I guess I'm just posting on this "editorial" as yet another example of "practice what you preach..."
From The San Francisco Chronicle comes a short editorial regarding and entitled "Immigration 'costs':IT WAS ONLY a matter of time before opponents of immigration reform would drag out the tired old arguments of the "costs" of immigration to the American taxpayers.
Simple, paint anyone with an issue about "immigration reform" as being an "opponent" of "immigration reform." The fine lines editorial boards often rail on tend to lack just as many, if not more "fine lines," otherwise their points made are moot. How does one describe/define those that want specific issues addressed as "opponents" of reform? Most "opponents" that fall under the papers definition are looking for a step by step approach rather than the "one size fits all" that got us where we are today. I, for one am tired of giving the facade a new paint job and calling it "new and improved!" It's either "new" or "improved," it can't be both.
More from the "Left Coast" Chronicle:
Those who want to refute the '"immigration 'cost'" card should be willing to go out on a limb and crunch the numbers themselves. Perhaps it all becomes a wash, perhaps it doesn't, but the paper makes the CBO numbers appear suspect, yet doesn't put any of it's own efforts into calculating it's own utopia.Last week, the allegedly "nonpartisan" Congressional Budget Office declared that the cost of implementing the immigration-reform plan approved by the U.S. Senate would be a staggering $126 billion over 10 years.
The plan includes tough enforcement measures, a guest-worker program and a path toward legalization for many of the 11 million illegal immigrants already here.
The CBO report projected that the enforcement measures would cost $78 billion -- and the costs of "benefits" to immigrants would come to another $48 billion. Those include $11.7 billion for Medicaid coverage, $3.7 billion for Medicare and $2.4 billion for food stamps.
But the report leaves out the economic contributions immigrants will make to the economy that might far outweigh any benefits they might receive. It also doesn't take into account the Social Security taxes newly legalized immigrants will pay at precisely the time that the Baby Boom generation begins retiring.
Those who want to play the immigration "cost" card should be willing to be honest not only about the costs, but also the benefits of legalizing immigrants to the U.S. economy.
**This was a production of The Coalition Against Illegal Immigration (CAII). If you would like to participate, please go to the above link to learn more. Afterwards, email the coalition and let me know at what level you would like to participate.**
