Before Ralph Eisenberg Files Suit Taking on Feds, HuffPo's Q&A with Deported Saad Nabeel

• This whole thing about today's illegal immigrants being "criminals" is an interesting arguement. Back when Ayn Rand's parents or grandparents immigrated to the United States, immigrating to the U.S. was a relatively straightforward process (unless you happened to be black [in which case the only way you were likely to gain entry was as a slave] or Asian [in which case you might be able to enter to provide necessary labor on the railroads, etc.]. Today, however, obtaining the right to enter the U.S. is a highly complicated, extremely expensive process fraught with uncertaintly and lengthy delays. In many cases, the system is so broken that obtaining legal entry is impossible, for all practical purposes. In other words, the legal processes available to Ayn Rand's ancestors which allowed Ayn Rand to live in the U.S. are no longer available. For the most part, people wanting the same things that Ayn Rand's ancestors wanted are forced to choose the illegal path, if they want to have any realistic hope of getting to the U.S. For that, Ayn Rand brands them "CRIMINALS" (in all caps, no less). It seems a bit hypocritical.

• Yes, you can ignore what is contributed when overall it is A NET LOSS. Not to mention that illegal aliens are CRIMINALS, and such 'contributions' are fruits of CRIMINAL ACTIVITY through the breaking of labor laws and/or identity theft. Wylie appears to care not for the rule of law when it benefits his wallet. Given Wylie's mentality, it is obvious that he dislikes EBJ's activities not because they are illegal, but because they affect his pocket when flying to Hong Kong. Wylie STILL cannot answer what has Obama's illegal alien aunt contributed to society besides consuming taxpayer funded housing, medical, food stamps, .... It was not hard for her to scam the system. Case closed.

• Yes, you can ignore what is contributed when overall it is A NET LOSS. Not to mention that illegal aliens are CRIMINALS, and such 'contributions' are fruits of CRIMINAL ACTIVITY through the breaking of labor laws and/or identity theft. Wylie appears to care not for the rule of law when it benefits his wallet. Given Wylie's mentality, it is obvious that he dislikes EBJ's activities not because they are illegal, but because they affect his pocket when flying to Hong Kong. Wylie STILL cannot answer what has Obama's illegal alien aunt contributed to society besides consuming taxpayer funded housing, medical, food stamps, .... It was not hard for her to scam the system. Case closed.

• I'm not sure that you can disregard the fact that illegal immigrants are essentially "gifting" $17 billion per year to current American recipients of Social Security. Similarly, you can't ignore the billions of dollars in sales taxes directly paid by illegal immigrants, nor the billions of dollars in increased property taxes as a result of increased property values due to economic activity generated by illegal aliens. The fact they don't pay income taxes in a red-herring-- the low wage positions they typically occupy simply aren't high enough to generate meaningful income tax receipts (due to the progressive rate structure of U.S. income taxes), even if they were taken by American workers. Sure, Parkland runs at a loss, and no doubt a fair amount of that is due to providing services to illegal immigrants that aren't reimbursed, just as a significant amount is due to providing services to poor U.S. citizens that aren't directly reimbursed (including many non-Dallas County residents-- their county governments don't even contribute to Parkland's support). However, it is important to note that the property owners who rent to illegal immigrants and the shopkeepers that sell to illegal immigrants do pay property taxes which support Parkland, and their property values are higher due to the fact they are able to market apartments and/or retail goods to illegal immigrants-- so even when illegal immigrants in Dallas County don't pay directly for the services they reeive at Parkland, they do contribute indirectly via higher property taxes that are passed through to them in the form of higher rents and/or higher prices for merchandise. This would be in contrast to U.S. citizens from outside Dallas County, who don't pay into the system at all (unless they work or shop in Dallas County, as well). Again, on balance, illegal immigrants provide a huge economic positive for this country. In contrast to urban myths, they come here to work, not to attempt to scam the system (which is significantly harder to do as an illegal immigrant).

• It is not relevant that some illegals contribute to a Ponzi scheme that will fail soon. They still consume more public funds than they contribute. It is a NET LOSS. Case in point: PARKLAND HOSPTAL. Furthermore, there are legislators today trying to enable illegals to access social security as well. Wylie cannot answer what has Obama's aunt contributed to society besides consuming taxpayer funded housing, medical, food stamps, .... Wylie knows he is wrong. Stop excusing criminal activity.

• According to Stephen C. Goss, the chief actuary of the Social Security Administration, as of 2007, the Social Security trust fund had received a net benefit of somewhere between $120 billion and $240 billion from unauthorized immigrants. For the year ended 2007 alone, unauthorized immigrants paid a net contribution of $12 billion. Illegal immigrants are not entitled to receive social security benefits and few of them will ever see a dime from the system. You might want to thank some of them when you start cashing your social security checks, Ayn Rand.

• Those day laborers and cash employees are not paying any payroll tax. Otherwise, they are felons falsely using a SS#. What little is paid in taxes does not cover the costs of the services consumed. Obama's illegal alien aunt: She has contributed nothing in taxes to this country, but immediately claimed taxpayer funded housing, taxpayer funded health care, .... This case is far from unique. It is more the norm.

• To say that immigrants "steal" social services is utterly deceptive. The vast majority of immigrants live somewhere--which means they pay property taxes, which, fund our schools; and, they work, paying payroll taxes, and they shop, paying sales taxes. So, how again are they "stealing" services. Ayn, your argument would be better placed at the feet of our elites who are able to dodge their tax liabilities through clever accounting, lobbying and other tricks and chicanery.

• The statement that "the economic consensus actually is that immigration is a net benefit to the U.S. economy" is false. It is irrational to state that uneducated, unskilled immigrants provide a benefit to a society with rapidly declining need for such jobs. All it does is suppress wages and opportunites for the unskilled already here. Case in point: Obama's Aunt. What did she add to society, Wylie? The largest factor for poverty is overpopulaton. There are finite resources. The numbers and persons should depend on our needs. With 10% unemployment in this country, there is no shortage of people and there is no reason to worsen the situation. It is Wylie who keeps bringing race into this. Most immigrants are non-white. No one proposed changing that mix. What skills they bring and their willingness to follow the laws (including immigration law) are what matter.

• @Ayn Rand - what sort of limits do you propose? As I previously stated, the immigration relative to total population in the U.S. is well below what it was at the beginning of the 20th century. (0.4% today versus 1.7% in the early days of the twentieth century). I understand your concern about them no longer being needed and your opinion that they are a net drain on the economy (the economic consensus actually is that immigration is a net benefit to the U.S. economy). Just doing a comparison to Canada and Great Britain for 2009, it is interesting to note that each country admitted for more immigrants than the U.S. relative to their size (Canada admitted 250,000 versus a population of 33,500,000 (a rate of 0.7%); wherease Great Britain admitted 500,000 versus a population of 61,000,000 (a rate of slightly over 0.8%)-- again the U.S. admission rate is half of that of Great Britain (in other words, the only reason absolute numbers are higher is because the U.S. is a much larger country). So, what number would be acceptable; and would your answer vary depending upon the number of white or English-speaking immigrants included in the mix?

• Social services today extend well beyond public education, which cost a fraction then to deliver as there was no English as a second language programs, free lunches, .... There was no free health care in the emergency room, which is forcing hospitals to close. There were no food stamps, Section 9, .... Poster Yesteryear detailed the differences well. The costs of an immigrant are much greater today due to all the free stuff. Just look at Obama's illegal alien aunt. She has contributed nothing to this country, but immediately claimed taxpayer funded housing, taxpayer funded health care, .... That would never have happened in the 1800s. The USA had a great need for immigrants in the late 1800s. It is 100 years later and our country needs have changed. And still, more immigrants are allowed here than any other nation. Yet, Wylie ignores all this and says the country is not open. No, the country is open, but every sane person knows there must be limits. Otherwise the new arrivals cannot be well integrated and the lives of those already here are degraded.

• @Ayn Rand - According to the 2009 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics published by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the number of immigrants admitted into the U.S. in 1907 was greater in both absolute and relative terms to the number of immigrants admitted in 2009. The difference, however, is that people admitted during that time period were overwhelmingly white Europeans. Today, as you point out-- the characteristics of immigrants are very different-- they aren't white. Again, the U.S. had a very open immigration policy in the late 1800's and early 1900's, which contributed dramatically to the growth of the U.S. In recent years, however, the U.S. has made significant attempts to restrict immigration (most recently, the 2001 Patriot Act)... and immigration relative to total poulation is now under 0.5% per annum (compared to roughly 1.5% at the turn of the century). In addition, the process of obtaining admission to the U.S. has grown extraordinarily complex and is fraught with delay and uncertainty. So, again, the idea of "openness" symbolized by the U.S. (and the Statue of Liberty) is simply no longer true. U.S. immigration values and policy are simply now attempt to frustrate immigration-- during the "growth era" of the U.S., immigration was encouraged by government policy. Can you imagine having an "Ellis Island" today-- it would be strictly against U.S. law on a variety of counts. As an aside, free public education in the U.S. became available nationwide in the late 1800's, pre-dating the early 1900's immigration wave I cited above. In other words, immigrants availing themselves of public education is something that has been going on for well over 100 years. http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2009/ois_yb_2009.pdf

• Wylie H has his facts wrong. The United States admitted more legal immigrants from 1991 to 2000, between ten to eleven million, than in any previous decade. That means more immigrants than when the Statue of Liberty was installed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States The top twelve emigrant countries in 2006 were Mexico (173,753), People's Republic of China (87,345), Philippines (74,607), India (61,369), Cuba (45,614), Colombia (43,151), Dominican Republic (38,069), El Salvador (31,783), Vietnam (30,695), Jamaica (24,976), South Korea (24,386), Guatemala (24,146). There is not one single western European country in that list. And these top 12 nations are over half of all immigrants. For other years, see: http://www.migrationinformation.org/datahub/countrydata/files/DH_US_TopTenCOBLPRs.xlsx The reality: 1 - More immigrants are allowed every year. 2 - The vast majority (52%) of these immigrants are not of western European descent. Yet, this is not enough for Wylie. Millions per decade from impoverished countries allowed into the USA each decade. After all, we have unlimited social services, right? Maybe, if there were fewer crooks like the Nabeels stealing residency, more legal slots might become available.

• I hadn't checked back in over here since my original post-- but Ayn Rand "nicely" alerted me on another thread that I should check back in. The point I was attempting to make in my original post was the following: the U.S. was originally founded on a premise on welcoming people from other countries, and it was during that period that the Statue of Liberty was constructed. Around the turn of the century "older immigrants" from Protestant western Europe began to feel threatened by the rising tide of immigrants from the more Catholic southern and eastern European countries and immigrants from Asia. Emergency legislation in 1921 imposed a quota system, limiting the number of immigrants from Europe to 3 percent of the number of foreign-born members of that same nationality in the U.S. during the 1910 census. Then in 1924, the U.S. passed the National Origins Act, further limiting immigration by reducing the allowable number of entries to 2 percent and by using the 1890 census as the base, further discriminating against the newer immigrants from southern and eastern Europe, favoring immigration from northwestern Europe, and barring immigration from Asia (except Japan). This law prevented many eastern Europeans from immigrating to the United States during World War II. In 1968, the race-based immigration system was eliminated (although Western Europeans were still granted preferential treatment, which wasn't eliminated until 1976). In 1986, a general amnesty was granted to several hundred thousand illegal aliens. In 2001, the USA Patriot Act was adopted. This act tightened eligibility for certain classes of individuals significantly, and lengthened costs, processing times, etc. required for obtaining legal admission to the U.S.-- in many cases, the process now takes several years and can require the expenditure of tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. My point with respect to the Statue of Liberty is this: when the Statue was constructed, the U.S. welcomed immigrants as a matter of policy. Today, that is no longer the case. In other words, the Statue of Liberty is a symbol of a U.S. which no longer exists. Immigration policy today is designed to discourage and frustrate those who desire to enter-- when the Statue was built, the opposite was true. I haven't said anything about "wanting to move criminals to the front of the line", I don't advocate "slavery," killing gays, etc. Also, I made no comment on relative conditions here in the U.S. today versus one hundred years ago. I merely pointed out the FACT that several decades after the construction of the Statue of Liberty, the U.S. developed and implemented a race-based immigration program designed to favor Western Europeans and to ban races and nationalities deemed to be undesirable. Even today, the process of obtaining admission varies heavily based on place of national origin-- and again, today's process is designed to discourage and frustrate potential applicants for entry, during the time of the State of Liberty's construction, immigration was welcomed. I really don't want to make too much of a big deal of this-- it's just that it seems kind of hypocritical to have a Statue that serves as a beacon to potential immigrants when prevailing sentiment (and government policy) is actually to oppose their entry.

• @Manny S I do not blame all the ills of the world on the USA. The USA is not perfect, but it has done more for the world than any other country. Somehow this is lost on the blame-America-first crowd. There are people all over the world waiting to legally immigrate to the USA. Many of these people live in far worse conditions than the Nabeels. Those who follow the law should be considered for immigration long before the Nabeels.

• @Yesteryear the difference between your ancestors and this kid is that they were white and did not have people like you calling for and deporting them. your ancestors were allowed to toil in this country and try to make a better life. note that your father is not an anchor baby but if your brown and have a kid then that kid is an anchor baby..[ a very slow anchor at that. I love it when some euro immigrant who thinks hes 'american' makes these arguments. @ayn rand i guess anyone who doesnt follow happy american history is anti american. you know happy history 'we came and built a great nation as opposed to we killed off the natives took the land, started a war took some more land.

• @scott. Must you post falsehoods to promote your anti-American agenda? In the novel, Rearden Metal was the only metal capable of meeting the load requirements for certain railroad lines. That the railroad bought this metal from Galt is largess? No, it is an exchange of goods for services between two private companies. The government was not buying it. It tried to block the sale. The government taking over the railroads and steel companies is socialism. Obviously, Scott is posting false information regarding the contents of Atlas Shrugged. Of course, this has nothing to do with Nabeels, who stole US residence. That scott defends them is revealing. Lying and stealing go well together.

• @scott. Must you lie to promote your anti-American agenda? In the novel, Rearden Metal was the only metal capable of meeting the load requirements for certain railroad lines. That the railroad bought this metal from Galt is largess? No, it is an exchange of goods for services between two private companies. The government was not buying it. It tried to block the sale. The government taking over the railroads and steel companies is socialism. Obviously, Scott is a liar. Of course, this has nothing to do with the crooks who stole US residence. That scott defends them is revealing. A liar fits in well with crooks.

• No, I've left the challenge to you to name a single literary figure who garnered more largess than the railroad barons. You can't do it, Ayn's fictional account is not worth the time. Steven J Gould is one figure from history who gained as much as John Galt, another would be Dick Cheney, but I keep in the non-fiction world. If you can't meet my challenge, keep your nursery rhymes and childish fantasies to yourself. I suppose that Pakistan/West Pakistan/Bangladesh don't have the same right to self rule as the USofA. You're the one operating with two systems of rules for different countries. What justification is there for us to cover up a civil war that we sponsored? What about Kissinger's applauding the discretion of Pakistan for kicking out the reporters before instituting their genocidal policies. Of course our meddling in the affairs of other countries all fits right into the policy of American exceptionalism. A policy which means there is no law for those we choose and screw all the others. That is your logic. Your perverted reasoning is what's clear, and your failure to address the challenge I offered you is telling. It doesn't seem all that wrong for the victims of our policies to get asylum in this country. Of course, I just smile every time use xenophobia to attack another country; knowing that our conflicts will only result in many more of those same "others" coming here and reminding no-nothings such as yourself of their existence.

• @Scott, You seem to be an expert on so many subjects. Naturally, you also have an opinion on reactionary no-nothings AND the Irish. At the turn of the century, my family emigrated from Ireland and Germany. Ever heard of the No Irish Need Apply signage? But most immigrants understood those anti-immigrant feelings and kept their heads down and tried to blend in, grateful for the ability to feed their family. I am the first person in my entire family to have graduated from college. Not one of my many relatives were able to do it. And as I walked across the stage, I thought of every one of the family members whose shoulders I stood upon. WE graduated from college that day, not just me. I proved that not only are we hard-workers and great cooks, we are also just as book-smart as the next person. Saad's family broke the rules as they stand NOW. Unlike my ancestors, they were unable to play by the rules of their time AND still get ahead. And don't think for a minute that my not-so-distant ancestors didn't face some very, very unfair rules. Saad has had a free education while living in a plush Dallas suburbs. My ancestors should have had it so good. The rest of his life is up to him. I personally think his parents are once again using him to garner sympathy so they can move back here. Saad needs to go to college abroad and build a life.

• @scott: Justifying criminal actions by the Nabeels in the 2000s due to cold war manuevers in 1971? That is pathetic. Obviously, scott thinks a nation has no right to control their borders and immigration. That, of course, is insane. Just as it is insane to compare killings to deportations. Scott obviously has a flawed intellect. He already posted the same false information about Atlas Shrugged and went silent when asked to back up his assertions. Maybe scott should actually read the book before commenting on it.

• @scott: Justifying criminal actions by the Nabeels in the 2000s due to cold war manuevers in 1971? That is pathetic. Obviously, scott thinks a nation has no right to control their borders and immigration. That, of course, is insane. Just as it is insane to compare killings to deportations. Scott obviously has a flawed intellect. He already posted the same false information about Atlas Shrugged and went silent when asked to back up his assertions. Maybe scott should actually read the book before commenting on it.

• If his family came here for reasons of asylum, which are not misplaced considering Bangladesh's history. Nor, considering our hand in Bangladesh's history is it inappropriate that they should come here. It was US supported Pakistan, under Henry K that attacked W. Pakistan, the country we now call Bangladesh. Our hand in that brutal civil war is reprehensible and a blight that those reactionary anti-immigration voices seldom know or understand. Anyway, if he came here under asylum it takes years to process those claims. The tragic irony is that Saad is likely more American than Bangladeshi. He probably can't speak their language, and is ostensibly American. All this in compliance with the law. It would be much easier for his parents to return to Bangladesh than for Saad. You reactionary no-nothings want to make these issues simple, but they aren't. If you uber-patriots knew history as well as you like to imagine, you'd know more about the ugly past your arguments resurrect. There was a story a couple of months ago about a mass grave in Pennsylvania that was recently unearthed dating back over a 100 yrs. The victims were Irish immigrants, who came here thanks to the Potato famine. Despite being white, Christian and English speaking, that didn't keep your kindred spirits from killing them. Way to keep history alive. Hey Ayn Rand, why is it that you, like your namesake take arguments totally out of their historical context perverting the wealthy and powerful into the afflicted and suffering? John Galt is the biggest beneficiary of socialism in all of literature. All you have to do the disprove this is to come up with ONE other literary figure that gained more from the federal gov't than John Galt.

• I never read Ayn Rand until now, and like I figured I hated it.

• It is interesting that when Wylie H has a credible argument such as something involving Love Field, he actively defends his posts with lots of source material. But every now and then, Wylie H takes a position that he knows is wrong but wants to be true. In those cases, he posts some nonsense in that thread and then hides. Hey Wylie H, your credibility weakens when you engage in such antics.

• @Not Wylie H, Since you want to turn back the clock and have us all follow the immigration system of yesteryear, shouldn't we also follow other policies of the past? Like the ones outlawing homosexuality? How about the ones that allowed slavery? Or the ones that denied women the right to vote? Times change and NOW we do have immigration laws and this kid's family broke them. What if a child whose family immigrated here legally would have gotten the scholarship that Saad got instead? Is that right? No. And I can't believe the kid actually complains about not having air-conditioning. Lots of Americans can't afford it, either.

• If he was white, none of the people currently demanding he be returned to the US would give a damn about him.

• @Not Wylie H - Dude. Just stop. Would you like to know what "deal" the white Western Europeans had when they came over here? The same deal that kid currently has back in India that he's crying about. You got entry into the country. You didn't get free healthcare. You didn't get a free education (or any education at all for that matter). You didn't get free food. You got to live in squalor, work on a farm or in a sweatshop, and deal with crime in hopes your kid would have a better life than you. Any developing nation eventually enacts laws. To say those laws are only enforced because more than just white people wanted to come here speaks more about you than the law.

• If the current immigration laws were in place when many of our ancestors immigrated to this country, many of them would've been told to skedaddle before they could gain a foothold, too. The "they should follow the rules that my great-grandparents didn't have to follow" so frequently rings hollow since it wasn't until immigrants stopped being white, Western Europeans that anybody thought fairly open immigration was a problem.

• @Wylie H. - Dude. Just stop. He and his parents were here illegally. They had a good ride, but got caught and sent home. We paid to educate their kid the entire time they were here illegally. You won't get that kind of treatment as an illegal alien in any other country on the planet.

• This family should have conducted a bit more research before selecting Texas as a home. Sad story.

• I suppose considering this involves a department of the Fed Govt one shouldn't be surprised...but I don't get the timeline. His parents came here when he was 3 (seeking political asylum?) and the Feds JUST got around to deciding their case? How does one stay in this country (legally?) for over 15 years only to have the Feds rule against you? Or had they overstayed some sort of visa and were here illegally?

• Wylie H, the Statue of Liberty has no inscription saying give me your criminals. The Nabeels were ordered by a court to leave the USA in 2001. They disobeyed that order, running from Los Angeles to Texas to evade law enforcement. They tried to run from immigration again in 2010, running to Canada this time. They are crooks who stole 18 years of residency. There are people all over the world waiting to legally immigrate to the USA. Many of these people live in far worse conditions than the Nabeels. Yet, Wylie wants to move these criminals to the front of the line.

• Isn't about time we removed the inscription "Give me your tired, your poor... Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" from the Statue of Liberty and replaced the torch in Lady Liberty's hand with a truncheon? The U.S. represented by the Statue of Liberty no longer exists.

TotalComments: 34