Those of us at JohnATuttle.com have a unified position with regards to people who are in the United States illegally;

The notion that a person who enters the U.S. illegally has any of the rights afforded by the U.S. Constitution is simply ridiculous. Therefore, those illegal visitors who gather in public to protest are in direct violation of the law. Affording them police protection is also a violation of the law because the police are swore to "Protect and Serve" U.S. Citizens, not the people who are here illegally.

We are not sympathetic about any inconvenience that may befall a person who is in our country illegally any more than we are sympathetic about the person who gets stopped by a State Trooper for speeding. When a person knowingly violates the law, whatever happens to them is their own fault. The idea that those who break the law should be given special treatment because they are productive and hard-working most of the time is no different than saying we should forgive a bank robber who only robbed one bank. No matter how you look at it, people who break the law must be punished for the good of everyone. To do otherwise will only lead to chaos.

The comparison being made by the leaders, who organized the recent protest rallies across this great country, is fundamentally flawed but worthy of exploring in depth. The point they make is that the Pilgrims who came to America didn't have visas, and that they ultimately took this land from the native indians by force. While this is very true, it begs the question; Do you plan to take over America by force? Do they really think that the threat of civil unrest improves their public image? Do they think that the military would stand by idly while they destroyed or attempted to damage anything or anybody? Our feeling is that the police and the military are patiently waiting for the illegal visitors to give them a reason or an excuse to flex their muscles.

Economically speaking, most Americans have been terribly misinformed about the impact that 12-14 million low-income wage earners will have on the American economy. First off, they will not add anything to the tax base. If they do have taxes taken out of their pay during the course of the year, they will get it all back when they file their taxes because the current tax code allows a person to make about $25,000 a year and end up not paying any federal tax. Most of the illegal visitors earn less than $20,000 a year. So, they will be entitled to all sorts of existing benefit programs. It's estimated that the burden to the middle class will increase by as much as 20% in the first year, and it will increase as these 'new citizens' continue to have a disproportionate number of children. As the percentage of low-income workers continues to rise, the comparative percentage of middle-class taxpayers will continue to decrease. Again, this will increase the tax burden on that class. Over a five-year period of time, it is estimated that the taxes on the middle class will have to increase by an additional 10-15% to pay for the growing low-income class. This 'squeezing' more money out of a decreasing percentage of people has the net effect of a 40% tax increase. The bottomline is that adding 12-14 million low-income wage earners to the US economy all at once may collapse the system within less than five years.

Concerning the cost of removing these illegal visitors from our country, it has been stated by politicians and organizers that 'we simply can't afford it'. Again, most Americans are misinformed. Recent studies indicate that it would cost $148.00 per illegal visitor to send them back to their own country. Figuring that every legal citizen paid an equal amount, it would cost each of us a mere $10-$15 to send 14 million people back to their homeland. Can we afford NOT to send them back?

Concerning the proposal that the government fine each illegal visitor $2000-$3000 for having violated the law if they come forward, that would be great if they also were not entitled to any benefit programs for 5-7 years. However, the system doesn't work that way and no proposal has been made to limit their access to entitlement programs. Doing some simple math, the 42 billion dollars that would be gained if all 14 million paid a fine of $3000 would be gone in one year if only 6 million new babies were born at the public's expense. That's because it costs about $6500 to have a baby in the US, and people in the low-income bracket would qualify for Medi-Care. Again, the middle-class picks up the tab after just one year.

Looking at the situation from a different viewpoint, consider the impact on the price of various goods and services if the existing work force is decreased by 12-14 million people. First, the price of many goods and services will increase sharply. It's estimated that things like fruits and vegetables might increase by 100%. However, American business people aren't that stupid, and it's already known that many of these perishable goods are readily available from other sources both inside and outside of the US. In fact, many of them come from -you guessed it- Mexico, South America, and the Islands - the places where these illegal visitors came from. As for the services that will increase in price, the great news is that even more Americans will be able to find a job and employers will be forced to start paying the legal minimum wages AND taxes!

Looking at the situation from yet another viewpoint, consider that in 1997 the drain on the US economy for all services rendered to illegal visitors was $70,000,000,000 ($70 billion). That means that the 180,000,000 (180 million) tax payers shelled out $388.88 each. Estimates are that the total expenditure has doubled or even tripled since that time. So, the average US citizen is now charged $1000.00 a year to take care of these unwanted visitors. Again, what makes more sense. Paying $10-$15 now or $1000/yr for who knows how long?

No matter how you look at it, getting rid of 12-14 million illegal visitors will improve the US economy in the short and long run. That's our position. What's yours?