tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17206839.post1757494007215509649..comments2023-09-09T09:26:22.175-04:00Comments on Andrew Samwick's Blog: In Praise of Representative SensenbrennerAndrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13514024573333057559noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17206839.post-47613412425518581982006-05-26T22:49:00.000-04:002006-05-26T22:49:00.000-04:00Prof. Samwick:Are the illegals jumping the queue o...Prof. Samwick:<br>Are the illegals jumping the queue or did they never stand a chance via legal methods in the first place?<br><br>If the latter is true (and I believe that is often the case), then does their presence serve to reduce the number of legal visas for Mexicans, Salvadoreans, and Guatemalans? (since these are the groups that the legislation is aimed at) If so, then does their presence affect net immigration quotas in the U.S. to move them upwards or downwards?<br><br>Saying that they are "slapping" the people who wait their turn to enter this country the "right way" sounds melodramatic to me. Most of our grandparents or great-grandparents didn't wait their turn. <br><br>Bottom line: unjust laws should be opposed vigorously, then changed. Without the first step, the second becomes a hell of a lot harder. If Sensenbrenner and the like was so concerned about those waiting in line, he would be upping the quotas by 50%. He's not, and therefore all this talk about fair play is a smokescreen. We weren't going to change Jim Crow laws out of the goodness of our hearts and we're not going to allow more immigrants b/c it's the right thing to do. Apply pressure and legislation will emerge (and thank god for that).<br><br>PS: relax immigration restrictions by 400,000 per year and how much of the SS shortfall disappears?Daniel Kahnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05574149369366197262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17206839.post-50668045981289116222006-05-27T02:20:00.000-04:002006-05-27T02:20:00.000-04:00It's not political science, it's politics....It's not political science, it's politics.Arun Khannahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00283104336139330439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17206839.post-51862501097767110942006-05-27T06:37:00.000-04:002006-05-27T06:37:00.000-04:00Ishmael,In my earlier posts, I argued that the leg...Ishmael,<br><br>In my earlier posts, I argued that the legal caps should be raised. I also noted my concerns about people who want to be here exclusively for economic reasons, rather than fleeing the persecution that characterized much (though not all) of the earlier waves of immigration.<br><br>But even if the caps were zero, that would not make them "unjust," in the sense of people being denied their rights. The current lawful residents of a country get to decide how many additional residents they would like to accommodate. No citizen of a foreign country has the right to dictate to us that we must accommodate a particular number. <br><br>The answer to your question about Social Security is <a href="http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR06/VI_LRsensitivity.html#wp100036" rel="nofollow">here</a>. An additional 400,000 immigrants lowers the 75-year actuarial deficit from 2.02 to 1.76 percent of payroll and the final year (2080) deficit from 5.38 to 4.88 percent of taxable payroll.Andrew Samwickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13514024573333057559noreply@blogger.com