Your knowledge of statistics matches your knowledge of the Israeli economy, which matches your overall knowledge of economics, which matches your ability to comprehend the argument.
Extrapolating from one public city hospital is no way to make an argument. What percentage of indigent people are illegals in Dallas? I don't know. Is it 70%? Is it 80%?
Benefits of employing illegal labor are widespread. Producers have lower costs and offer lower prices to consumers. What is the alternative? Outsourcing to China?
On taxes, even the article you cite repeatedly offered no source for its assertions. Even it said states that rely on sales taxes (like TX and TN) would see little benefit to making illegals legal since the illegals already pay sales tax.
In any case, against anonymous reports in the Dallas Morning News
Here are 500 economists, among them Nobel Prize winners, making the economic case for immigration as an overall benefit.
The same argument as made above about the hospitals holds true of prisons. What percentage of prisoners come from similar but legal socio-economic backgrounds? 27%, 50%, 80%? I don't know. But you can't compare illegal immigrants to college-educated engineers to make any valid point in statistics.
You continually confuse points on the right of free movement of labor and capital. As I wrote:
There is a big difference between having rules and having an abstract goal. No one will argue that the country should be completely without taxes. We all argue (on this site anyway) that taxes are generally too high and need to be less.
Is that not clear enough? There are general principles and there are policy decisions that might be impinged by something else. The Israeli situation is unique in the sense that they have a hostile population on their border with demonstrated interest in terrorist acts. When Mexicans commit terrorist acts here come talk to me.
On this one:
Uh, The North Koreans are also Korean ethnically and speak the language of South Korea. You also make the mistake of saying "any citizen." Are not the hordes of Nork infantry also "any citizen of N.Korea?" Strangely, they are denied entry to S Korea. S Korea seems to only let in North Koreans on S Korea's terms. As is the right of any free, sovereign state.
I wonder whether you and Cannoneer are not the same entity.
Do you recognize that there is a difference between an army bent on destruction and individuals bent on self-betterment? Canoneer seems unable to distinguish between someone looking for a job and someone intent on robbing him. I hope he doesn't CCW that way or he'll be spending a long time at public expense. On your view gun ownership ought to be illegal since every gun crime was committed by a gun owner.
Similarly this:
Also, the same fellow has often made the argument that the only rights we have as Americans are those that are masticated on and spit up by the political process now lets slip a rallying cry for basic human rights outside the purview of the political process. For some, non-American people, that is.
Do you not recognize the difference between a right and something moral? If the U.S. forbids printiing anything without prior censorship we will no longer have the right of freedom of the press. That does not make the action moral however.
