Immigration

Immigration is one of the big issues in this election season.

Argument One:
Loose border security is a path for terrorists to enter our country.

Rebuttal:
Every terrorist attack that has occurred inide of US borders has been carried out by 'legal' immigrants or citizens. The 911 attacks were carried out by foreigners with student visas. Timothy McVeigh, he was a citizen. Those, along with the now numerous school shottings, all by citizens with a single exception - who was also here on a student visa.

So, when we have no record of anyone entering illegally, the notion of claiming that this is some kind of 'priority' in preventing terrorism in the US seems ludicrous. Why don't we work on preventing would-be terrorists from getting visas in the first place?

Argument Two:
Illegal immigrants are just filling jobs Americans don't want to do.

Rebuttal:
In a capitalist society, when no one wants to do a job, you get people by offering a higher wage or better benefits. However, the 'jobs that Americans don't want to do' like drywalling, framing, etc. along with nearly every other construction job have not only not seen a wage increase - but instead have seen as much as a 40% wage decrease over the last 30 years (framers averaged $25 / hour in the 1970's, now they average $15 / hour).

So, if no one wants to do the job... it seems counter intuitive that wages would go down. It seems more likely to me that the influx of illegal workers has helped construction companies force legitimate legal to accept a lower wage for their associated trades.

Argument Four:
Hiring illegal immigrants helps keeps prices low.

Rebuttal:
House prices have gone up and only recently begun to drop. Produce prices have gone up despite a massive influx of foreign produce. These are the two major industries affected by illegal immigrant workforces and the rise in their prices has been disproportional to inflation. So despite saving massive amounts of money on labor, construction costs are still climbing. It seems as though the construction companies are just pocketing more money but cutting out American workers.

Argument Five:
Illegal immigrants help fill vacancies in employment that citizens aren't available to fill.

Rebuttal:
Actually plenty of citizens are available to fill these vacancies, however, many people would rather just collect welfare then work for a job that doesn't even pay enough to get them half-way to the poverty line. Welfare pays more for less.

Again, if illegal immigrants weren't saturating the work place, then the jobs would pay more and the incentive to work these jobs would exist.

Finally:
A fence, if deployed correctly, may be appropriate for some areas. But a fine for employing illegal immigrants, with no clause or allowance for employer ignorance, would help solve the issue outright. Furthermore, if the fine worked similar to the EPA Refrigerant Release fine, where the person who turned in an employer would get a smaller share of the fine levied, we could expeditiously eliminate illegal immigrant employment in the United States.

Some goods may increase in cost, but long term costs to the taxpayers and communities would drop. It would also force agriculture and construction companies to finally raise their employees wages.

And, at the end of the day, we have illegal immigrants because they can work here. If we stem their source of employment, we can stop the immigration.

Our current policy would be like leaving sugar on your floor and building an extra wall to keep ants out. Clean up the sugar and the ants won't try to enter in the first place.

Voting against our own self-interests

This week Bush promised to veto legislation that has passed in the house that would remove 1.8 billion dollars a year in tax subsidies to American Oil companies.

John McCain and the majority of Republicans in Washington stand behind this.

They're calling it 'discriminatory' to target a single industry with the removal of tax assistance. Furthermore, they claim it will 'discourage' American oil companies from investing inside the US - which would send more jobs overseas and further increase our reliance on foreign oil.

The House bill redirects these subsidies into alternative energy initiatives.

Now, let's examine the logic here:
The US subsidizes all American oil companies, we subsidize both their costs within the US and outside the US. We subsidize their expenditures for exploration, their employees wages (both American and foreign wages), their land costs / purchases. We even waive many of the clean air requirements for their refineries while subsidizing the cost of upgrading their foreign refineries to meet other countries emission requirements.

Billions and billions of dollars in subsidies all geared toward lowering the price of gas at the pump. And despite all of this, oil is over $100 a barrel and prices at the pump are at record highs. To completely moot any argument they have made against this, for several years running the oil companies have been setting quarterly record profits.

It absolutely kills me that Americans, when exposed to this blatant gouging of their own money, their own way of life, will still vote for the men who adamantly stand behind their decision to throw their own constituents under the bus.

"As long as he thanks God for driving me into poverty, and thanks Jesus for taking my job away from me, and does a few Hail Marys for killing my son in Iraq, he's ok with me." - That is what I see millions of Americans saying.

I see it and it horrifies me.