http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress Idaho Common Sense® Mon, 06 Feb 2012 15:02:45 +0000 en hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 Welcome to - The truth as I see it™. Dr. Bosley writes sociopolitical columns with a conservative view that is well articulated and defended, provoking thought and discussion without telling people what to think. He poses questions, while offering his personal views and reasoning for them, allowing readers to better understand his opinions as they develop their own. His advice to himself - "Writing the truth as I see it; trying not to offend those who will disagree." Craig L. Bosley, MD no Craig L. Bosley, MD webmaster@craigbosley.com webmaster@craigbosley.com (Craig L. Bosley, MD) 2010 Craig Bosley The truth as I see it™ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/wp-content/plugins/powerpress/rss_default.jpg http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/category/immigrationillegal-aliens/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/08/is-the-arizona-law-a-burden/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/08/is-the-arizona-law-a-burden/#comments Mon, 16 Aug 2010 14:45:27 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=1558 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/08/is-the-arizona-law-a-burden/feed/ 2 Alien (law),Illegal immigration,Judge Bolton,Law,Mexico,United States,United States Department of Justice,Winston Churchill Those opposed to Arizona's illegal alien law praised Judge Susan Bolton's ruling against it as a victory for immigration rights. Really? What did the Arizona law have to do with immigration rights? Wasn't it about illegal aliens? In fact, Those opposed to Arizona's illegal alien law praised Judge Susan Bolton's ruling against it as a victory for immigration rights. Really? What did the Arizona law have to do with immigration rights? Wasn't it about illegal aliens? In fact, according to the USA Today, many illegal aliens were so worried about the law that they were preparing to self-deport if it was upheld, proof that enforcing federal law would solve much of the illegal alien problem by promoting self-deportation. But, Judge Bolton listened to the Justice Department's claim that the Arizona law would interfere with foreign relations, specifically with Mexico. Is the Justice Department fearful the United States would upset Mexico if it started sending some of the 12 million illegal aliens back home? I am sorry, but should we care? The offended President of Mexico, who arrogantly chastised our country when he addressed our Congress, willingly enforces his own federal law that requires local Mexican authorities to check the immigration status of all foreigners who come to them for help. How do his police decide who is a foreigner so there is no discrimination like he claims will occur in Arizona. In her ruling, the judge added that the Arizona law would "likely burden legal resident aliens." How? The Arizona law only requires legal resident aliens to follow federal law and carry proper documentation. But she claimed it could be a burden because it could lead to harassment of citizens and legal immigrants. Is it reasonable for a judge to rule against a law because it might be abused? Doesn't law enforcement have the ability to abuse any law if it chooses? Where is her logic? The judge also cited a 1941 Supreme Court ruling that a state could not impose a "distinct, unusual and extraordinary" burden on legal resident aliens, saying a Pennsylvania law led to "indiscriminate and repeated interception and interrogation by public officials." Is that what the Arizona law would allow? Would it allow "indiscriminate interrogations," or was it specific, allowing authorities to check immigrant documents only when law enforcement was enforcing other laws? Did the judge claim something in the Arizona law that was not there and then rule against it? Perhaps the federal government and the Judge need to learn from Sir Winston Churchill who said, "Sometimes it is not enough to do our best; we must do what is required." Arizona did its best with a federal government that ignores our border with Mexico, except for seeing 100,000 potential voters illegally cross our southern border each month. This view is supported by recently leaked administration memos that speculate on how to "reinterpret" the law to grant citizenship to illegal aliens without the approval of Congress. Do you think they can get that done in time to collect the debt of 12 million new voters in November? Rather than working to deport illegal aliens, our politicians are courting the votes of 12 million people who are here illegally. Well, Arizona did listen to Churchill and after doing its best, it did what was required and it enacted state law to enforce federal law. It enacted nothing counter to federal law, only complimentary. It just could no longer suffer the negligence and hypocrisy of the federal government. Of Bolton's ruling, Chapman University law professor John Eastman said, "The claim that just simply having your law enforcement enforce federal law is a violation of federal law, that’s just ludicrous." Thanks to Judge Bolton, I now understand that enforcing federal law is against the law. But the judge left in place the part of the Arizona law that allows it to prevent cities from becoming "sanctuary cities" that openly defy federal immigration law. Do I understand this correctly? It is against the law to enforce federal law, but it is also against the law to defy it. Printable Page (http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/20100816.pdf) Craig L. Bosley, MD no 4:15 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/07/where-are-your-from/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/07/where-are-your-from/#comments Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:01:59 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=1460 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/07/where-are-your-from/feed/ 1 Education,immigration,Los Angeles,Politics,United States,United States Congress,United States Constitution,United States nationality law The other day a friend and I were talking about immigration. He immigrated to the United States, is an American citizen but never refers to himself as a something-American, a hyphenated-American; he is just an American. The other day a friend and I were talking about immigration. He immigrated to the United States, is an American citizen but never refers to himself as a something-American, a hyphenated-American; he is just an American. My great-grandfather emigrated from Prussia in 1852. And like my friend, I don't consider myself a Prussian-American; I am just an American. My friend says people occasionally ask him where he is from, the question suggesting to him that they think he is a hyphenated-American with divided loyalties. Perhaps his mild accent or foreign sounding name prompts the question. But might I be asked where I am from if my last name were Gerbeling or if I had a German accent? Several years ago, prompted by his pronounced English accent, I asked a cab driver in Los Angeles where he was from. As I asked, I realized how easily the question could suggest I thought he was a hyphenated-American. His answer, like my friend's, was to tell me about the United States, "his" country, and how much he loved it. His response made me realize he was not a hyphenated-American, rather just another American like my friend and I. Maybe there are other reasons, more important reasons to ask someone where he or she is from. Perhaps values and attitudes about America are better reasons to prompt the question than accents and surnames. Although these two men are from different countries, as they described the United States I realized they were no longer "from" those countries, they are now Americans and they are from America. And to their credit, both men loved the United States without losing love or respect for their heritage, their homeland. As we discussed America, neither of them said anything about wanting a welfare government, neither said anything about wanting government programs offering "free" money. The cab driver came to America with nothing, dreamed of and built a cab company with several cabs, along with starting a limousine service. My friend came to America for the safety it offers, securing an education, now well educated . . . and safe. Both men are grateful for America's freedoms and opportunities, not wanting government guarantees, government subsidies or government help. Think about it, aren't these real American values, values our founding fathers risked all to give us? Don't these values define Americans and answer the question, "Where are you from?" On the other hand, are there people who claim they are Americans but whose values are so un-American that we do need to ask them, "Where are you from?" Are there Americans who have lost their understanding of who we are? Are there Americans who no longer understand freedom and opportunity? Are there Americans who see a benevolent, near-aristocratic country or a socialist country as the ideal we should aspire to become? Are there Americans who believe the welfare state should have been the founding fathers dream and their job is to make it so? Are there Americans who see government deciding what is best for us as the ideal? Are there Americans who think it's the government's job to solve all of our problems? Who are these people who claim to be Americans with such seemingly un-American values? Who would dare to distort the dreams of the founding fathers and the United States Constitution? Who would dare to spoil the greatest and most successful national experiment in the history of the world? The people with these values already have a national organization and are recruiting more followers daily. And like other fringe groups, they have their own geographic area where they meet to work on their agenda. But this group is subtle; some of them live next-door to us, pretending to be like us and unwilling to openly admit their values that are contrary to the Constitution. And they carry out their subterfuge from within, quietly. They call their group the United States Congress and we need to ask them, "Where are you from?" Printable Page Craig L. Bosley, MD no 4:24 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/07/sanctuary-cities-and-arizona/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/07/sanctuary-cities-and-arizona/#comments Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:48:46 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=1274 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/07/sanctuary-cities-and-arizona/feed/ 1 Arizona,Attorney general,Federal government of the United States,Illegal immigration,immigration,Law,United States,World War II Among the limited powers of the federal government are matters of immigration and border security. However, the government seems unable to carry out these constitutional responsibilities, seemingly incapable of doing what the Constitution mandates. Among the limited powers of the federal government are matters of immigration and border security. However, the government seems unable to carry out these constitutional responsibilities, seemingly incapable of doing what the Constitution mandates. The federal government has ignored illegal aliens for decades, President's Hoover, Truman and Eisenhower the only presidents who seriously tried to solve the problem, Hoover during the depression, Truman following World War II and Eisenhower following the Korean War. Since then, illegal aliens have poured across our southern border, essentially unabated. And as their numbers rose, "sanctuary" cities passed ordinances banning use of municipal funds to support federal immigration laws, in essence aiding and abetting illegal aliens. They did this despite federal laws stating that "concealing, harboring, or sheltering illegal aliens" is a felony and also in defiance of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which states that cities could not ban municipal employees from reporting workers immigration status to federal authorities. Like these sanctuary cities that responded to the government's negligence, Arizona also decided to take action. But unlike the sanctuary cities that disregard federal law, Arizona decided to pass state laws supporting federal immigration laws. Although having no comments about sanctuary cities, the President did have comments about Arizona, saying it threatens to "undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans." What does the President think is unfair about securing our borders? What does he think is unfair about arresting and deporting people here illegally? Does the President think the Arizona rancher murdered on his own land did not have a right to the fairness the he so freely claims for illegal aliens? Did the President offer the same support to this American family that he offers illegal aliens? So, what does the government do about the sanctuary cities ignoring federal immigration laws while Arizona supports them? It sues Arizona, letting the sanctuary cities continue to do whatever they choose. Attorney General Eric Holder claims Arizona is interfering with federal immigration responsibilities, saying Arizona's law "will (negatively) impact the entire country's safety." How is a secure southern border a threat to our safety? The suit further claims Arizona is interfering with "the numerous interests the federal government must balance" and is "supplanting the federal government's immigration regime with its own state-specific immigration policy." Is it possible for Arizona to interfere with and supplant a regime and policy that is essentially non-existent? Maybe the Attorney General meant to say that since the federal government's policy is to ignore our southern border and to ignore the illegal aliens in the country, Arizona's attempt to enforce federal law really is interfering with federal policy. Why does the government have unlimited resources to sue Arizona but does not have the resources needed to secure our southern border and deport illegal aliens? Why would our government ignore its constitutional responsibility? Why would it allow up to 20 million people to live here illegally? Why would it continually promise to secure our borders with no intent to do so? Why would it sue a state trying to secure our southern border while ignoring cities that flaunt federal laws and harbor illegal aliens? Could our elected officials have less interest in the Constitution and more interest in the potential votes of 20 million illegal aliens? Are these 20 million potential voters an incentive for negligence? Could our Washington political aristocracy be more interested in themselves and their political parties than in our country? Does the federal government have an unofficial, unconstitutional policy of ignoring illegal aliens, of not securing our borders, Craig L. Bosley, MD no 4:32 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/06/impenetrable-borders/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/06/impenetrable-borders/#comments Sun, 06 Jun 2010 22:02:35 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=1145 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/06/impenetrable-borders/feed/ 0 Alien (law),Citizenship in the United States,Civil and political rights,Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,Law,United States,United States Constitution,United States nationality law Is border security a priority for the government? The president proposes adding $500 million to the Border Patrol budget, which seems significant until you remember he spent over $3 billion on the "cash for clunkers" program. Further, Is border security a priority for the government? The president proposes adding $500 million to the Border Patrol budget, which seems significant until you remember he spent over $3 billion on the "cash for clunkers" program. Further, his solution for the 12 to 20 million illegal aliens already here is to create a way for them to become U.S. citizens. But won't that just increase future illegal entry into our country rather than eliminate it? Although I think the president's approach is wrong, we can solve the problem. We can prevent most illegal aliens from entering our country and we can promote most of the illegal aliens already living here to self-deport. Moreover, not only can we do so comparatively inexpensively, we already have proof it will work. When President Eisenhower carried out a program to deport illegal aliens, for every illegal alien arrested and deported another ten self-deported. So, we need a different perspective, a different focus. Rather than spending billions of dollars trying to stop people from entering our country illegally or deporting those already here, we need to eliminate the reasons they come. Previously I suggested our porous southern border entices illegal entry, and to a certain extent, it does; but the rewards awaiting illegal aliens in America are the real reason they risk everything to get here. We need to make living here illegally uninviting and unrewarding. And how do we do that? First, rather than granting citizenship to illegal aliens, pass a law stating that no one caught illegally in this country can ever apply for citizenship. Next, review the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, passed in 1866 to guarantee citizenship to freed slaves and to protect their civil rights. Ignoring the intent of the amendment, the government has allowed automatic citizenship to a child born to an illegal alien. This interpretation is an abuse of the Constitution. Do you think the authors of this amendment intended it to promote and reward illegal entry into our country? An obstetrics nurse working in a community hospital near the Mexican border told me that nearly 50 percent of their deliveries were illegal aliens. This must end. Following the Fourteenth Amendment as intended is neither racist nor immoral. The law needs to specify that if you are here illegally and have a baby, the baby is not a United States citizen; he or she is an illegal alien. Last, eliminate all job opportunities for illegal aliens, all financial incentives to come here illegally. Federal law already requires non-citizens to carry proof of their legal status "at all times." This is fair and needed. Along with this, for each offense impose a $100,000 fine on any employer who cannot prove the legal status of a non-citizen employee. The burden of proof should not be on the government to prove the employer knowingly hired an illegal alien. Instead, the burden of proof needs to lie with the employer and non-citizen employee. It is the individual's responsibility to provide the needed documentation and the employer's responsibility to have that proof. I recently applied for a medical license in Nebraska, required to provide proof of my professional activities for the past 38 years. It was onerous, but it was not unfair or discriminatory. Rather it was a reasonable demand to protect the residents of Nebraska from someone trying to practice medicine without proof of training. In the same way, we need to expect non-citizens who are here legally to offer proof of their legal status to get work. This protects taxpayers from spending billions of dollars on illegal aliens. If employers don't want $100,000 fines and non-citizen employees want to work, then they can provide the needed documentation that federal law already requires. The result of these measures? Not only will the number of people crossing the border decrease to a dribble, most of those already in this country illegally will self-deport. Fair or racist? Craig L. Bosley, MD no 4:37 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/05/another-price-of-ignoring-our-borders/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/05/another-price-of-ignoring-our-borders/#comments Sun, 30 May 2010 21:11:59 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=1134 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/05/another-price-of-ignoring-our-borders/feed/ 0 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/05/racism-or-common-sense/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/05/racism-or-common-sense/#comments Mon, 10 May 2010 03:51:52 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=1106 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/05/racism-or-common-sense/feed/ 3 Federal government of the United States,Illegal immigration,Law,Martin Luther King,Mexico,Stanford University,United States,United States nationality law Reading about Arizona's new law dealing with illegal aliens, I got the impression that Arizona had done something radical by requiring non-citizens to carry documents proving their legal status in our country. Not so. Reading about Arizona's new law dealing with illegal aliens, I got the impression that Arizona had done something radical by requiring non-citizens to carry documents proving their legal status in our country. Not so. The new Arizona law only enforces existing federal law, the Alien Registration Act passed by Congress in 1940. Arizona is only enforcing federal law the federal government refuses to enforce. This is an act of necessity, of common sense and is Arizona's latest attempt to deal with 450,000 criminals in the state. Remember, illegal aliens are criminals, not undocumented immigrants. Three years ago, Arizona passed an employer sanctions law that punishes businesses that knowingly hire illegal aliens. The result? About 100,000 illegal aliens self-deported from Arizona, some to Mexico and some to other states. Why did they voluntarily leave? One illegal alien complained that he no longer wanted to live in the United States because of the "oppressive environment." Others returned to Mexico because "they didn't want to live in fear, in terror." Another added, "The new law gives us no other option than . . . going back to Mexico where we feel more comfortable." Isn't that what we want? Don't we want criminals to feel oppressed and uncomfortable? Don't we want criminals to live in fear and terror? Don't we want illegal aliens to self-deport, which is the ideal cost-effective solution. And when more states pass similar laws, self-deportation will increase the flow of illegal aliens to Mexico rather than other states. Further, this is not an act of racism as claimed. Arizona is on the Mexican border, leading to the logical assumption that most of its illegal aliens are from Mexico. Arizona is only profiling criminals for arrest and deportation. Remember, profiling is not synonymous with racism. Israeli profilers are the proof that behavioral profiling both works, and is not racist. Clarence B. Jones, Scholar in Residence at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Institute at Stanford University suggests that if people want to protest, they should protest against the inaction of our government and Mexico's government. These governments failed, not Arizona. Mexico is more than willing to allow us to support its citizens. And, our politicians are more than willing to call them undocumented immigrants rather than illegal aliens, pandering for votes rather than doing their job. The President suggested Arizona's new law is irresponsible and "undermines (the) basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans." Really? How can that be true when all Arizona is doing is enforcing existing federal law? Apparently, the federal government now defines basic fairness as spending $3 billion on "cash for clunkers" while expecting Arizona to spend $1.3 billion every year for the medical care, education and incarceration of illegal aliens. This is a "basic notion of fairness?" Our federal government willingly does what the Constitution does not allow while refusing to do what the Constitution demands. And contrary to what we hear from Washington, we do not need new laws to deal with illegal aliens; we just need the federal government to enforce existing law. All Arizona did was say, "Enough is enough," its governor describing it well when she said her state is trying to "solve a crisis we did not create and the federal government has refused to fix." If Al Sharpton wants to rid Arizona of his claimed racism, then deport the illegal aliens and free American citizens of Hispanic descent from the unfair stares questioning their citizenship. They deserve to be just another citizen. Although unfair, in a state spending billions of dollars supporting illegal aliens who are mostly from Mexico, it is understandable that non-Mexican citizens will look at all Mexicans as potential illegal aliens. The real discrimination is the federal government expecting American citizens to pay for the cost of its negligence. Craig L. Bosley, MD no 4:47 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/02/its-our-choice/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/02/its-our-choice/#comments Sun, 28 Feb 2010 19:15:50 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=998 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/02/its-our-choice/feed/ 0 Federal government of the United States,History,Nazi Germany,Prussia,Twentieth Century,United States,United States Department of the Interior,World War I "The real problem is in the hearts and minds of men. It is easier to denature plutonium than to denature the evil spirit of man." Albert Einstein Larry Echohawk, the assistant secretary for Indian Affairs at the U.S. Department of Interior, "The real problem is in the hearts and minds of men. It is easier to denature plutonium than to denature the evil spirit of man." Albert Einstein Larry Echohawk, the assistant secretary for Indian Affairs at the U.S. Department of Interior, recently commented on the mistreatment of the "first Americans" by the United States government. Mr. Echohawk described "very dark chapters" of United States history, including "government atrocities against the Indian people." Because of the strong emotions that accompany such statements, exploring these remarks could lead us through a bed of hot coals. But, it's worth the risk because this topic deserves more discussion. What do we do about past failures? Is the United States unique with its past "dark chapters" or is it a snapshot of world history? Can we move forward with what we are today or must we remain what we were yesterday? Do any of us have ancestries without blemish? My ancestors are mainly English and Prussian with some Scottish thrown into the mix. Do I have ancestors who are less than the pride of the ancestral tree? More important - "How far back in that tree do I share responsibility for any failures?" My English ancestors came to America in the 1600s, so more than likely I had ancestors in the Crusades. The book "Crimes of Christianity" said of the Crusades, ". . . every atrocity the imagination can conceive disgraced the warriors of the Cross." Do I share responsiblity for what happened over 800 years ago? Walter Bosley, the first Bosley in our family tree in America, settled in Maryland in the early 1600s. I found his will, which included a handwritten list of his belongings; but I was ill prepared for what was on that list. One male slave. Although I know about slavery and its evils, this was somehow different. A will with my surname on it listed a human being as property along with tables and chairs - a human being valued like furniture. I felt sick reading that a man could be considered so trivial. Do I share responsibility for what happened over 300 years ago? Before World War I, Prussia was the most powerful German state. It led the unification of Germany, which set the stage for what would become Nazi Germany. Although some of my Prussian ancestors came to America before this occurred, others stayed behind and may have become a part of the evils of those wars. Do I share responsiblity for what happened over 50 years ago? How many people can find similar stories in their ancestory? Must we try to stay separate peoples with separate "dark chapters" in our histories or can we become one people, become one people out of many peoples? Can we become just Americans? The Americas were the last lands of the world inhabited by people. Many "first Americans" are descendants of the northern Asia Mongols who migrated across a land bridge in the Bering Strait. Research continues on the origins of the peoples of the Americas, but it appears there were several more migrations or immigrations from diverse groups rather than a single migration. Peoples from at least three major immigrations settled the Americas. Besides the Mongols of northern Asia, other people came from Africa by way of Australia and from southern Asia. It seems America has always been the world's melting pot. America has always been a country whose people have become one out of many. Our national motto, adopted in 1782, is E pluribus unum, Latin for "out of many, one." Does it accurately describe the United States of today and the Americas of antiquity? So, what do we do? We are the United States of America and we are one people, Americans. We can learn from the past or live in the past. We can meld into one people or maintain divides. We can gain strength from diversity or weakness from division. We have a choice. It's worth some thought. Print Page (http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/20100301-Its-our-choice.pdf) Craig L. Bosley, MD no 4:32 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/10/more-jobs-larger-tax-base-fewer-entitlements/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/10/more-jobs-larger-tax-base-fewer-entitlements/#comments Mon, 05 Oct 2009 08:08:37 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=113 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/10/more-jobs-larger-tax-base-fewer-entitlements/feed/ 1 Alien,Anti-Immigration,Federation for American Immigration Reform,Heritage Foundation,Illegal immigration to the United States,immigration,Organizations,United States,Vanderbilt University The government continues wasting our money, leading us further into socialism and worse.  Our leaders refuse to understand that the free market economy works, but only if the government stops trying to help.  Nonetheless, The government continues wasting our money, leading us further into socialism and worse.  Our leaders refuse to understand that the free market economy works, but only if the government stops trying to help.  Nonetheless, government continues handing out "free" money, people little noticing that they are becoming dependent on those monies and losing the incentive to be self-sufficient. To promote the president's socialist admonition to "share the wealth," the government spends money on cash for clunkers, new home purchases, mortgage, bank and auto bailouts.  Instead of redistributing the wealth, why not spend it competently on new jobs, a larger tax base and cuts in entitlement programs? What would it take to do this?  First, honoring our laws rather than ignoring them.  Second, working to cut the size of government spending rather than spending us into oblivion.  Last, considering what is best for the people rather than what is best for the government. I saw this possibility when reading a report by Vanderbilt University professor Carol Swain, who evaluated job losses at Swift & Co. meatpacking plants.  In 2006, 1,300 illegal aliens were arrested at six Swift plants--10 percent of the company's workforce.  According to illegal alien proponents, they were just doing jobs that Americans refuse to do, proving their value to our economy. So, what happened?  Did losing 10 percent of their employees force the company out of business because no Americans were willing to do these jobs?  Isn't that what we are routinely told?  Guess what?  The company was not crippled; rather, it was back to normal operations within a few months with a full workforce. The replacement workers?  Americans were more than willing to do the jobs but they demanded and received fair wages.  And the benefits to society?  Those 1,300 illegal aliens were deported, 1,300 American workers found jobs, the costs of entitlements decreased, and because the American workers were paid more than the illegal aliens, tax revenues rose. Professor Swain saw this same pattern repeat at other companies. But, what would it cost to do this on a large scale nationwide?  Maybe it would cost more to arrest and deport illegal aliens than to just leave them alone, despite taking American jobs.  Maybe it would be cheaper to just give them all citizenship, theoretically ending the illegal alien problem. That was tried in 1986 with the Immigration Reform and Control Act that allowed a path to citizenship for 2.7 million illegal aliens.  That amnesty obviously failed to solve the problem because there are now an estimated 12 to 15 million illegal aliens in the United States. Moreover, the Heritage Foundation estimates it will cost U.S. taxpayers $2.6 trillion to legalize the current number of illegal aliens. Well, what if we did arrest and deport illegal aliens?  The Center for American Progress estimates deporting all illegal aliens would cost about $200 billion spread out over five years.  But this estimate might be high because it predicts a maximum of only 20 percent of the illegal aliens would self-deport, a number much lower than the over 50 percent seen when the Eisenhower administration mass deported illegal aliens in the 1950s. The Federation for American Immigration Reform (F.A.I.R.) estimates illegal aliens in our country cost the taxpayers $50 billion a year.  The Heritage Foundation published another study, "The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Households to the U.S. Taxpayer," which included many of the illegal alien families.  It estimated the yearly cost  to the taxpayers at $22,000 per household, similar to F.A.I.R.'s estimates. These organizations do have a political slant, so take the numbers with a grain of salt.  That said, these numbers suggest a net taxpayer savings of $10 billion a year for five years, followed by an ongoing savings of $50 billion a year. The bottom line?  No matter how you massage these numbers, Craig L. Bosley, MD no 4:14 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/07/who-are-real-americans/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/07/who-are-real-americans/#comments Mon, 20 Jul 2009 16:03:01 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=106 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/07/who-are-real-americans/feed/ 0 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/04/selective-law-enforcement/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/04/selective-law-enforcement/#comments Mon, 06 Apr 2009 20:12:13 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=54 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/04/selective-law-enforcement/feed/ 0 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2008/05/what-to-do-about-illegal-aliens/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2008/05/what-to-do-about-illegal-aliens/#comments Mon, 19 May 2008 06:28:57 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=61 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2008/05/what-to-do-about-illegal-aliens/feed/ 0 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2008/02/why-my-friend-came-to-america/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2008/02/why-my-friend-came-to-america/#comments Mon, 18 Feb 2008 08:22:50 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=47 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2008/02/why-my-friend-came-to-america/feed/ 0 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2007/12/out-of-many-one/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2007/12/out-of-many-one/#comments Mon, 10 Dec 2007 11:40:27 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=37 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2007/12/out-of-many-one/feed/ 0 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2007/10/the-realities-of-illegal-aliens-in-the-united-states/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2007/10/the-realities-of-illegal-aliens-in-the-united-states/#comments Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:05:33 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=31 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2007/10/the-realities-of-illegal-aliens-in-the-united-states/feed/ 0