The economic side of immigration:

[1932]

There have been a couple posts here at DU claiming that immigration has a negative effect on the economy and on wages. Guess what? It's probably not true. Listen to Fariness and Accuracy In Reporting's weekly radio show, CounterSpin:

Also on the program: With some of the people making anti-immigration arguments these days it’s pretty clear their position rests on fear or plain old prejudice. But what about people who say they only oppose immigration because of the negative impact it has on struggling US workers? We'll hear from Doug Henwood, of the Left Business Observer, on the economic side of the immigration debate.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2890

mp3: http://www.fair.org/audio/counterspin/CounterSpin052606.mp3
RealAudio: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=15&rm=CounterSpin052606.rm

[JuniperLea]

1. Why doesn't anyone want to talk about our already overtaxed infrastructure

???

What about clean drinking water? Sewer systems? Health care? Freeways? Waste disposal?

We don't have enough services for the people in this country now! We are already playing a dangerous balancing act keeping what we have running.

To hell with the economy, jobs and housing! What about our already failing infrastructure? Do you think the government will let loose of our tax dollars for this? Come on!

[treestar]

2. Can't pay for all that without a successful economy

To grow, businesses need to hire when they expand. Now, not after the CIS and the DOL takes three years to determine the worker is needed.

The immigration law we have is seriously outdated. We keep tinkering with it but not really overhauling it.

We need to get an updated model, for instance, from the Irish, who didn't need an immigration law until the 1990s and got a fairly modern system going to go with their roaring economy. Or at least, get ideas from them, realizing the differences in size, etc.

Canada, Australia, New Zealand, even Mexico have more sensible schemes. They do have differences and maybe (except for Canada) don't need to use them as much, but they are all good ideas.

Our laws are burdened with technicalities over concepts that worked OK in 1952. Not so much now.

[JuniperLea]

3. There are unemployment lines just full of people for those jobs

And we know that expansion only leads to bigger bonuses for the CEOs, etc.

Our laws are fine, just not enforced. How can we say the laws need changed when they haven't been tested?

[treestar]

9. CEOS have to hire somebody to build their bigger houses, even

So even that is not necessarily bad, but businesses have to expand or there would be no jobs. Businesses cost money to run and those purchases lead to more business.

You're seeing only a snapshot picture in one second of time.

The economy is dynamic and fluent. Even when the rich get the money it doesn't just stop there. They invest it in something.

If all companies had to stay at their present size, the economy would shrink and stagnate. Or if they had to wait three years to get government approval, and a lot of them do, to hire the people they need, then, as is probably true, we are slowing down the economy.

We need to look at the Irish in the 90s or ourselves in the early part of this century when there was tremendous expansion. The population now is much more than it was then, but we expanded along with the economy. If a business can't hire new people it can't expand.

There are no long lines of unemployed Americans, or we'd see them on the news. They'd be demonstrating. Unemployment is not that high right now. And those who are unemployed may be looking for other jobs. And they could look abroad. Or they could go into business for themselves. The level of awareness of what it takes to run a business in this country is weird. Everyone thinks their job is some sort of sinecure they have a right to by birth. Your employer could let you go anytime, but you could also go anytime for a better paying job.

Do you go out of your way to pay the most you can for anything you need, just because an American made it? By your reasoning, all toys you buy (they all seem to be made in China nowadays) are just helping the Chinese, etc., maybe you should pay $400 for a toy truck to some American.

[JuniperLea]

10. There are no long lines of unemployed Americans...

or we'd see them on the news.


You're kidding, right? You expect the alphabet news to give us the truth? Have you driven past an unemployment office lately? I have... line out the door and down the block just last week in Long Beach, CA. Have you looked for a job lately? I have highly marketable skills and a perfect resume... it took me six months last year to find a job, and I had half a dozen agencies helping me look and three internet job search sites, plus newspapers. What you are talking about USED to be the situation... that's long gone now.

[brentspeak]

18. Your post reads like something from the Limbaugh Letter

or Neil Cavuto from FOX News.

"Everyone thinks their job is some sort of sinecure they have a right to by birth."

That is almost exactly what Carly Fiorina of Hewlett-Packard said in 2004:

"There is no job that is America's God-given right anymore. We all have to compete for jobs."

"Or they could look abroad."

LOL. So you're saying -- without actually saying it -- things are so bad in the U.S. that citizens might even have to leave their own country? You're not doing a good job of implying that "America is the land of opportunity" when you typed that laughable sentence.

"maybe you should pay $400 for a toy truck to some American."

Ever heard of the term "logical fallacy"?

"The economy is dynamic and fluent. Even when the rich get the money it doesn't just stop there. They invest it in something."

That's...uh, nice. The rich "invest it in something." And...?

(You didn't know that most investment dollars these days are going to European and Asian companies?)

[rfranklin]

4. The bulk of our taxes go to support a bloated military....

We spend more than the next five largest militarized countries combined. We are only overtaxed because we have to pay for warmaking and then whatever is left over goes toward the public welfare.

And please don't utter the words "9/11" because that massive military might was nowhere to be seen that day. And the militarists have only succeeded in making us more terriorized and terrified in the last five years.

[1932]

5. If population growth and resources were the problem then we might still

prefer economic migration which encourages people to leave high-birthrate impoverished communities for low-birthrate middle class lives. Or we could engage in non-neoliberal foreign policies which create desperation abroad.

In any event, this mp3 discusses the effect of immigration on wages.

[JuniperLea]

12. That doesn't give us immediate use of more water, sewer, etc.

If we had planned ahead, it would be different. Our expansion of infrastructure has always been reactionary at best. We need to take care of this before opening the flood gates, otherwise, we'll see garbage and human waste on the streets, disease and no health care system to keep it under control.

[1932]

13. Give working people political power and you'll solve those problems

faster than if you continue to allow polarized wealth and power. Which brings us back to the subject of the OP -- immigration doesn't hurt working people's accumulation of wealth (and therefor political power).

[JuniperLea]

15. If the floodgates open

Those of us in states where immigrants tend to settle will be living in a medieval world with trash in the streets, human waste and dirty water flowing down the gutters, rats, flies mosquitos... disease and death. There is no time make enough changes politically. Any other argument becomes moot. It's like putting all those Katrina victims in that arena without enough water and bathroom facilities. The result would be exactly the same.

[1932]

16. Pay workers fair wages & end neoliberal exploitation of foreign countries

and you'll solve all the problems you fear.

You can never build a fence high enough to separate two places with immensely polarized opportunities.

And the solution to political problems are always political.

And where do you want to put the Katrina victims? You want to leave them in New Orleans? Block the bridges? Hmm.

[JuniperLea]

32. Please don't put words into my mouth

And although your post appears to be in response to mine, you've said nothing to "prove" my statements wrong and you offered no way to correct the failing infrastructure.

Perhaps I missed your point?

[entanglement]

25. What ridiculous hyperbole!

The idea that the mere presence of immigrants causes dirt and disease is downright stupid and a popular RW talking point.

[JuniperLea]

33. Clearly you miss the point

I'm talking numbers of people putting stress on an already overstressed infrastructure. It has nothing to do with the race of the people in question and everything to do with the number of people.

I think to ignore what is obviously a major problem is stupid.

Surely you jest about the RW talking point! The RWers would NEVER talk about the failing infrastructure! That would intimate they actually have thoughts on putting some money in an area that would help the people!

[proud2BlibKansan]

26. This comment is just so disgusting I don't know what to say

[JuniperLea]

31. How so?

How do you expect our infrastructure to handle more than it already fails to handle on a regular basis?

Yes, the picture is disgusting. I agree. True, but disgusting.

Our infrastructure simply cannot handle more people. The sewer treatment plants in Los Angeles fail on a regular basis spewing toxic, disease ridden raw sewage into the ocean and at times even backing up onto the streets. How do you expect that system to handle more and more people? You have clearly given little thought to this issue.

[Maestro]

17. And the ironic aspect of your worries,

while valid, is that what work is done on the infrastructure is probably being done for the most part in immigrant labor, many times with undocumented workers.

[IndyJones]

30. No, not if the work is city related. City workers are not illegals.

[JuniperLea]

34. Not around Los Angeles County... the area that would be impacted

Those are union jobs.

[IndyJones]

29. Because it's not in their backyard, so they don't care. If it is in

your backyard and you complain about the facts, then you're labeled a "racist".

[JuniperLea]

35. Exactly. I'm labeled a racist even if they have to grasp at straws

When I say I hate abortion, I get the same ridiculous banter. Some can't open their minds enough to see that a person can be pro choice and anti-abortion.

And if you could see the neighborhood I bought into, you'd laugh:) Yes, my black and brown neighbors would have a laugh too:)

I'm talking strictly numbers here. The waste of Scandinavians, the Irish and British is every bit as toxic when not properly treated as that of any other country.

I'm speaking purely in numbers and facts here, yet some choose to disregard numbers and facts and label me a racist. Brilliant.

[Warpy]

6. What utter bullshit!

Why are so many Americans unemployed long term?

Why are wages FLAT or even declining?

Yes, the answers to both of these are complex, but the desire of employers to hire a tame, powerless, and underpaid workforce--illegals--can't be denied. Plus, consider the effect that even H1-B employees are having on some occupations like engineering. They are paid less. They drive all wages down because any American who thinks he should be paid an American wage is told an Indian or Mexican fella will work cheaper, so why can't he?

This moron is ignoring the lessons of history, lessons that are quite clear: employers want the cheapest and most docile workforce and will pay as little as they can legally get away with. Full employment of citizens guarantees higher wages, as it did late in Clinton's second term. High unemployment guarantees lower wages, just as it's happening now. The importation of cheap workers creates the latter condition, as it has during all the massive waves of immigration that came before.

Yes, the presence of more people making money means the presence of more people with money to spend and more demand for goods and services. However, when the pay is at or below subsistence, the effect is not that great, contributing to the type of low wage employment that brought the illegals in to begin with.

[1932]

7. So you didn't listen to the link?

[1932]

8. By the way, I'd say that the decline of the power of unions and the rise

of neoliberalism since the early 70s are the answers to your questions. Furthermore, exploiting immigrants doesn't HAVE to go hand-in-hand with immigration.

[lumberjack_jeff]

11. The question isn't about whether it helps "the economy"...

I'm sure that unregulated immigration helps the economy of contracting firms and real estate investment trusts immensely. The real question is what it does to the well-being of working class americans, and in this there is little debate.

The economy is only important to the degree that it improves the lives of the people. It's kinda sad that it's become an end in and of itself and not simply a vehicle to benefit the citizens.

[1932]

14. When I say helps the economy, I mean that it helps working people

accumulate wealth.

How can you say "there's little debate" when the person interviewed in the mp3 in the OP debates this question?

[LostInAnomie]

19. Yeah sure, and trickle down economics is great for the working class.

Just like repealing the estate tax, and cutting capital gains taxes.

[1932]

20. The argument against repealing the estate tax and against super

low capital gains tax is based on solid facts and historical precendent. The argument that immigration lowers wages for working people is based on emotion.

[LostInAnomie]

22. But the argument that it holds wages flat is not.

And it sure as hell isn't raising the wages of workers by subsidising wealthy business owner's payrolls.

[1932]

23. I'm not sure if that's a priori logic

[Maestro]

21. That backs what I said here.

Scroll down to my link that says, "Economic impact..."

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Maestro/30

[sweetheart]

24. Jesus we're cheap

We dosh out trillions of dollars on WMD's and can't afford to provide
housing, medical care and civil surroundings for the american people,
and then the few pennys left over from the murder-budget, are fought
over jealously like dogs fighting over table scraps.

When the reality, is that the dogs have already eaten the dinner.

This problem is a non-problem for the richest nation on earth if it
chooses to be grand. But if it chooses to be small, as seems the
ongoing trend, what new evils can we mine in the human condition.

All of us are immigrants, the children of immigratns, grand children,
great grandchildren, heck, even the indian peoples were migrants. The
land will forever more in time accept the footprints of immigratnts.
It is the most absurd thing in existance to fight the very human nature
to walk around on "OUR" planet.

THe propriety of various prison states has become degenerate, sadly,
really sadly.

[proud2BlibKansan]

27. Well said

We really need to stop the knee jerk reactions and look at the big picture.

[1932]

28. Well said. I think this immmigration debate is the new gay marriage.

It's meant to distract Americans from the bigger issues and it's framed from the beginning in a way that only allows the conservative, neoliberal interpretation (the equivalent with gay rights was that it was framed in terms of the two most conservative institutions in our culture, marriage and serving in the military, leaving no room to discuss worker's rights, living wages, and affordable health insurance).

[JuniperLea]

36. I'm all for the ability to freely walk the planet

As long as there is an infrastructure that can support it.

During the summer months in Los Angeles when the tourists come to town, our sewer system routinely overflows into the ocean. I shudder to think of the conditions should there be a mass influx of people. We are horribly behind in expanding our solid waste removal and disposal as well.

It's a horrible thought, but we are truly headed for a meltdown should we see an influx of people here. We could easily deteriorate into a Medieval situation with raw sewage flowing down the streets, an increase in disease and a health care system that is in no way prepared to deal with this situation.

[sweetheart]

37. Los Angeles has a more embedded problem

I grew up there and left as it has become a real shithole, for
hours commuting in heavy traffic, angry cynical people and the
urban degeneration of the inner urban neighborhoods that parts
of the city is barrio-unsafe places to be the wrong colour skin.

LAUSD is a nightmare school system that is overstressed like all
american public infrastructure, as the repuke-thinking has starved
investment for several decades and its not the immigrants fault that
a city has been built that requires cars, where people drive several
hundred miles a week commuting without batting an eyelash. Heck,
persons i know who did not leave for seattle or to a less degenerate place,
moved out to remote ex-burbs and commute even further... miles and miles
in an unsustainable city.

When petrol reaches a certain price per gallon, los angeles will cease
to function as the city it has been. The commuting culture will have
to come to terms with the irresponsible creation of the ugliest monster
city i've seen in the US... (as of course, mexico city is worse, bangkok
is worse for traffic, seoul is worse for traffic... and if you're comparing
with those 3 cities, its already the dregs).

I'm glad "somebody" wants to live in LA (not referring to yourself), but the
tide of immigration; that said; we have to come to terms with our own lack
of investment in our community spaces, as spending that money on war is no
solution, only exacerbating a rot too far gone.

Something's gotta give, and its the military budget if good hearted people
can take back the surface of the planet, otherwise, LA --> mexico city.

[JuniperLea]

43. I never said it was the fault of the immigrants that we are where we are

The city and state are reactionary at best. Our air and water got better year after year (we no long have smog alerts) until Bush gave corporations a free pass to pollute. I predict smog alerts will be back. I've always lived by the beach were the eddy keeps the smog away, fortunately.

The infrastructure of the entire country is pitiful, this is true. Immigrants from all over the world come to LA... we can't take care of the number of people we have here now. If the borders were open, we would be thrust back to Medieval times in a heartbeat... no sewer system, no solid waste disposal... disease, etc.

I've lived here all my life and I know it's not too late to save this once-grand city.

My boyfriend moved here from Seattle over three years ago. He loves LA... we both do. I've seen ups and downs here and I'm willing to fight for more ups.

We help no one by turning LA into the next Mexico City.

[Bridget Burke]

39. Which LA politicians want to shore up the infrastructure?

Are you working to get them elected, or keep them in office? Or--would you rather avoid paying the taxes?

I've got news for you: LA had a "mass influx" of people throughout most of the 20th century. The air has been getting dirtier & water scarcer for a long time now.

[JuniperLea]

40. Nope, you're wrong about our air and water

Until Bush rolled back so many environmental laws, the air and water in Los Angeles were getting better year after year. We no longer have the "smog alerts" we used to have in the 60's and 70's.

We've had a steady increase in population over the years, but nothing compared to what it would be if the boarders were open to all who want to come here.

http://www.censusscope.org/us/m4480/chart_popl.html

I always vote for the environmentally minded people... that doesn't mean they can get funding. I always vote for more taxes when it's a program that actually helps the people.

[Bridget Burke]

42. It sounds as though Bush is more to blame than.....

The immigrants.

[JuniperLea]

44. I never once blamed the freaking immigrants!

So many are so quick to call me racist and worse! I never once blamed the immigrants! All I'm saying is that turning LA into the next Mexico City will help no one. We cannot allow a flood of people to come here... that is not racist. It's realistic. If we could spend some money on building up sanitation, health care and school systems I'd have no problem with open borders. Until that time, allowing a mass influx by opening boarders will spell disaster, disease and death.

[sweetheart]

46. the sacred crucible of free will

I don't agree with words like "cannot allow". It is an authoritarian stance.

I must call in to question the population statistics, as i ask anyone to
show me exacly physically where los angeles metropolitian development ends.
Sure, the population counts appear to make sense, except riverside is just
east los angeles anymore, Camarillo and ojai are subsumed, and outside of
a short (getting smaller by the year) gap in development between LA and
sandiego, the city is bigger when we penetrate the myth of dotted lines on a
map that define artificial boundaries when concrete sees no such markings.

Fly over LA at night, and presume that the edge of the lights in all directions,
is the edge of LA... how many people live there really.

[JuniperLea]

47. So you would disagree with the term...

We cannot allow starvation? We cannot allow murder?

This is Los Angeles County... it includes the South Bay beach cities... and is nowhere near Riverside, Ojai or Camarillo... You are talking in terms of all of Southern California. There are still areas where growth can occur without taxing the systems, but Los Angeles has a finite amount of resources.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=&imgrefurl=http://da.co.la.ca.us/locations3.htm&h=528&w=528&sz=22&tbnid=r8rYqfrAZlHo8M:&tbnh=129&tbnw=129&hl=en&start=3&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmap%2Blos%2Bangeles%2Bcounty%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DX

[sweetheart]

50. You've introduced a false straw man

"cannot allow", when people are free and equal, must then be a crime, and
it is not a crime to migrate.

You were "allowed" to come to LA. I was "allowed" to leave. I was "allowed"
in to britain as i'm legal on the up an up, and i see no reason to introduce
a chinese-like system of permits where we can and cannot move and live.

It benefits us all to experience different places, to "choose" where we want
to invest our life force in to what community. If you honour other people's
choices and empower them with good government, then we have a progressive
consensus.

[JuniperLea]

52. Tell that to my neighbors in and around downtown LA

When our city mirrors Mexico City... or Medieval Europe... with sewer and trash in the streets, disease, rats, etc.

Someone has to step up and protect this city... and make it stronger, then I'd say let them all in. Until that time, we are flirting with disaster by allowing more and more people to move here.

I was not allowed to move to Los Angeles. I was born here. I've traveled the US and Europe and I agree with the benefits of experiencing life elsewhere.

You are talking rainbows and flowers... a fantasy. I'm talking life and living within our means. We simply do not have the means to support any more people in this area and allowing the area to deteriorate by forcing it to support more people than it can handle is asking for disaster.

[sweetheart]

54. I was born there too...

spare me the propriety. I've seen more than enough squalor in Downtown,
east, compton and all over to know exactly what you're on about.

So what are you recommending, settlement permits? Then the police
will check your permit to see if you're allowed. We have the means,
just not the political will. The political will will not come from being
small. Mexico city was not planned either... it just happened. I'm sure
LA was a divine perfect place in 1900 before the cars and the overpopulation.

After a stint in new york, the bronx and south boston have a lot in common
with parts of LA... its not all that special. Poverty is shit everywhere.
That is the issue, its about poverty, not about immigration. You're
misplacing these in your fantasy. LA is the hard reality of the new
dystopia, and you can fight the changes with your while life, and
mexico city will come there anyways.

There are water problems, serious development problems, sustainability problems,
and military budget problems... all of these are economic and have nothing
to do with migrants.

[JuniperLea]

56. You are ignoring one major fact

LA will suffer the impact of open borders far before New York, or Seattle, or Minneapolis, or Omaha... It's not simply poverty, it's pouring more and more people into an already overpopulated area. In an effort to "correct" me, you've not considered my first statements at all. It is, at this moment in time, about immigration.

So your suggestion, ala "you can fight the changes with your while life, and mexico city will come there anyways." mentality, is to suggest that we just all give up and allow the destruction? Why not just throw your hands up and allow the entire USA to go to hell in a hand-basket. Where is the sense in that?

We can't change everything all at once, but we can protect what we have and strengthen it so we can support more lives at a later date.

It's beyond me how anyone can be so pie in the sky optimistic about letting anyone who wants to come here... and believe me, millions will come all at once from all over the world if that happens... and then in the next breath suggest I should give up on my home town.

[sweetheart]

49. Have you been to the owens valley?

Do you realize that before LA took the water, it was green!
Water is getting worse, don't be fooled. The growth of all
the cities on the colorado river, especially in arizona too, is
putting a gas-powered overstress on the environment that is not
maintainable. The subsidy of free energy is what powers the american
west, and without it, we could see entire suburbs becoming the new
ghost towns, water rationing of intense proportions, and an end to
golf courses in the southwest.

I agree that air quality is better since the 60's, geesh, before they
stopped people from incinerating their trash, LA had the air quality
in the 60's that mexico city has today.

You're an ocean-cities democrat, that blue fringe that follows north
of the santa monica freeway to stanta monica and down the "beaches"
past PV and more white upper middle class beach cities.

If you loved LA enough to live in inglewood, cudahay, hawaiian gardens,
bell gardens, or downtown, then i'd see your point... but you probably
avoid those areas, and i feel that as democrats, it is our job to
consider those areas and those peopel the most, as they are the blood
of the party in future, the people who are really making los angeles.

Honestly, california should be cut in half so that the desert-south has
its own state government. The problems are too severe and it needs a
local governor to unfuck the mess.

[JuniperLea]

51. I've spent a lot of time in Owen's Valley, Mammoth Lakes

Mono Lake, etc. I know exactly where our water comes from and how it is processed. Have you seen the untreated well water around here? It's brown! The water WAS getting better because of regulations against corporations dumping toxic waste water into the system or allowing it to seep into the ground. The more toxins that get into the underground water supply, the more processing needed to clean it up to potable quality.

I work downtown. I have always been a civic minded person and I've always spent a lot of time in many other areas of Los Angeles. I work five blocks from the Disney Concert Hall, The Ahmanson Theatre, The Mark Taper Forum, The Museum of Contemporary Art... I visit Olvera Street and Union Station almost once a year... the La Brea Tar Pits, The George Page Museum... The Museum of Science and Industry, The Museum of Natural History... I shop in the clothing district, the jewelry district, the flower district... I doubt the mayor knows more about this city than I do. I was among the last to ride Angel's Flight before it was torn down in the 60's... I walked among and mourned the Victorian homes on Bunker Hill before they were torn down or moved to make way for skyscrapers, I've spent many hours in the main library branch downtown... in the very near future I plan to visit the community garden on Alameda that is being threatened. I love the civil war gun barracks and the Phineas Banning house in Harbor City, the lighthouse at Pt. Vincente... the Korean Bell in San Pedro... I know my city.

Don't tell me I don't know Los Angeles. And don't assume you know me at all, for that matter, based on a few words posted on a message board. I'm dead serious about MY city. I love my city. I've worked all over my city. I consider all people of Los Angeles my neighbors. I claim every beach as my own from Venice to Long Beach... I've surfed every inch of it possible.

Those areas you assume I avoid are the areas I am trying to save and the areas I'm talking about in this thread! My beach neighborhood will be the last to suffer. I'm not talking about my immediate neighborhood here! I'm talking about my extended neighborhood and all my extended neighbors that I love dearly!

I will try NOT to be insulted by your assumptions. But clearly, you know nothing about me or my city.


Edited to say... I've also spent time feeding the homeless in skid row missions... and assisted my Cub Scout's in Scouting for Food to support local food banks. I've dined at Spago and fed homeless on 6th street... I know my city.

[sweetheart]

53. Well now that you're unburdened of that

rant, you did not address the long term problem of population growth and
diminishing water supplies. Have you seen the water levels in lake powell?
Something's gotta give.

Angel's flight, ha! I remember that blast from the past... indeed, but
i'm not writing to play big-dick with who loves "their" city the most,
but rather towards your approach to immigration as the cause of a problem,
rather than the symptom of one.

The petrol culture of the "i love LA" generation, is the cause of the iraq
war, that's the addictoin right there... .people who don't accept that
the entire way of life is the problem, and instead, the sleepy suburbs of
pacific warm weather, what could be further away, outside of the giant
TRW aerospace factories, martin marietta, loral, and the entire aerospace
reality of missle and war manufacture that powers the LA economy.

[JuniperLea]

55. You deserved that rant by calling me names!

And making assumptions about who I am and what I stand for.

I don't pretend to have all the answers, but I'm working on it. And I know, without question, that opening the borders before our infrastructure is strengthened will be the death of not only Los Angeles, but many other cities in the southwest.

I never, ever said immigration was the cause of our problems! Still, you assume much. Our city, state and federal governments are to blame without question. I'm saying allowing our border to be completely open spells death and destruction of not only the people who already live here, but the people who come. Our infrastructure simply cannot support more people.

There are many viable water recycling programs that, properly funded, could make a huge difference. One is a sewage water reclamation project that cleans the water so thoroughly that salts and minerals must be added back so it doesn't rot the pipes. They put this water into seeping ponds... it ends up filtered yet again, naturally, by the ground, and ends up in our underground water system. We have, over the years, lessened our dependency on waters from the aquaduct... Mr. Mullholland's great, yet evil design. We are relying more and more on groundwater now. But guess what. If we open the border, you can kiss Owen's River and Mono Lake goodbye. The powers-that-be will take the cheapest, easiest way out of the impending disaster, and that would be a the expense of the above-referenced water sources.

Yes, all that driving is the cause but that cannot be changed overnight. What can be changed overnight is opening the borders and it will happen because it feeds corporate greed.

It is NOT the cause of the Iraq war! That is ridiculous. There are plenty of other countries who have a lot of oil... it was Bush's choice to go to war with Iraq. There was no other cause.

I don't know any of those self-serving people you speak of... my friends and neighbors care about things a lot more deeply than that Valley Girl/Beverly Hills persona you describe. Most of us have traded in our SUVs for small, fuel efficient and low emission vehicles... we car pool to work and we bike to the store. I don't know where you lived down here, but you are spouting stereotypes I avoid.

[sweetheart]

57. yes dear

In Hawaii a few years ago, a hotel receptionist told me she can always tell the
people from LA 'cuz they are hateful and short tempered. Stereotypes are always
wrong in the specific

The "car culture" is the cause of the iraq war, this addiction and the very so common
junkie breakin over iraq-way to steal that oil. You misread. Cheney calls the
car culture "our way of life", and we went to war over it... do you remember?

What's killing LA?

The drugs war. It is rotting out mexico's legitimate economy and people are migrating
to find work now that their economy is further subverted. Poor persons are criminalized
creating new prison jobs elsewhere.

The NAFTA dumping of cheap labour south of the border, creating a natural pull for the
cheap labour to move north to be less cheap. It is human nature, and the only
means to check that are economic means.

Subsidized fossil fuels companies.

Subsidized builders that build massive developments without paying the public cost
of the land/water and energy they consume.

A massive military subsidy that gifts LA a gazillion jobs in arms factories, that
would be producing more jobs if invested in the civilian sector.

It can be changed overnight. THe government needs apply a gas-tax that equals the
cost of the wars and the subsidies... then LA will change overnight.

Remember the 84 olympics and how the city traffic problem went away during that
time as businessses coordinated thier hours to not cause peak traffic... there is
indeed the capability, but the selfish rot isn't there.

You are a rare, good hearted citizen, and most persons of the 15million++ are not
so high minded.... mexico city calls.

Immigration is not the problem, economics is.

[JuniperLea]

58. Yes, there are many things that need fixed

But the chances of getting all that done anytime soon are slim and none. That being said, an influx of immigrants will destroy this city before we have a chance to make it work well enough to support all those people.

I still disagree about the war. There were many other options. Venezuela and Mexico have oodles of oil, far more than Iraq, but Bush is in bed with Arab oil barons.

This is all corporate driven. Car and oil companies own us and will not allow for alternative ideas to the extent that their bottom line will suffer. There is still much work to be done in that regard.

[Bridget Burke]

38. It's much easier to criticize Immigrants than Republicans...

For some people, at least.

Personally, I have no problem blaming Bush, et al, for wasting our money on illegal wars & an obscene defense budget. While education, health care, the environment, the insfrastructure & workers' rights go down the tubes.

[JuniperLea]

45. No one is playing the race end here but you

Why do you insist on playing the race card when no one in this thread is blaming the immigrants themselves?

[Bridget Burke]

41. Ah, FAIR & its less reputable cousins...

FAIR was created following a factional split in Zero Population Growth led by John Tanton. Along with Sidney Swensrud and Sharon Barnes, Tanton founded FAIR in 1979. FAIR’s links to other local and national organizations that are stridently anti-immigrant, anti-Latino, and supremacist have undermined FAIR’s own credibility and led to questions about the underlying agenda of its restrictionist approach to immigration. Referring to FAIR and associated groups, the Southern Poverty Law Center concluded an article on immigrant hate groups stating: “Opinion polls consistently show that a majority of Americans believe that immigration needs to be cut below current levels, although that does not imply that they support the ideas of white supremacists or other bigots…. The danger is not that immigration levels are debated by Americans, but that the debate is controlled by bigots and extremists whose views are anathema to the ideals on which this country was founded.”....

Along with a few other FAIR board members, Tanton founded a nationalist organization called WITAN—short for the Old English term “witenagemot,” meaning “council of wise men.” In 1986 Tanton signed a memo that went to WITAN members that highlighted the supremacist bent of Tanton and FAIR. The memo charged that Latin American immigrants brought a culture of political corruption with them to the United States that that they were unlikely to involve themselves in civil life. He raised the alarm that they could become the majority group in U.S. society. What’s more, he asked: “Can homo contraceptivus compete with homo progenitiva?” Answering his own rhetorical question, Tanton wrote that “perhaps this is the first instance in which those with their pants up are going to get caught by those with their pants down!” According to Tanton, “In California 2030, the non-Hispanic Whites and Asians will own the property, have the good jobs and education, speak one language and be mostly Protestant and ‘other.’ The Blacks and Hispanics will have the poor jobs, will lack education, own little property, speak another language and will be mainly Catholic.” Furthermore, Tanton raised concerns about the “educability” of Hispanics. In 1988 the media published this Tanton memo, and caused a number of former supporters of U.S. English to cut ties with Tanton, including Walter Cronkite and eventually Linda Chavez, a right-wing analyst with the Equal Opportunity Center.

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1467

Read more about the illustrious John Tanton here: www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=180

Gosh, why do "racism" & "xenophobia" keep coming up?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

48. Well, there are two FAIRs

So vastly different. Fairness for Accuracy In Reporting which is what this OP is about. And the oft cited FAIR as in Federation for American Immigration Reform. That FAIR, CIS, and the good old Heritage Foundation are cited way to often.

[Bridget Burke]

59. Thanks for the correction.

The "Federation for American Immigration Reform" has, indeed, been cited here far too much.