Immigration....huh?

Here's an interesting take on the border fence (and by nature, illegal immigration) issue.

And here's my response.

I disagree with the idea that making a border fence along the Southern border of the United States will somehow "magically" solve the illegal immigration issue. It won't. Here's why, (from a quote from an unnamed politician)

You show me a 50-foot wall and I'll show you a 51-foot ladder at the border.

Building a large fence at the border is not the answer; what the United States needs is comprehensive immigration reform. The way it stands now, people from Mexico who wanted to be able to immigrate into the United States would be able to do so....if they'd filed their paperwork in January of 2001. That's if you wanted to bring your unmarried son or daughter over; as soon as they were born, you'd have to file the paperwork, and they still would just be getting a number. Anyone want to hazard a guess as to why they don't?

Unfortunantly (and, by the way, there is no way of knowing whether or not those 20 to 40 "Mexicans" you see in front of the Home Depot are illegal immigrants, or just people who have a very low education level-or who might have been born here but have family in South America) this has become an "Us vs. Them" debate. And sites like this don't help much. One of the claims by this site is that "Such fences in Israel have curbed terrorist attacks by 85%!". Of course, Isreal does have a much smaller landmass (U.S.: 3,794,066 sq mi: Israel: 8,522 sq mi) and the most illegals aren't planning terrorist attacks-the 9/11 hijackers were here on valid US visas. They were not illegal immigrants. Besides, if we're going to fence in the entire country, why not the border between Canada? It's a larger border, and has more people crossing that one than between the US and Mexico.

Illegal immigrants, when they do come to the US, tend to be in better health than natives. (scroll down to the heath portion). Yes, teen births by hispanic women are higher than any other demographic; but that's not just in Texas, that's in the United States overall. There is also evidence to show that illegal immigrents have lower crime statistics than the United States as a whole. And illegal immigrants pay taxes; those who have fake Social Security numbers pay income taxes to the IRS, just like anyone else. It's not like they're not paying anything to use the benefits-well, they don't get the benefits from the taxes they're paying (and since Texas doesn't have a progressive income tax-or any income tax-not paying income taxes in Texas is not their fault). Not to mention that an "illegal immigrant" isn't just someone coming to the United States from Mexico; it can also be defined as someone who overstayed thier valid visa (such as an exchange student). How's a fence with Mexico going to stop them?

In closing, the answer isn't building a fence; the answer is fixing a system that is broken. If we had a system that worked, and there was a danger of leaving the borders without a fence, then I'd understand the rationale behind it. But we're a far cry from that.

Let someone else pay for it....

All states have programs they need to fund and services they need to provide. From Medicaid to Schools, from Hospitals to Roads, all need money. Where does this money come from? It comes from taxes and other sources of revenue in the state. All states in the United States use a combination of three sources to get a majority of their revenue; sales taxes, property taxes, and income tax. Some states, like California, use all three. Others, like Texas, just use two; sales tax and property tax.

So what's the difference? Why does it matter that Texas has one of the most regressive tax systems in the country? It matters due to the fact that because the tax system is regressive, poorer people actually shoulder more of the burden of the cost of services. Texas is actually one of the "terrible ten" -one of the states with the most regressive tax rates in the country. And it suffers from not having an additional taxation system besides sales taxes and property taxes; most of Texas's schools and hospitals are woefully underfunded. Texas is leading the nation in the amount of children without heath insurance; has more subprime morgage loans that anyone else in the country; and is second in the nation for the gap between the rich and the poor. It has some of the lowest scores in people below the poverty level, who have food insecurity, and malnourishe ment, and has some of the lowest in heath care professionals per capita. Texas should be a better state than this-and it can. With a progressive income tax, it could adequately fund it's programs; it could get it's students out of the educational cellar by giving them the tools they need to succeed.

But despite the deplorable state the state's programs are in, the legislature passed an amendment to the constitution that severly limited the capacity in which texas could pass a state income tax, and also use it; to use it, they'd have to reduce property taxes (which California did, and now is causing their budget all kinds of problems).

Texans deserve a government that works for them; that can actually fund their schools, hospitals, and take care of their disabled. Texas is supposed to be the best state in the United States; its time that it started taking the measures to live up to that name. That is why Texas needs a progressive income tax in addition to the taxes already in place. To ensure that every resident of Texas, both young and old, get the education and care they deserve.