance, inspection fees, repairs, and summonses. The other large portion are Fleet Lease drivers, who pay a daily or weekly fee to rent their individual cab -- which, when it breaks down, the company does not have to provide a replacement for.
Since the loss of driver rights, what American would willingly take a job that gives away nearly 70% of their income _after taxes_ and still be at personal liability? AND not have health care? That's right, Americans don't - they can't afford it.
"The left claims to champion the working man. That's true until the working man has a job that can be done by an immigrant. Then the working man can get the hell out of the way and find something else to do."
I'm no defender of the left or the right, really. Both sides have done jackass things to workers in this country. But the solution to getting people back to work is not to beef up on agriculture and service industry jobs and wish they make ends meet there. When I see the right busting up even PROFESSIONAL unions, passing massive liability insurance deregulation favoring businesses to adopt policies that restrict large portions of the population from gainful employment, and creating trade policies that are so weighted to the procurement of the cheapest goods no matter where those goods are made and the abuses of the workers there... well, the working man is doing just fine going to hell without anyone telling them to go there.
Meanwhile in Williamson County two suspected illegal aliens were arrested for violent crimes, one for armed robbery and another for attempted murder outside a restaurant.
Got to love who lawyers choose to protect.
She got her apology from the city in the award of $200,000. She can take that apology and move her illegal butt back to Mexico.
I pretty much consider myself an agnostic, but I may change my mind because there certainly has to be a special Hell waiting for gASSt and Angry White Asshole.
"Would Americans take these jobs if suddenly businesses ceased to employ illegals or the far larger body of work-visa itinerant workers? Possibly, but only if they planned to live outside the United States or at a level _below_ that of the minimum measure of poverty level."
Good post Don' Ask. The answer to that question is almost undoubtedly no. The state of Georgia just found that out after their Governor signed an Arizona style me-too law, only tougher, and many of the undocumented left the state. I'm including three links, all from conservative sites. The third one is the best one.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405…
http://www.newsmax.com/US/Georgia-Immigrat…
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/georgias-…
Money quote: "It goes like this. If you’re not going to let illegal immigrants do the jobs they are currently being hired to do, then farmers will have to raise wages to replace them.....All of this is to say if you’re going to stop illegal immigrants from doing a job you should be prepared for the job, and perhaps even the business itself, to go away. You may think this is worth it, but you should at least be acknowledging the risks and weigh them against what, if anything, you think is being gained."
And "Instead, it appears rather obvious that Georgia legislators didn’t even bother to consult with farmers about what the consequences of cracking down on the very community that picks their crops might possible be, or develop a plan to deal with a sudden loss of an important source of labor. Governor Deal’s idea to use probationers to pick the crops is just inherently silly because there’s no incentive for those probationers to do their job as efficiently as the migrant workers did, and because there’s little possibility that the farmers will trust them on their property. Instead, the Georgia legislature was caught up in the same anti-immigrant zeal that pushed a similar law through in Arizona last year.
The anti-immigration crowd likes to say that illegal immigrants are taking jobs that Americans would otherwise do. The fact that Georgia farmers aren’t able to replace their migrant workers would seem to be evidence that this is clearly not the case."
And by the way, the probationers have largely NOT worked out. Many walked off the fields the very first day, not used to the kind of work that the migrant workers were doing. Duh. This is what happens when you only listen to the Tea Party and not to the actual people being affected.
The prof opines, "...that sentence is very, very poor Spanish."
Of course, the defendant who has lived in the US (illegally in case you missed it) for 15 years can't speak English at all and needs a translator. At least gast gave it a shot.
Very good letter, David. Especially now that the trial is over, our Mayor could and should have made exactly the kind of statement you suggested. (And I think that, as a private person, he would have.)
Chris -- my sister can vouch for that. She handles staffing for one of the larger landscaping companies in the area, and she is constantly forced to supplement her staff with temporary work-visa employees from Mexico (yes, this is a program that exists although the workers are subject to Mexican tariffs). The jobs they have are open to anyone, but they don't fill with "domestic" labor. Ever. If the legal work-visa programs were to end (and some states have done that in the name of "protecting American jobs for Americans"), they'd have to drop properties because the jobs would go unfilled.
Is it any wonder that small farms look for illegals? They can't afford the work-visa programs because of the fees. It's pretty much the only way to staff effectively and cheaply enough to pay the bills, let alone make a profit.
Chris,
I think your economic arguments are spot on. They make up part of my own counter to the 'ship them home now' crowd.
My issue with the majority of the people on the left who make the 'illegal immigration is important to the economy' argument is that I don't believe that care all that much for private enterprise and are only using this position to justify their social agenda of open borders.
Put differently, pro-illegal immigration types claim to be concerned about the welfare of farmers and other private sector employers when immigration is the issue but don't give two hoots about issues like unnecessary regulations and other government meddling.
The argument about the impact on employers is an important consideration just as the cost of a massive effort to deport illegals and the social consequences are important considerations. But it is one that rings hollow when coming from certain quarters.
What I like about David's statement is that it reinforces a few important ideas: that cruelty is out of bounds, that immigration status is not an excuse for target practice, and that everyone who lives in Nashville plays his or her part in defining Nashville.
John,
And what about the law? What about the people who wait years to come here and then work hard to become citizens? You must think they are fools to care enough to follow the rules.
If someone violates the law to the disadvantage of your client, do you say "That's ok. They mean well and they need this and you have too much anyway?" Just wondering.
I think Davids' letter is right on..Lets leave the immigration status out of the debate completely .. this was about a woman's "Basic Human Rights" That is what the discussion should be about. Bigots want you to lose focus on the major issue. Ladies think.. would you want to give birth tied to a bed because you got a traffic ticket? The Stop was for a traffic infraction that you and I would have been sent home for.. LETS BE REAL.
"My issue with the majority of the people on the left who make the 'illegal immigration is important to the economy' argument is that I don't believe that care all that much for private enterprise and are only using this position to justify their social agenda of open borders........The argument about the impact on employers is an important consideration just as the cost of a massive effort to deport illegals and the social consequences are important considerations. But it is one that rings hollow when coming from certain quarters."
Mark, I'm not sure many on the left are for "open borders." From my perspective, I believe that Nashville is a better place for having so many people from different cultures and it is beneficial to our economy. Pretty much all data that I've seen supports this. I strongly believe if we "send em all home" we are worse off. Now you mentioned in a subsequent response that people have waited years and followed the rules. This is becoming less and less common as "the rules" have become so onerous (unless you are lucky enough to be Cuban) that you almost have to marry an American for it to work out (and there is a cottage industry that does this, believe it or not). I've found, with the foreign born legal residents and citizens that I know, that they largely sympathize completely with the illegal's. They, rightly or wrongly, see this as a racial issue and believe all the nativism is veiled racism, or at least xenophobia.
You should be concerned about possible hypocricy from the left on some of these issues, but you should be more concerned with the rampant nativism and no-nothingingism that is going on within the Republican party today. It's not only hurting that party, especially with the demographic changes that are happening, it's having a detrimental impact on the U.S. economy.
In the early 1990s I had been in Nashville a while when I went with a friend to the airport. The mowers at the airport were doing their jobs and I noticed a latino on one of the machines. Previously the mowers had all been operated by Americans and this was the first time I had seen a latino. I said to my friend, "In five years all the mowers will be Mexican." I knew this from previous observations in San Diego and my prediction proved to be true. Also in San Diego, union carpenters were making about $20 an hour building houses until Mexicans came across the border and started doing the same job for $5 an hour.
So to say that Americans won't do the work that immigrants do is just silly. Immigrants come in and undercut the wages of Americans and take away American jobs. And as for the problem of farmers finding field workers: reduce welfare payments to able bodied recipients during harvest time and the farmers would likely have plenty of workers. My father rode freight trains to California four different times to earn cash money in the fields when the family needed it because there was no such thing as welfare. He was part of Tom Brokaw's "Greatest Generation." Now everything he worked for and believed in is being given away or destroyed.
"Also in San Diego, union carpenters were making about $20 an hour building houses until Mexicans came across the border and started doing the same job for $5 an hour."
Hm. Wouldn't the presence of a strong professional trade union be able to prevent that sort of wage drawdown? Oh, that's right... "Ununs r bahd."
Don't Ask, it's called cognitive dissonance. You could also call it mental acrobatics. Either way, it's like running on a treadmill trying to debate the points- you will be doing lots of exertion but actually getting nowhere.
Chris,
You can argue:
"From my perspective, I believe that Nashville is a better place for having so many people from different cultures and it is beneficial to our economy. Pretty much all data that I've seen supports this."
or:
"Also in San Diego, union carpenters were making about $20 an hour building houses until Mexicans came across the border and started doing the same job for $5 an hour."
What you cannot do is argue that illegal immigrants have a net positive impact on the economy and then support a position that undermines the major reason that illegals have a net positive economic impact. No matter how you want to come down, waves of unskilled or low skilled workers will drive down labor costs. Hypothetically the carpenters union could get a law requiring anyone building houses to get $20 per hour. But then costs would not go down which benefits the consumer.
You can pick one or the other but not both. Unless you can come up with some new principles of economics that undermine supply and demand.
@Don't ask: They were unionized carpenters and they couldn't do a thing about it. The mayor at the time, Maureen O'Connor, even had a photo op at the border to emphasize with her "brown brothers." She was a Democrat, too. Go figger
Another thing to consider is the incarceration rate of your immigrant friends. If California numbers are representative, and latinos ever represent twenty-five percent of the population, they will represent forty percent of the prison population. And their gangs will threaten your children. Buy CCA stock. And do you suppose poor little Juana Villegas, or her husband, has ever acquired auto insurance? Probably not. They're out there driving, an accident waiting to happen.
"What you cannot do is argue that illegal immigrants have a net positive impact on the economy and then support a position that undermines the major reason that illegals have a net positive economic impact. No matter how you want to come down, waves of unskilled or low skilled workers will drive down labor costs."
I agree Mark. But I don't think it undermines it at all. This is mostly a perfect example of free-market economics. They are here because the labor pool decreased significantly for people willing to do the work that immigrants today do, i.e. work on farms, clean hotel rooms, roofing, etc. There is simply no evidence that there is a groundswell of natural born Americans out there ready and willing to do this kind of work. Maybe a few, but not in any great numbers. And if they were willing, then they would require a huge increase in wages (and possibly insurance) before they would do it, thereby increasing costs in an already depressed market. And Don't Ask is right, how can you slam unions for demanding fair wages while simultaneously slamming immigrants for driving down wages? It is cognitive dissonance.
And there are many other economic benefits: 1) empowered economic zones, think Nolensville Rd, which would be depressed urban areas without all the ethnic markets and services there now. 2) Housing- see #1- what would happen to all the apartments and neighborhoods in areas like Nolensville Rd if all these people went home. There would be many more vacant homes exacerbating the housing market problems; 3) Local taxes- it would result in a huge decrease in local and state taxes, hurting services; 4) One not talked about much but hugely important is the future of social security in an aging natural born culture. The boomers are retiring and subsequent generations are not as large. Billions are being paid into the system by immigrants, both legal and illegal. And the illegal ones won't be getting any benefit in social security.
And what has happened in Georgia is that leaders were just trying to look good to their populist supporters and not thinking these things through. I think if we had a different governor than Haslem, who is more business guy than tea-party guy, we could fall into the same trap here. Let's hope it doesn't happen.
Real question is how did the Scene get its hands on a real-time communication intended for "Dean's eyes only"? Word is that Esquivel stupidly CC'd Mike Jameson on the email, then Jameson rushed out and gleefully gave it to the same reporter who did his bidding on the big Holleman celebratory cover. Memo to the Scene: You're getting used by a guy who's about to fade away into much-deserved political obscurity.
Farmworker shortage? Hardly:
http://www.cis.org/no_farm_labor_shortages…
Legal temporary workers can be brought in under the H-2A visa, which has no cap. Though it is best to remember there is nothing more permanent than a temporary guest-worker.
Frank Funderburk, executive director of the Georgia Peach Council and part-time extension agent for Peach County, was quoted by The Associated Press as saying E-Verify will not affect the peach industry because they use the H-2A program. “Our growers can’t afford to not have a work crew,” Funderburk said. “They bit the bullet several years ago (and joined H-2A) and they jumped from paying $7 an hour to $9.”
Some Georgia onion farmers testified they already use E-Verify.
Lots of teenagers would do farm work. We did it to make money in the summers when I was a kid here in Middle Tennessee. Check out teen unemployment numbers and then check out the folks filling the jobs teens once did.
Black Americans were systematically run out of the agricultural fields and replaced by imported Latino labor. This was documented by agricultural commissions.
As for the hospitality industry, those employers want the same flow of cheap imported labor, no questions asked, despite the Tennesseans who would take those housekeeping jobs in a snap. I know women here in Maury County who would drive to nearby counties to get those jobs.
Several amnesties and millions of individual transitions from temporary to permanent legal status have kept this country in a vicious, destructive cycle as employers demand a constant flow of imported cheap labor they can work like dogs till that batch gains legal permanent status and moves on but stays here. We, the taxpayers, subsidize these employers' profits because we are supporting their low-wage, often illegal, labor and their offspring. Plenty of data to prove it.
When you hear or read the phrase "labor shortage" in regard to this country, doubt it. You've been had.
A Heritage Foundation study on the costs of low-skill immigrants, both legal and illegal:
Summary:
http://www.heritage.org/Multimedia/InfoGra…
with link therein to the full report.
This is significant to the discussion about illegal immigration, because most of the massive illegal immigration we are getting is of low-skilled, uneducated people. We are importing poverty and dependency to an unsustainable degree. These folks must change their own countries, and the United States must take a different tack in that regard.
The Heritage Foundation discovered that households headed by low-educated foreign workers typically receive three dollars in government benefits and services for each dollar of taxes they pay — with most of the net cost borne by state and local governments. Given our current budget problems, taxpayers should not have to underwrite public services for illegal aliens.
A recent study from Northeastern University found that illegal aliens are gaining U.S. jobs while Americans are losing them. Many of these jobs are in construction.
As for "jobs Americans won't do," when you look into every job category, as some researchers, including the Center for Immigration Studies, have done, you find the majority of jobs in almost every category are filled by Americans. Americans are doing those jobs, honey. One exception is some farm labor, but even those jobs were filled by Americans until they were systematically run out of the fields in the 1980s and replaced by imported Latino labor. As I mentioned -- I read the reports -- this was documented by agricultural commissions.
Good job, Donna Locke. I was just out for a walk and a block away there were five latinos putting on a roof. Used to be Americans did that work. Some people sit back and think they know it all when what they need is to experience a personal setback from their latest do-good project. Then maybe they'd see the real world.
Uh, excuse me. Can we get back to the real issue here? Mike Jameson's worminess.
There are sob stories, and then there are the facts. All the facts. America, your "journalists" have failed you and have enabled the destruction of this nation, this country.
Chris,
1) All the money that fuels those empowerment zones is taken from other parts of Nashville's or Middle Tennessee's economy. Little in the service sector creates wealth. It just moves it around.
2) Lots of available housing would lower its cost. Knock off $200 to $400 dollars per month on rent and the people who remain have more money to spend.
3) Sales taxes might drop some but then, so would the costs of health care, education and crime.
4) Illegals only benefit SS if they stay here. But advocates for illegal immigration don't seem to want them to become citizens otherwise they would want them here legally. If they send SS money home or return there themselves, we lose the economic impact of many SS dollars. That would further weaken the economy.
Another thing: The money that immigrants send to Mexico is Mexico's second biggest source of wealth after Pemex, their oil company. That's a lot of dinero and if it's in Mexico it can't be generating business and taxes here and that's a definite negative for our econ0omy. It's also the reason Mexico has no interest in closing the border.
"A Heritage Foundation study..."
Donna, I lose interest as soon as I see those words. Heritage has the most widely ridiculed and debunked "studies" in the think-tank world. They are not worth the paper they are printed on.
Mark, several points: to point 1) I would disagree. I think a city not growing is an economy not growing. Diversifying industry in a city diversifies the economy and that is a good thing. All those stores, who don't just cater to Latinos or Kurds or Arabs, but to the general population as well, creates wealth that would not be there otherwise. This helps the tax base, the housing market, and all local businesses. 2) Yes, it would lower housing costs, but there aren't enough people that are going to move in to fill what left. 3) Point made, and I have acknowedged the downsides and costs many times on this blog. I would disagree that sales tax receipts would only drop "some." I think it would drop substantially. 4) Illegals benefit SS as long as there here, yes. But that's not the point, the point is they are paying into it. That isn't the main benefit but a side one. And I do think we should let more become legal, especially the skilled, educated ones. But I don't think it can be stressed enough: in an aging society, immigration is a good thing.
Chris,
1) Nashville already has good growth. In the last decade it was around 15%. And that doesn't factor in all the people moving into the collar counties and contributing to Nashville's economy. Retail and restaurants shift wealth not create it. Unless you are talking about people from other counties who come here to shop and eat. But the odds are they would come here without the ethnic places.
2) Vacant apartments and duplexes tend to impact the owners of those properties. That has far less impact on Nashville's economy than those extra $200 to $400 per month in the pockets of consumers. On a yearly basis, a $200 per month fall in rents returns $2400 in cash. Spread across all the renters in Nashville, that is a big economic plus.
4) And the SS that they pay benefits Nashville very little. That is almost an abstract figure compared to the direct costs of health care, education and law enforcement.
I agree we need more legal immigration. Especially for educated and skilled immigrants. But that will not solve the problem of waves of illegals coming here for temporary jobs.
Mark, yes Nashville has good growth. That is connected with immigration, not a separate issue. People are immigrating here from other countries and from other regions for a reason. It's all connected. And that good growth would be completely stymied if the state legislature decided to create a hardcore immigration law. There would be a lot of vacant storefronts and real estate in parts of Nashville, thereby hurting a lot of people economically. Like it or not, immigrants, both legal and illegal, are interconnected in our economy. Taking them out WILL hurt our economy.
By the way, when I was talking about SS, I am referring to the national benefit, not a local one. I know I'm jumping around a bit when I do that. The federal government brings in billions, with a b, of dollars yearly in taxes that are allocated as SS funds by people who don't have social security numbers, or at least legal social security numbers. Like it or not, our natural born workforce is not large enough to take care of all the retiring baby boomers. The Atlantic Monthly had an excellent in-depth analysis of this several years ago. I wish I could find the link.
@Mark Rogers: The people you're debating could care less if immigrants are sucking up tax dollars and contributing to the unemployment rolls by taking jobs from Americans. To your opponents it's all about feeling noble by helping the less fornunate and they don't care how much or what it costs somebody else because they never experience the downside of their promotions. In fact, to them there is no downside.
I thought I just posted a comment here, but I don't see it, so I shall attempt to recompose.
Chris, the Heritage Foundation is usually ranked as one of our nation's top five influential think tanks. I have noticed, however, that you hasten to ignore and dismiss anything you don't immediately agree with or wish to consider.
The astronomical current and projected U.S. population growth, driven almost entirely by immigration and births to immigrants, will have many adverse consequences for our country and, by extension, for the world as a whole. If you live long enough, you will see this, I have no doubt. Population growth is just one consideration.
Way to completely mischaractize my comments Gast. That's why I have gotten to the point of just ignoring your comments. Why can't you have mature discussions on this website. I disagree most of the time with Mark Rogers, but it doesn't denigrate into insults. And I routinely mention the downsides- i.e. crime, schools, etc. My larger point is that on the whole, immigrants, illegal and legal, are good for our country.
Donna, who ranks the Heritage foundation as one of the best? Their whole mission is to promote right-wing policies by taking a supposition and bending data to conform to it.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archiv…
Money quote: "Now, it's an open question as to whether the Foundation -- a rightwing gem funded by Koch Industries, Exxon Mobile and Altria nee Phillip Morris -- has such "nonpartisan" research. Their mission, after all, 'is to formulate and promote conservative public policies,' and generally that's the Grand Old Party."
Paul Ryan used a generally discredited Heritage Foundation study as the basis of his "Path to Prosperity." Heritage has also tried to discredit the universal truth of man-made global warning. They have no cache with me.
In a Scene article, Meador writes that Villegas is a McDonald's manager. A McDonalds's manager who speaks no English. How does this work?
Emmett, this is how it works, as explained by a friend of mine, LA's Terry Anderson, now passed away:
Terry's LA neighborhood, once majority black, was taken over by Latino illegal and legal aliens to the point that Terry's teenage son could not get a job in any McDonald's or other fast-food joint there because Terry's kid did not speak Spanish.
Well, I see that a comment I posted last night did not appear here. It linked to the methodology and sources used by The Heritage Foundation for the report I mentioned. Yes, Heritage has a so-called conservative bent, the better to counter the stuff coming out of the open-borders Ford Foundation groups; the open-borders, left-leaning Migration Policy Institute; and others.
I agree. The Heritage Foundation is no more reliable than the New York Times or the Washington Post as a source of biased information.
