A blogger who calls herself 'kelly' has written an article titled: Refresher: Rubio's Deceptions. The article tries to pin Rubio for deception the public, and argues that his Gang of 8 immigration reform bill would harm the country. The article contains multiple errors, fallacies, and is an extremely shoddy piece of journalism.
FALSE CLAIM #1: Immigration Reform Would Cost Trillions
Kelly writes, "Rubio’s scheme allowed illegal aliens to be legalized immediately. All at a huge cost to the US taxpayer." The source cited is the Heritage Foundation
The problem is that Heritage's report is totally wrong. Heritage uses something called "static scoring," and the Heritage Foundation knows better. Conservatives, especially at the Heritage Foundation, have been urging the adoption of something called "dynamic scoring." The issue arose when government revenue projections for tax cuts showed massive losses, when in reality these losses are likely smaller. The reason is that static-scoring does not take into account secondary and tertiary effects, like economic growth, that would come to fruition from effective tax reform. Static scoring assumes that everything--except taxes--would continue being the same, or stay static. Of course, this is a foolish assumption: in the case of taxes, most things in the economy will rearrange because incentives are changing.
The same goes for immigration. Heritage, assuming no positive impacts from immigration, is ridiculous! The Heritage model, assuming ceteris paribus, literally makes no sense--by definition, immigration changes everything. Immigration, both legal and illegal, means more consumers, entrepreneurs, and laborers. So the Heritage report must be ignored, and data that uses dynamic estimate should be preferred.
The Heritage report finds a net-negative in the trillions, which is hugely unrealistic. A CBO report, on the other hand, only found that deficits would decrease if we implemented Rubio's reform. The CBO found that Rubio's S. 744 would "lead to a net savings of about $135 billion over the 2014-2023." A study by the conservative American Action Forum found that comprehensive immigration reform would reduce the deficit by $2.4 trillion over the long-term, using dynamic estimates.
Conservative columnist Jason L. Riley(in his book, Let Them In), who is not sympathetic to the liberal cause, cites researchers chiding Heritage's simplistic and idiotic model. Rector, the author of the Heratige report, simply compares how much immigrants pay in taxes to the amount of money they receive through social services. But it does not follow that paying less in taxes at any one point means you are a net-fiscal drain. If immigrants create new jobs through their economic impact, creating taxable wealth elsewhere, they are a net-positive using accurate dynamic analysis. The Heritage report, relying on static analysis, is just crazy!
If immigration increases the size of the economy, immigration reform would increase economic growth, leading to higher taxable incomes and more revenue. There is an abundance of evidence demonstrating the positive effects of immigration, both legal and illegal (and even if illegal immigration was bad, making them all legal would be a net-positive, because the typical conservative cop out is "oh, I support legal immigration only." But legalizing them would make them legal! As a conservative myself, the repulsion of anything pro-immigrant in right-of-center circles alarms me.) According to an American Action Forum study, if we were to deport every illegal immigrant in the country, GDP would shrink by an alarming $1.6 trillion. The impact immigrants have on the economy is huge.
This claim is debunked. Rubio's immigration plan would not increase the deficit--it would likely reduce it!
FALLACY #1: Grover Norquist supports Rubio's plan, and he supports Jihad!!
The links between Norquist and Islamic extremism is tentative at best, and relies on a lot of unsubstantiated claims and conspiracy theories. Whether or not these claims are true is irrelevant: this ad hominem, and also genetic fallacy, is just that: a fallacy. The conclusion derived from this is illogical.
Ad Hominem: Personal attack. Accusing Norquist of being a Jihadist is a personal attack.
Genetic Fallacy: Simply because Norquist may (but probably isn't) be related to Islamic extremism does not, by itself, disprove his claims. Simply because Kelly doesn't like Norquist does not make him automatically wrong.
She should try using real arguments rather than slander.
**Kelly goes on listing all the special interest groups supporting the bill... which is pretty much irrelevant. It begs the question: does this invalidate the bills plausible effectiveness? Of course not. She ignores other groups, like the CIS, FAIRUS, and NumbersUSA that combated these bills to the death. And I will provide a genetic fallacy of my own, but unlike hers it is substantiated: Most anti-immigration groups have ties to white supremecist groups.)
FALLACY #2: Rubio is a Lobbyist
Kelly writes, "from 1997 to 2005 Rubio himself, was a lobbyist."
Not true. Politifact wrote an article on this claim, and rated it barely true. As their article argues, "[Rubio's] work was not what we traditionally think of as lobbying -- the Gucci-wearing attorney who seeks to influence the state Legislature or Congress. He worked at the local level, primarily on zoning matters."
Rubio was merely a lawyer representing his clients, and the line of work required him to sign up as a lobbyist, Politifact notes. This claim is untrue, and it is labeled a fallacy because of its fallacious nature: it is an ad hominem (as they equate being a lobyist with something bad.)
FALLACY #3: Rubio is McCain with an "accent."
This statement, that "He is John McCain with an ‘accent’" infuriates me. What a racist, xenophobic, uneducated thing to say. Although the sentence does not say it directly, but it directly attacks Rubio's heritage as something to be ashamed of. I am half Puerto Rican, my mother's first language was Spanish, and my Grandparents have accents. They are twice as intelligent and caring as this Kelly character seems to be up to now. His heritage is nothing to be ashamed of--our country was built upon multiculturalism, and attitudes like hers belong back in the dark ages.
The way she finishes the sentence is even worse, "and without a military record of crashing planes." Wow. Just wow. Another ad hominem.
You know what, I am going to be guilty of the same crime, but this lady deserves it.
Insulting McCain's war record is cowardly and totally wrong. This lady is overflowing with lunacy.
FALSE CLAIM #2: Amnesty is against the rule of law
Kelly seems to fulminate against amnesty on the grounds that it legalizes a crime. Immigration, she argues, is a crime.
But what she forgets is that we, as a society, should not enforce unjust laws. Jury nullification is an integral part of our legal system. Jury nullification occurs when a jury member votes not-guilty on the grounds that he or she sees the law as unjust, not on the grounds of innocence or guilt. During prohibition, 60% of cases brought before court for manufacturing or consuming alcohol was defeated by jury nullification. If we are to take Kelly's position seriously, it would be wrong to have given amnesty to those who drank alcohol during prohibition, and all of those who partook in jury nullification are monsters. This is obviously untrue. We have no obligation to enforce unjust laws; the mere act of immigration is not immoral and is a victim-less crime.
Amnesty, it should be noted, is more like a plea bargain. according to Rubio's bill, immigrants wishing to become naturalized would have to pay a $1000 fine, rather than being deported under the status quo. They are still punished for commingling a crime by breaking our immigration laws, but by presumably admitting their guilt by signing up for permanent residence, we are simply giving them a plea bargain. Instead of spending billions for deportation, and incurring the economic costs, we are integrating them into our society and instead gaining $1000 of their income. Currently, 97% of criminal court cases end in a plea bargain. There is nothing new here. A plea bargian is not against the principle of Justice in the current system.
As (1) we have no obligation to enforce unjust laws, and (2) amnesty is better described as a plea bargain rather than amnesty, Rubio's bill does not conflict with the conservative principle of upholding the rule of law.
FALSE CLAIM #3: Immigrants will vote democrat
Kelly writes, "The massive implications of millions of foriegn invaders being pumped into the electorate was and is detrimental. Rubio was complicit in actively assisting the Democrats in their biggest voter registration drive in history; 30 million illegal aliens is enough to create some 50 new congressional districts – primarily Democrat."
a) There aren't 30 million illegals. The number is 11-12 million, which is a lot, but no evidence backs up claims exceeding 12 million number.
b) The argument that immigrants will change our institutions, and make them leftist, is untrue. The CATO Institute in a study found that immigration increases economic freedom--in other words, it promotes more open, capitalistic, markets. A peer-reviewed study found no relationship between immigration and weaker institutions that promote "strong private property rights, a rule of law, and an environment of economic freedom." Immigration does not lead to weakened institutions that conservatives support.
c) The assumption that immigrants are a permanent liberal voting block is simply untrue. As Jason Riley notes in his book, Let Them In, George Bush doubled the percentage of Hispanics voting for Republicans in his 2004 election. It wasn't until 2006 that we struck down McCain's immigration reform and led to the loss of the Hispanic vote for 10 years. It was immigration opponents, like Kelly, that drove Hispanics away. Indeed, Hispanics are conservatives, and if it wasn't for people like Kelly and Donald Trump, the GOP would be the majority party. In fact, conservative ideas have been found to be more appealing to Hispanics than the population as a whole. To quote Ronald Reagan, "Latinos are Republican, they just don't know it yet." Yes, indeed they are. They vote democrat because people like Obama support amnesty whereas Mr. Romney, Cruz, the CIS, and the tea party oppose it. Rubio and Jeb Bush could win the Hispanic vote--but you seem determined to rob it from them.
FALSE CLAIM #4: Immigrants cost Social Security!
Uh... No. I already have proven that Rubio's plan would save money. And it would save social security, too.
The average age of immigrants who have arrived after 2000 is 31 years old. As they tend to be working, and pay into the system (without reaping benefits, or not reaping benefits for another 30 years) they increase the number of workers per retiree. By definition, this will increase the solvency of social security. According to the CATO Institute, "an increase in net immigration by 300,000 per year extends the solvency of the system by about one additional year."
So no, immigrants have a positive impact on social security and other services.
CLOSING
This article is full of fallacies, false claims, and relies upon weak evidence. This is an extremely disingenuous rebuttal to the Rubio plan, and cites extremely sketchy sources. Rubio's immigration policies are exactly what this country needs. Kelly thinks we can grow the GOP by dividing and subtracting out Latino support; I want to expand the party by being inclusive, instead adding and multiplying our ties with the Hispanic community. And last time I checked, basic math says my way is how we win elections, not hers.
FALSE CLAIM #1: Immigration Reform Would Cost Trillions
Kelly writes, "Rubio’s scheme allowed illegal aliens to be legalized immediately. All at a huge cost to the US taxpayer." The source cited is the Heritage Foundation
The problem is that Heritage's report is totally wrong. Heritage uses something called "static scoring," and the Heritage Foundation knows better. Conservatives, especially at the Heritage Foundation, have been urging the adoption of something called "dynamic scoring." The issue arose when government revenue projections for tax cuts showed massive losses, when in reality these losses are likely smaller. The reason is that static-scoring does not take into account secondary and tertiary effects, like economic growth, that would come to fruition from effective tax reform. Static scoring assumes that everything--except taxes--would continue being the same, or stay static. Of course, this is a foolish assumption: in the case of taxes, most things in the economy will rearrange because incentives are changing.
The same goes for immigration. Heritage, assuming no positive impacts from immigration, is ridiculous! The Heritage model, assuming ceteris paribus, literally makes no sense--by definition, immigration changes everything. Immigration, both legal and illegal, means more consumers, entrepreneurs, and laborers. So the Heritage report must be ignored, and data that uses dynamic estimate should be preferred.
The Heritage report finds a net-negative in the trillions, which is hugely unrealistic. A CBO report, on the other hand, only found that deficits would decrease if we implemented Rubio's reform. The CBO found that Rubio's S. 744 would "lead to a net savings of about $135 billion over the 2014-2023." A study by the conservative American Action Forum found that comprehensive immigration reform would reduce the deficit by $2.4 trillion over the long-term, using dynamic estimates.
Conservative columnist Jason L. Riley(in his book, Let Them In), who is not sympathetic to the liberal cause, cites researchers chiding Heritage's simplistic and idiotic model. Rector, the author of the Heratige report, simply compares how much immigrants pay in taxes to the amount of money they receive through social services. But it does not follow that paying less in taxes at any one point means you are a net-fiscal drain. If immigrants create new jobs through their economic impact, creating taxable wealth elsewhere, they are a net-positive using accurate dynamic analysis. The Heritage report, relying on static analysis, is just crazy!
If immigration increases the size of the economy, immigration reform would increase economic growth, leading to higher taxable incomes and more revenue. There is an abundance of evidence demonstrating the positive effects of immigration, both legal and illegal (and even if illegal immigration was bad, making them all legal would be a net-positive, because the typical conservative cop out is "oh, I support legal immigration only." But legalizing them would make them legal! As a conservative myself, the repulsion of anything pro-immigrant in right-of-center circles alarms me.) According to an American Action Forum study, if we were to deport every illegal immigrant in the country, GDP would shrink by an alarming $1.6 trillion. The impact immigrants have on the economy is huge.
This claim is debunked. Rubio's immigration plan would not increase the deficit--it would likely reduce it!
FALLACY #1: Grover Norquist supports Rubio's plan, and he supports Jihad!!
The links between Norquist and Islamic extremism is tentative at best, and relies on a lot of unsubstantiated claims and conspiracy theories. Whether or not these claims are true is irrelevant: this ad hominem, and also genetic fallacy, is just that: a fallacy. The conclusion derived from this is illogical.
Ad Hominem: Personal attack. Accusing Norquist of being a Jihadist is a personal attack.
Genetic Fallacy: Simply because Norquist may (but probably isn't) be related to Islamic extremism does not, by itself, disprove his claims. Simply because Kelly doesn't like Norquist does not make him automatically wrong.
She should try using real arguments rather than slander.
**Kelly goes on listing all the special interest groups supporting the bill... which is pretty much irrelevant. It begs the question: does this invalidate the bills plausible effectiveness? Of course not. She ignores other groups, like the CIS, FAIRUS, and NumbersUSA that combated these bills to the death. And I will provide a genetic fallacy of my own, but unlike hers it is substantiated: Most anti-immigration groups have ties to white supremecist groups.)
FALLACY #2: Rubio is a Lobbyist
Kelly writes, "from 1997 to 2005 Rubio himself, was a lobbyist."
Not true. Politifact wrote an article on this claim, and rated it barely true. As their article argues, "[Rubio's] work was not what we traditionally think of as lobbying -- the Gucci-wearing attorney who seeks to influence the state Legislature or Congress. He worked at the local level, primarily on zoning matters."
Rubio was merely a lawyer representing his clients, and the line of work required him to sign up as a lobbyist, Politifact notes. This claim is untrue, and it is labeled a fallacy because of its fallacious nature: it is an ad hominem (as they equate being a lobyist with something bad.)
FALLACY #3: Rubio is McCain with an "accent."
This statement, that "He is John McCain with an ‘accent’" infuriates me. What a racist, xenophobic, uneducated thing to say. Although the sentence does not say it directly, but it directly attacks Rubio's heritage as something to be ashamed of. I am half Puerto Rican, my mother's first language was Spanish, and my Grandparents have accents. They are twice as intelligent and caring as this Kelly character seems to be up to now. His heritage is nothing to be ashamed of--our country was built upon multiculturalism, and attitudes like hers belong back in the dark ages.
The way she finishes the sentence is even worse, "and without a military record of crashing planes." Wow. Just wow. Another ad hominem.
You know what, I am going to be guilty of the same crime, but this lady deserves it.
Insulting McCain's war record is cowardly and totally wrong. This lady is overflowing with lunacy.
FALSE CLAIM #2: Amnesty is against the rule of law
Kelly seems to fulminate against amnesty on the grounds that it legalizes a crime. Immigration, she argues, is a crime.
But what she forgets is that we, as a society, should not enforce unjust laws. Jury nullification is an integral part of our legal system. Jury nullification occurs when a jury member votes not-guilty on the grounds that he or she sees the law as unjust, not on the grounds of innocence or guilt. During prohibition, 60% of cases brought before court for manufacturing or consuming alcohol was defeated by jury nullification. If we are to take Kelly's position seriously, it would be wrong to have given amnesty to those who drank alcohol during prohibition, and all of those who partook in jury nullification are monsters. This is obviously untrue. We have no obligation to enforce unjust laws; the mere act of immigration is not immoral and is a victim-less crime.
Amnesty, it should be noted, is more like a plea bargain. according to Rubio's bill, immigrants wishing to become naturalized would have to pay a $1000 fine, rather than being deported under the status quo. They are still punished for commingling a crime by breaking our immigration laws, but by presumably admitting their guilt by signing up for permanent residence, we are simply giving them a plea bargain. Instead of spending billions for deportation, and incurring the economic costs, we are integrating them into our society and instead gaining $1000 of their income. Currently, 97% of criminal court cases end in a plea bargain. There is nothing new here. A plea bargian is not against the principle of Justice in the current system.
As (1) we have no obligation to enforce unjust laws, and (2) amnesty is better described as a plea bargain rather than amnesty, Rubio's bill does not conflict with the conservative principle of upholding the rule of law.
FALSE CLAIM #3: Immigrants will vote democrat
Kelly writes, "The massive implications of millions of foriegn invaders being pumped into the electorate was and is detrimental. Rubio was complicit in actively assisting the Democrats in their biggest voter registration drive in history; 30 million illegal aliens is enough to create some 50 new congressional districts – primarily Democrat."
a) There aren't 30 million illegals. The number is 11-12 million, which is a lot, but no evidence backs up claims exceeding 12 million number.
b) The argument that immigrants will change our institutions, and make them leftist, is untrue. The CATO Institute in a study found that immigration increases economic freedom--in other words, it promotes more open, capitalistic, markets. A peer-reviewed study found no relationship between immigration and weaker institutions that promote "strong private property rights, a rule of law, and an environment of economic freedom." Immigration does not lead to weakened institutions that conservatives support.
c) The assumption that immigrants are a permanent liberal voting block is simply untrue. As Jason Riley notes in his book, Let Them In, George Bush doubled the percentage of Hispanics voting for Republicans in his 2004 election. It wasn't until 2006 that we struck down McCain's immigration reform and led to the loss of the Hispanic vote for 10 years. It was immigration opponents, like Kelly, that drove Hispanics away. Indeed, Hispanics are conservatives, and if it wasn't for people like Kelly and Donald Trump, the GOP would be the majority party. In fact, conservative ideas have been found to be more appealing to Hispanics than the population as a whole. To quote Ronald Reagan, "Latinos are Republican, they just don't know it yet." Yes, indeed they are. They vote democrat because people like Obama support amnesty whereas Mr. Romney, Cruz, the CIS, and the tea party oppose it. Rubio and Jeb Bush could win the Hispanic vote--but you seem determined to rob it from them.
FALSE CLAIM #4: Immigrants cost Social Security!
Uh... No. I already have proven that Rubio's plan would save money. And it would save social security, too.
The average age of immigrants who have arrived after 2000 is 31 years old. As they tend to be working, and pay into the system (without reaping benefits, or not reaping benefits for another 30 years) they increase the number of workers per retiree. By definition, this will increase the solvency of social security. According to the CATO Institute, "an increase in net immigration by 300,000 per year extends the solvency of the system by about one additional year."
So no, immigrants have a positive impact on social security and other services.
CLOSING
This article is full of fallacies, false claims, and relies upon weak evidence. This is an extremely disingenuous rebuttal to the Rubio plan, and cites extremely sketchy sources. Rubio's immigration policies are exactly what this country needs. Kelly thinks we can grow the GOP by dividing and subtracting out Latino support; I want to expand the party by being inclusive, instead adding and multiplying our ties with the Hispanic community. And last time I checked, basic math says my way is how we win elections, not hers.
No comments:
Post a Comment