Well; would, as Samuelson asserts, "the Senate bill double the legal immigration that would occur during the next two decades from about 20 million (under present law) to about 40 million"?

If that's a reasonable estimate of the effect of the bill, do Americans know that fact?

If they don't, why don't they?

Shouldn't they? 

I know this is off-topic,but it is prompted by your comments about the very "profound" insights Samuelson (his "profundity" provides. Shouldn't "profundity"be somehow tied to reasonable results; and we have gotten none from such commentators. Somewhere on the internet, a blogger pointed out that the editorial staffs of the NYT, WaPo, and the LATimes all had a dose of six-month-itis this Memorial Day. (Apparently the Friedman disease is contagious. I especially liked the idea...I think Atrios used it...of calling a six-month period a "Friedman") I was struck at the amount of fatuous blather that is presented somberly in a high-and-mighty tone and that passes for thoughtfulness, or intelligence in the ambient culture.

Rector is mentioned in Samuelson's column at the beginning, close to the end, and several times in between. Samuelson is too savvy to hang his argument solely on the discredited Rector and the extremist Heritage Foundation, but it is clear that Samuelson is sympathetic to Rector's view of the matter.

Perhaps they don't know it because the anti-immigration lobby, anxious not to be seen as racists, have made the tactical decision not to fight on that front. They chose to emphasize the corrupting effects of illegal immigration, and they alone are driving this debate (those of us opposed to them believe there are at least a dozen more pressing national priorities; if we were driving the debate we'd be talking about something else).

Contrary to Samuelson, it isn't the media's responsibility to recenter discussions after the interested parties have already staked out positions.

As for "shouldn't they?": there's simply nothing inherently or self-evidently alarming about the reputable estimates (obviously this category excludes Rector and Heritage). 20 million (over the current baseline) is a lot of people, but 20 years is a long time as well.

Maybe the CBPP (link above) is right. Of course, if Rector is right and the CBPP is wrong, then they'll have given us some spectacularly bad advice costing us billions of dollars.

Would the CBPP be willing to post a bond that would make up the difference if they're wrong? Something like E&O insurance.

I note also that they claim that in order to "attain legal status, immigrants will have to demonstrate their contributions to the U.S. economy through years of productive employment, knowledge of English and U.S. civics, payment of taxes, and their ability to meet various financial requirements such as the ability to pay a $2,000 fine and application fees."

Does anyone seriously believe that even if we could administer such a program to additional millions of people we would? Isn't the lesson from past amnesties that even basic requirements like those get watered down? After all, won't the same forces that fought declaring English the national language create loopholes that wouldn't require such immigrants to know English?

I note also that Rector has issued a followup: Amnesty Update: Setting the Numbers Straight:

In a subsequent memo provided to Senator Jeff Sessions (R –AL) on May 24th, CBO clarified the number promoted by the White House... The CBO memo indicated that, over the next ten years, S.2611 would result in 11 million current illegal immigrants receiving legal permanent residence and 7.8 million new legal immigrants entering the country. Combined with 9.5 million immigrants who will enter under current law, the result would be 28.3 million persons becoming legal residents over ten years. This is almost three times the level permitted by current law.

And, I note also that even if massive immigration brings each of us free ice cream for a year, the possibility of tremendous non-financial downsides exists.

For instance, further massive immigration from Mexico will give that country's leaders even more political power inside the U.S. Mexico currently works with several U.S. "immigrants rights" groups, California Democratic legislators visit that country and promote illegal immigration and social services for illegal aliens, Mexico has more consulates in the U.S. than any other country, they're currently providing free schoolbooks that represent the Mexican viewpoint on history to students in U.S. schools, their consuls travel to local city council meetings encouraging cities to accept Mexico's ID card, and on and on.

And, there's the fact that it won't just be the illegal aliens that get an amnesty, it will be their employers as well.

And, there's all the hidden nuggets buried deep in the bill.

And, there's the fact that this bill will lead us closer to a "merger" with Mexico and Canada. Think that's tinfoil talk? Have a look at spp.gov or try this search.

And, there's the impact that this bill will have on our fundamental political structure. Former illegal aliens will get a better deal than citizens vis-a-vis only having to three out of the past five years in taxes. And, former illegal aliens will get discounted college educations. Since there are only a finite number of such discounts, there are many U.S. citizens who will lose such discounts to current or former illegal aliens. Such actions tend to devalue the worth of U.S. citizenship, which may in fact be one of the bill's intentions.

The question isn't whether Robert Rector has any credibility, it's whether anyone who supports the Senate bill has any credibility and whether they support what's in the best interests of the country.

Search through the archives at my site for much more on this issue.

Re: And, there's the fact that this bill will lead us closer to a "merger" with Mexico and Canada.

I can see some big issues about a merger with Mexico, but why not work toward some sort of “merger” with Canada: big country with relatively few people, lots of land that may become quite habitable under global warming, a bonanza of natural resources, well-educated and skilled population, much of it English speaking. What’s not to like?

"A one-time thing?" That's what they said in 1986.

"You say I'm a dreamer.  We're two of a kind.  Looking for some perfect world that we both know that we'll never find." - Thompson Twins, "Hold Me Now"

Apparently Rector assumes that most legal immigrants will receive “welfare,” but as with the “$5.4 trillion war on poverty,” he has defined “welfare” to include all general costs of education, courts, etc., and disregarded the taxes immigrants - most of whom will work -- will pay.

<> 

<>Which is totally unfair, as educating the children of low IQ, poverty-stricken immigrants does not actually cost the taxpayer any money, as the politicains poop the funds for this out of their magic anuses.  Nor do the higher costs for incarceration and trials that we get from importing people from a higher-crime ethnic group actually lead to higher taxes at all.

And of course, poor people eligible for the earned-income tax credit are major contributors to the Social Security trust fund and to the general fund.  They pay lots of SS taxes, and this is not offset at all by receiving the EITC, even when the EITC is greaater than their income tax liability and therefore represents esentially a rebate of their Social Secuirty tax.

"You say I'm a dreamer.  We're two of a kind.  Looking for some perfect world that we both know that we'll never find." - Thompson Twins, "Hold Me Now"

Re: The temptation to say the quebecois and really weird politics is overwhelming.

Quebec would have to go its own way as a separate nation, I guess I am assuming that. As for “weird” politics—huh? Are you seriously claiming that Canadian politics is any more mondo bizarro than American politics? A Canadian politics has generally impressed as rather dull and drab compared to the razzle-dazzle show we have in Washington.

One of the things that both Rector and Samuelson ignore is the need for the immigrants. The presumption that immigrants are going to be excessive users of public assistance does not seem to be a necessary result. However, Americans are getting older.

Bush solution to Social Security and Medicare might have been awful but he was not wrong that there will be a problem. However, to the extent legal immigrants come to the United States to work and thus pay taxes including FICA they will help make up the deficit in the trust funds.

One of the advantages the United States has over Japan and Euope, also aging societies, is our ability to better assimilate, however, imperfectly, immigrants. The result is our society will stay younger and likely be more productive than it would be by native born residents alone.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Note to LauraK re:Glaivester
Recent scientific data indicates some of our human ancesters continued mating with monkey-ape ancesters at more recent time than perviously thought.
Its possible that this may have continued
within the past 100 years. When such organisms are not in front of you, DNA testing to document how recently their personal man-ape split occured.
One quick clinical test with > 90% acccuracy is that these recently split individuals have a need to place true homo-sapiens of a different etnicity in a biological category below them. They do this in word and print. In print, they will use the tell-tale SS sign instead of $$ (This is predestined by their DNA). Attempts at rational conversation is often futile.
Hope this helps.
Have a nice day :)

As for "shouldn't they?": there's simply nothing inherently or self-evidently alarming about the reputable estimates (obviously this category excludes Rector and Heritage). 20 million (over the current baseline) is a lot of people, but 20 years is a long time as well.

Yes, there is something inherently alarming, and that is the fact that we cannot presently support half that many immigrants in terms of the demands on public taxes and services for this group of aliens.

Lou Dobbs, covers this aspect, on his program. He did discuss the trillions of dollars and 20 million ppl as projected by the Heritage report.

Rector is first mentioned about 510 words into a 900 word article.

Samuelson's argument is that increasing legal immigration from about 20 million to about 40 million over the next twenty years is newsworthy and should have appeared in the mainstream press. He doesn't use Rector as support for that contention, so he is _not_ "hanging his argument" on Rector or the Heritage Foundation.
Samuelson uses him to bring in a right-wing take, among several, for why what (Samuelson thinks) should've taken place did not.

In the end, Samuelson summarizes the problem well: "Whether or not the bias is "liberal," groupthink is a powerful force in journalism. Immigration is considered noble. People who critically examine its value or worry about its social effects are subtly considered small-minded, stupid or bigoted."

My experience exactly.

Mexico is governed for the benefit of the wealthy, not the average citizen.  Just like our country, but a lot worse and for a lot longer.  Until that changes, no one in power in Mexico is even trying to improve the living standard of the average citizen.  Add to that the corrupt police force there, the system of bribing public officials for everything, and the connivance of US corporations in all of that, and you get a poverty stricken Mexican citizenry. 

Hoppy in Sacramento

What's inherently alarming is that the Bush base of end timers, evangelicals, racists and cave dwellers all enthusiastically support the US borrowing $250 billion a year to kill brown people on the other side of the world in countries they never heard of and can't locate on a map.

They seem to be the same ones who are so concerned about the fiscal implications of a few meager billions a year supposedly spent on immigrants, legal or illegal.

The common thread is racism. Plain and simple.

Additionally, I don't remember the MSM or the Heritage giving us the estimated cost for occupying the Middle East for the next 20 years.

It's so ironic, too. On other venues, I've argued with right wingers that Mexico represents just the kind of government Republicans wish for. That gets them all riled-up. But there it is, right in front (to the south) of you.

And it's soooo French. 

Neoboho