PDA

View Full Version : how about some illegal immigration facts?



david gibson
04-28-2010, 08:43 AM
Here's facts that can be verified:


1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year by state governments.
Verify at: http://www.facebook.com/l/cac1c;tinyurl.com/zob77
2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://www.facebook.com/l/cac1c;www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://www.facebook.com/l/cac1c;www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!
Verify at: http://www.facebook.com/l/cac1c;transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.0.html
5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.
Verify at http://www.facebook.com/l/cac1c;transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://www.facebook.com/l/cac1c;transcripts.cnn.com/%20TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://www.facebook.com/l/cac1c;transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare & social services by the American taxpayers.
Verify at: http://www.facebook.com/l/cac1c;premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html
9. $200 Billion dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://www.facebook.com/l/cac1c;transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSC%20RI%20PTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that’s two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US
Verify at: http://www.facebook.com/l/cac1c;transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0606/12/ldt.01.html
11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and marijuana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern border.
Verify at: Homeland Security Report: http://www.facebook.com/l/cac1c;tinyurl.com/t9sht
12. The National policy Institute, estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.
Verify at: http://www.facebook.com/l/cac1c;www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deportation.pdf
13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances to their countries of origin.
Verify at: http://www.facebook.com/l/cac1c;www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm
14. ‘The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One million sex crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States.
Verify at: http: http://www.facebook.com/l/cac1c;//www.drdsk.com/articles.html
The total cost is a whopping $ 338..3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR AND IF YOU’RE LIKE ME HAVING TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY; IT IS $338,300,000,000.00 WHICH WOULD BE ENOUGH TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY FOR THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY.







and the mexican government has the nerve to tell us we are being discriminatory???? bush invaded the wrong country, we need to invade mexico and create a productive, uncorrupted country there.

Franco
04-28-2010, 09:09 AM
The new law in Arizona basically mirrors the Federal Laws. Only difference is that Arizona is willing to enforce thier new law whereas the Feds have been selling out American citizens for political gain. Their political gain at the expense of U S Citizens!

YardleyLabs
04-28-2010, 10:12 AM
Here's facts that can be verified:


1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year by state governments.
Verify at: http://www.facebook.com/l/cac1c;tinyurl.com/zob77
2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://www.facebook.com/l/cac1c;www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://www.facebook.com/l/cac1c;www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!
Verify at: http://www.facebook.com/l/cac1c;transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.0.html
5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.
Verify at http://www.facebook.com/l/cac1c;transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://www.facebook.com/l/cac1c;transcripts.cnn.com/%20TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://www.facebook.com/l/cac1c;transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare & social services by the American taxpayers.
Verify at: http://www.facebook.com/l/cac1c;premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html
9. $200 Billion dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://www.facebook.com/l/cac1c;transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSC%20RI%20PTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that’s two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US
Verify at: http://www.facebook.com/l/cac1c;transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0606/12/ldt.01.html
11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and marijuana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern border.
Verify at: Homeland Security Report: http://www.facebook.com/l/cac1c;tinyurl.com/t9sht
12. The National policy Institute, estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.
Verify at: http://www.facebook.com/l/cac1c;www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deportation.pdf
13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances to their countries of origin.
Verify at: http://www.facebook.com/l/cac1c;www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm
14. ‘The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One million sex crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States.
Verify at: http: http://www.facebook.com/l/cac1c;//www.drdsk.com/articles.html
The total cost is a whopping $ 338..3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR AND IF YOU’RE LIKE ME HAVING TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY; IT IS $338,300,000,000.00 WHICH WOULD BE ENOUGH TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY FOR THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY.







and the mexican government has the nerve to tell us we are being discriminatory???? bush invaded the wrong country, we need to invade mexico and create a productive, uncorrupted country there.
This is an email dating back to 2007 that has been thoroughly debunked -- largely based on the sources cited in the email itself.

1. $11-22 billion in welfare to illegals -- FALSE. The acutal estimate in the cited article was $11-22 billion in households headed by an immigrant, whether legal or illegal, and including households with American citizens in the family.

2. & 3. The food assistance amount is greater than in the cited article. The Medicaid amount is cited correctly but primarily covers services for US citizen children in the households.

4. & 5. Both figures come from a Lou Dobbs episode in 2006. The estimated number of illegal and legal children came from an anti-immigration group that, in turn, attributed their estimates to an Urban Institute report. The urban Institute report used very broad assumptions for the estimate of the number of illegal children and provided no estimate of the number of legal children. It did not estimate costs. Thus, the cited sources do not suppot the estimates attributed to them.

6. & 7. These estimates of prisoner costs for illegals also came from the Lou Dobbs show and are grossly inflated according to data from the Department of Justice which estimates that only 1.8% of prisoners are illegals versus the 30% cited.

8. The $90 billion estimate for social and welfare services for illegals also traces back to Lou Dobbs and mis-represents research by conservative Robert Rector (Heritage Foundation) that estimates total costs of all services, including things like public parks, attributable to immigrants of any kind -- legal or illegal.

9. Suppressed wages: Once again, the source for this is Lou Dobbs who was referencing both legal and illegal immigrants. Lou Dobbs appears to have made this number up on his own.

10. Crime rate: This is a complete mis-representation of a statement by Robert Rector on the Lou Dobbs show. The actual statement was that hispanics (75-80% legal) have a crime rate that is 2 1/2 times greater than white, non-hispanics.

11. The estimate of illegals crossing the southern border references a Republican staff report but misquotes the data. The data is also ridiculous given the estimate that there were a total of 11 million illegal immigrants in the entire country in 2006 and it is doubtful that they all arrived that year.

12. The estimate of mass deportation costs is interestingly attributed to the National Policy Institute, which prides itself on speaking out for "white Americans" according to its own web site. In fact, however, the estimate of deportation costs actually comes from a liberal group and was used to illustrate the folly of such a policy.

13. $45 billion in remittances: This figure has a source (possibly questionable), but references remittances by all immigrants -- legal and illegal.

14. Sex crimes: The verification link is dead and the "facts" it cites appear unsupported.

$338 billion net cost: This number exceeds all of the other numbers quoted. In addition, it is in stark contrast to estimates by the Center for Immigration Studies -- and anti-immigration group cited in the links posted -- which estimates the total net cost of illegal immigration at less than $11 billion.

[see http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/cost-of-illegal-immigrants/ and individual cited links for sources]

M&K's Retrievers
04-28-2010, 10:33 AM
.....

which estimates the total net cost of illegal immigration at less than $11 billion.

[see http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/cost-of-illegal-immigrants/ and individual cited links for sources]

Which is $11 billion a year too much especially when completion of the fence I believe is estimated at $4 billion once.

mjh345
04-28-2010, 10:39 AM
Which is $11 billion a year too much especially when completion of the fence I believe is estimated at $4 billion once.
And that fence will be fail safe too won't it?
And once, really?
Your faith in govt. contractors far exceeds mine

YardleyLabs
04-28-2010, 10:43 AM
Which is $11 billion a year too much especially when completion of the fence I believe is estimated at $4 billion once.
That $11 billion net cost is after paying an estimated $16 billion+ in taxes. Thus, the taxes paid by illegals, according to the estimates by an anti-immigrant group, cover more than 60% of their cost in government services. How does this stack up against the net cost of American citizens? Given our current budget estimates, that is about average. However, what you don't know is the value of taxes paid by those profiting from the employment of illegal immigrants. If those immigrants were deported, we would incur the costs of deportation -- which are much greater than the costs of net services provided -- plus the loss of taxes on profits lost due to loss of labor. I suspect that on a net basis we would actually lose money. That does not necessarily mean that we should do nothing. However, those promising some sort of financial windfall if illegals are deported have very few facts to back up their claims.

depittydawg
04-28-2010, 10:44 AM
And that fence will be fail safe too won't it?
And once, really?
Your faith in govt. contractors far exceeds mine

I believe the original "fence" deal as presented by the Bush administration was a no bid contract to be awarded to Haliburton and it's subsidiaries. The same Corporation, by the way, was also awarded the major contracts in the New Orleans clean up. For that one, they brought in immigrant labor from Mexico instead of utilizing the local labor force that was completely out of work. The immigration / labor problem in this country goes a lot deeper than illegals crossing the border.

dnf777
04-28-2010, 10:49 AM
I believe the original "fence" deal as presented by the Bush administration was a no bid contract to be awarded to Haliburton and it's subsidiaries. The same Corporation, by the way, was also awarded the major contracts in the New Orleans clean up. For that one, they brought in immigrant labor from Mexico instead of utilizing the local labor force that was completely out of work. The immigration / labor problem in this country goes a lot deeper than illegals crossing the border.

If Haliburton is getting the contract, I would not trust a fence to be effective. Rather, they could build free shower facilities, and many would be electocuted while showering, like our soldiers were, in shoddy facilities that we taxpayers payed premium prices for.

ducknwork
04-28-2010, 11:05 AM
And that fence will be fail safe too won't it?
And once, really?
Your faith in govt. contractors far exceeds mine

No, but the turret mounted machine guns would be.:cool:












Just kidding fellas...












RPGs would be better...

david gibson
04-28-2010, 12:04 PM
even if inflated there is still to much waste on illegals. especially this one from factcheck::

"These figures supposedly come from a 2004 report by CIS that estimated the costs to the federal government of households headed by illegal immigrants in 2002. But the CIS report actually put the costs of food stamp, WIC and free school lunch programs to "illegal alien households" at $1.9 billion, not the $2.2 billion claimed in the e-mail. The $2.5 billion figure for Medicaid to such households is quoted accurately, but again, much of this was in benefits for U.S.-born children, who are citizens."

oh, 1.9 billion, not 2.2. well, that makes me so much feel better. not.

david gibson
04-28-2010, 12:06 PM
here's a good one, checks out on snopes too:

True.

Example: [Collected via e-mail, 2006]

Dear Senator Frist:

There is a huge amount of propaganda and myths circulating about illegal aliens, particularly illegal Mexican, Salvadorian, Guatemalan and Honduran aliens.

1. Illegal aliens generally do NOT want U.S. citizenship. Americans are very vain thinking that everybody in the world wants to be a U.S. citizen. Mexicans, and other nationalities want to remain citizens of their home countries while obtaining the benefits offered by the United States such as employment, medical care, in-state tuition, government subsidized housing and free education for their offspring. Their main attraction is employment and their loyalty usually remains at home. They want benefits earned and subsidized by middle class Americans. What illegal aliens want are benefits of American residence without paying the price.

2. There are no jobs that Americans won't do. Illegal aliens are doing jobs that Americans can't take and still support their families. Illegal aliens take low wage jobs, live dozens in a single residence home, share expenses and send money to their home country. There are no jobs that Americans won't do for a decent wage.

3. Every person who illegally entered this nation left a home. They are NOT homeless and they are NOT Americans. Some left jobs in their home countries. They come to send money to their real home as evidenced by the more than 20 billion dollars sent out of the country each year by illegal aliens. These illegal aliens knowingly and willfully entered this nation in violation of the law and therefore assumed the risk of detection and deportation. Those who brought their alien children assumed the responsibility and risk on behalf of their children.

4. Illegal aliens are NOT critical to the economy. Illegal aliens constitute less than 5% of the workforce. However, they reduce wages and benefits for lawful U.S. residents.

5. This is NOT an immigrant nation. There are 280 million native born Americans. While it is true that this nation was settled and founded by immigrants (legal immigrants), it is also true that there is not a nation on this planet that was not settled by immigrants at one time or another.

6. The United States is welcoming to legal immigrants. Illegal aliens are not immigrants by definition. The U.S. accepts more lawful immigrants every year than the rest of the world combined.

7. There is no such thing as the "Hispanic vote". Hispanics are white, brown, black and every shade in between. Hispanics are Repu blicans, Democrats, Anarchists, Communists, Marxists and Independents. The so-called "Hispanic vote" is a myth. Pandering to illegal aliens to get the Hispanic vote is a dead end.

8. Mexico is NOT a friend of the United States. Since 1848 Mexicans have resented the United States. During World War I Mexico allowed German Spies to operate freely in Mexico to spy on the U.S. During World War II Mexico allowed the Axis powers to spy on the U.S. from Mexico. During the Cold War Mexico allowed spies hostile to the U.S. to operate freely. The attack on the Twin Towers in 2001 was cheered and applauded all across Mexico. Today Mexican school children are taught that the U.S. stole California, Arizona, new Mexico and Texas. If you don't believe it, check out some Mexican textbooks written for their schoolchildren.

9. Although some illegal aliens enter this country for a better life, there are 6 billion people on this planet. At least 1 billion of those live on less than one dollar a day. If wanting a better life is a valid excuse to break the law and sneak into America, then let's allow those one billion to come to America and we'll turn the USA into a Third World nation overnight. Besides, there are 280 million native born Americans who want a better life. I'll bet Bill Gates and Donald Trump want a better life. When will the USA lifeboat be full? Since when is wanting a better life a good reason to trash another nation?

10. There is a labor shortage in this country. This is a lie. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of American housewives, senior citizens, students, unemployed and underemployed who would gladly take jobs at a decent wage.

11. It is racist to want secure borders. What is racist about wanting secure borders and a secure America? What is racist about not wanting people to sneak into America and steal benefits we have set aside for legal aliens, senior citizens, children and other legal residents? What is it about race that entitles people to violate our laws, steal identities, and take the American Dream without paying the price?

For about four decades American politicians have refused to secure our borders and look after the welfare of middle class Americans. These politicians have been of both parties. A huge debt to American society has resulted. This debt will be satisfied and the interest will be high. There has already been riots in the streets by illegal aliens and their supporters. There will be more. You, as a politician, have a choice to offend the illegal aliens who have stolen into this country and demanded the rights afforded to U.S. citizens or to offend those of us who are stakeholders in this country. The interest will be steep either way. There will be civil unrest. There will be a reckoning. Do you have the courage to do what is right for America? Or, will you bow to the wants and needs of those who don't even have the right to remain here?

There will be a reckoning. It will come in November of this year, again in 2008 and yet again in 2010.

We will not allow America to be stolen by third world agitators and thieves.

David J. Stoddard
U.S. Border Patrol (RET)
Hereford, Arizona

pat addis
04-29-2010, 06:03 AM
That $11 billion net cost is after paying an estimated $16 billion+ in taxes. Thus, the taxes paid by illegals, according to the estimates by an anti-immigrant group, cover more than 60% of their cost in government services. How does this stack up against the net cost of American citizens? Given our current budget estimates, that is about average. However, what you don't know is the value of taxes paid by those profiting from the employment of illegal immigrants. If those immigrants were deported, we would incur the costs of deportation -- which are much greater than the costs of net services provided -- plus the loss of taxes on profits lost due to loss of labor. I suspect that on a net basis we would actually lose money. That does not necessarily mean that we should do nothing. However, those promising some sort of financial windfall if illegals are deported have very few facts to back up their claims.

so do you want to make them all citizens? if not what? i belive that all the people that want them to stay just to vote one way are not thinking about the long term good of this country,it borders on treason.

YardleyLabs
04-29-2010, 06:11 AM
so do you want to make them all citizens? if not what? i belive that all the people that want them to stay just to vote one way are not thinking about the long term good of this country,it borders on treason.
I think that we need to either enact immigration reform that addresses our need for workers to fill the jobs now held by illegals because citizens don't want them, or focus all of our crackdowns on the companies and individuals that employ illegals and recognize that our economy will be negatively affected. Personally I favor the former option. A valid question in my mind is whether or not we should continue to assume that citizenship requirements need to be addressed along with work permit requirements. We could have work visas that were time limited without ever awarding permanent residency. We could also modify the requirements for citizenship to make them more restrictive. Those are all legitimate points for discussion. However, the thought that we are going to implement a mass deportation strokes me as ridiculous.

M&K's Retrievers
04-29-2010, 09:18 AM
... However, the thought that we are going to implement a mass deportation strokes me as ridiculous.

Just because they trickled in doesn't mean they can't be removed in mass.

BonMallari
04-29-2010, 09:31 AM
However, the thought that we are going to implement a mass deportation strokes me as ridiculous.

I will agree with you on that, but if we cut off all the freebie social services that they continually tap along with make it darn near impossible to work without proper legal documentation,then many will leave in mass..way too many "student visas " out there..

M&K's Retrievers
04-29-2010, 10:10 AM
I will agree with you on that, but if we cut off all the freebie social services that they continually tap along with make it darn near impossible to work without proper legal documentation,then many will leave in mass..way too many "student visas " out there..

According to an AP article I just read, they are already exiting Arizona to avoid being caught. Look out surrounding states.

WaterDogRem
04-29-2010, 10:27 AM
According to an AP article I just read, they are already exiting Arizona to avoid being caught. Look out surrounding states.

San Francisco should welcome them all, heck even go pick them all up, since they are so adamant about boycotting AZ over this issue. Seems like the only responsible plan for a sympathizer of illegals. Also from the money SF will save boycotting AZ, that should pay for the burden of 450K+ illegals, right?;-)

BonMallari
04-29-2010, 10:44 AM
San Francisco should welcome them all, heck even go pick them all up, since they are so adamant about boycotting AZ over this issue. Seems like the only responsible plan for a sympathizer of illegals. Also from the money SF will save boycotting AZ, that should pay for the burden of 450K+ illegals, right?;-)

That would be poetic justice for a "sanctuary" city like San Fran to get a large influx of illegals..would serve Mayor Newsom right, if they thought they could get them registered to vote for Boxer or Brown in the upcoming election they would send Pelosi's fleet of jets to pick them up

Uncle Bill
04-29-2010, 11:03 AM
I believe the original "fence" deal as presented by the Bush administration was a no bid contract to be awarded to Haliburton and it's subsidiaries. The same Corporation, by the way, was also awarded the major contracts in the New Orleans clean up. For that one, they brought in immigrant labor from Mexico instead of utilizing the local labor force that was completely out of work. The immigration / labor problem in this country goes a lot deeper than illegals crossing the border.


The only bit more hilarious than the idiocy of this post, is the guppy that followed it, and obviously bought into it.

Talk about the lame leading the blind, you two need to go on tour. :D:D:D

UB

Gerry Clinchy
04-29-2010, 01:19 PM
In addition, it is in stark contrast to estimates by the Center for Immigration Studies -- and anti-immigration group cited in the links posted -- which estimates the total net cost of illegal immigration at less than $11 billion.


$11 billion cost would be about $1000/per person if there are the estimated # of 11 million illegals.

$16 billion in taxes would be a bit over $1500 per year in taxes per person.

Since these residents are, by definition, illegal, I might imagine that the ones who actually pay taxes are a small percentage of the total. Many of the wages paid may never be recorded anywhere, so there is probably little way of knowing how much in taxes are NOT paid ... that would have been paid if the earnings had been from a legal resident.


our need for workers to fill the jobs now held by illegals because citizens don't want them,

It seems this is often mentioned, but I'm wondering what those jobs are that legal residents won't take? Not all non-citizens are "illegal".


We could have work visas that were time limited without ever awarding permanent residency.

Bingo! One could give work visas if this were really the case. Obviously, either our govt is too dumb to do that; or the illegals don't want to have to pay taxes as legal workers? I do also agree with the greed of the employers who also save $ by evading the law.


We could also modify the requirements for citizenship to make them more restrictive.

The anchor baby feature just encourages more illegal immigration. It should not apply to someone who is an illegal resident to begin with.


However, the thought that we are going to implement a mass deportation strokes me as ridiculous.

They could simply start with any who have committed a crime. As we saw with the Florida hospital, the native countries sometimes refuse to take back their very sick people, even though they are illegally in the US. Those countries are quite happy to leave them in the US to care for them. Ironic, isn't it, that chronically ill people (dialysis, for example) from countries with universal health care would still prefer to get the care the US gives to its poorest residents?

Today, on radio, there was a call-in from a citizen whose spouse was from a European country. He said that illegal immigrants were an insult to legal immigrants, who paid the fees and wrestled with the red tape to come here by following the rules.

Socks
04-29-2010, 01:43 PM
Bingo! One could give work visas if this were really the case. Obviously, either our govt is too dumb to do that; or the illegals don't want to have to pay taxes as legal workers? I do also agree with the greed of the employers who also save $ by evading the law.


Sorry, gotta point out the problem with this logic. The illegals are here because they broke the law. So why should they start following the law now? Especially since they know that the Government will know who they are and where they are with this type of program. Why would they take that chance? Answer: they wouldn't. Especially since the Government doesn't enforce the laws we have. Man this stuff sounds just like the gun arguements, goes to show how terrible our elected officials are.

YardleyLabs
04-29-2010, 01:48 PM
...

Since these residents are, by definition, illegal, I might imagine that the ones who actually pay taxes are a small percentage of the total. Many of the wages paid may never be recorded anywhere, so there is probably little way of knowing how much in taxes are NOT paid ... that would have been paid if the earnings had been from a legal resident.
Why do you think only small percentage are paying taxes? I suspect that a large majority pay taxes simply because those taxes are withheld from their paychecks whether they ultimately file returns or not. Certainly in my experience people come here to get jobs, not to try to collect welfare. Some work is cash jobs and those are unlikely to pay taxes. Most work for regular companies either using false papers or with companies that fail to check. In those cases taxes are withheld.



It seems this is often mentioned, but I'm wondering what those jobs are that legal residents won't take? Not all non-citizens are "illegal".
When jobs dry up, immigration -- legal ad illegl -- slows down simply because there are fewer jobs and those here legally are more willing to accept them.



Bingo! One could give work visas if this were really the case. Obviously, either our govt is too dumb to do that; or the illegals don't want to have to pay taxes as legal workers? I do also agree with the greed of the employers who also save $ by evading the law.Actually, without immigration reform the government has very limited ability to establish worker visa programs.




The anchor baby feature just encourages more illegal immigration. It should not apply to someone who is an illegal resident to begin with.
The achor baby situation is not a "feature", it is an integral part of the Constitution. Anyone born here is a citizen by right. When my father was on a work visa in Switzerland, he was precluded from seeking citizenship. However, when my sister was born, she had an absolute right of citizenship. My father could have been deported at any time. My sister never could have been deported. When illegal immigrant parents of US citizens are deported, their children retain the right to stay here. They become wards of the state, as would any orphan, and must be cared for accordingly. There are no easy solutions to this issue.


...
Today, on radio, there was a call-in from a citizen whose spouse was from a European country. He said that illegal immigrants were an insult to legal immigrants, who paid the fees and wrestled with the red tape to come here by following the rules.
No one wants to pull up the rope faster than the guy who was last to board the boat.:rolleyes:

Bklk
05-02-2010, 12:52 PM
This is a condensed version of the immigration laws
1. Ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are in the country legally.
2. Have a means to sustain themselves economically.
3. Not destined to be a burden on society.
4. Be of economic and social benefit.
5. Be of good character and have no criminal record.
6. Contributes to the general well-being of the nation.
The law also ensures that:
A. Immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor.
B. Foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics.
C. Foreign visitors do not violate their status.
D. Foreign visitors who enter the country under false pretenses will be imprisoned or deported.
E. Those who aid in illegal immigration will be prosecuted and sent to prison.

A little harsh don’t you think?

WAIT!!!!! These are the immigration laws of the country of MEXICO

KEITH L
05-02-2010, 10:19 PM
i had the privilage to immigrate to a couple foriegn countries and yes i am a u.s citizen
each time i underwent a series of back ground checks in which i had to pay for. i believe
there are easy enough laws that can be fololwed and yes some rights to be given up.
first off we need to execute our written laws as they are today illegal is just that, yes
we do need a number of people for some jobs. but if the corporations don't have illegals
at the time, the wages will increase just through competition for the existing labor force
available. illegals for the most part don't much in taxes if you look at the pay rate scale
for withholding you can fill out a w-2 out with enough dependants not to pay hardly any.
most in our cases do identity theft in which food stamps and other benifits are easy to then steal from. there is no way to measure how money is really involved. but stealing and illegal immigration is still against the law. if you cannot inforce the law don't make one. i vote
for people that intend on inforcing the law for my and my families safety there is a process
available for all people to follow,in order to immigrate to this . my great grand parents
did it so can other nationalities do it legally or not at all.....


keith l
________
Jeep Hurricane (http://www.dodge-wiki.com/wiki/Jeep_Hurricane)

depittydawg
05-03-2010, 07:26 AM
Sorry, gotta point out the problem with this logic. The illegals are here because they broke the law. So why should they start following the law now? Especially since they know that the Government will know who they are and where they are with this type of program. Why would they take that chance? Answer: they wouldn't. Especially since the Government doesn't enforce the laws we have. Man this stuff sounds just like the gun arguements, goes to show how terrible our elected officials are.

Illegals are here because they broke the law. No argument. The other guilty party is their employer, who has also broken the law. Crack down on employers of illegal workers is required if you want the illegals to go home.typ

BonMallari
05-03-2010, 07:41 AM
Illegals are here because they broke the law. No argument. The other guilty party is their employer, who has also broken the law. Crack down on employers of illegal workers is required if you want the illegals to go home.typ

one of the largest employers/members of illegals is the SEIU, do you really think that this administration is going to crack down on one of its largest support groups...

YardleyLabs
05-03-2010, 08:14 AM
one of the largest employers/members of illegals is the SEIU, do you really think that this administration is going to crack down on one of its largest support groups...
Wow, and I thought the employers were the hotels and restaurants.

KEITH L
05-03-2010, 08:29 AM
Illegals are here because they broke the law. No argument. The other guilty party is their employer, who has also broken the law. Crack down on employers of illegal workers is required if you want the illegals to go home.typ

correction you crack down on both parties one is not less guilty than the other.
also in defense of some employers the stolen identitys of legal americans is
being used by illegals for work not hard to do these days.


keith l.
________
Yamaha Fz6 (http://www.yamaha-tech.com/wiki/Yamaha_FZ6)

depittydawg
05-03-2010, 08:41 AM
one of the largest employers/members of illegals is the SEIU, do you really think that this administration is going to crack down on one of its largest support groups...

It remains to be seen. We know Bush Jr wouldn't do it. We know Clinton wouldn't. Bush Sr did buck his base when it was right for the country. It cost him an election. And saved his legacy. Better to be a one term president and do the right thing for the country. We will see which obama is in the next couple of years. So far, right or wrong, he has thoroughly PO's a large contingency of his base.

BTW - check this out. It's hillarious.
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/f5a57185bd/funny-or-die-s-presidential-reunion

Gerry Clinchy
05-03-2010, 08:47 AM
Why do you think only small percentage are paying taxes? I suspect that a large majority pay taxes simply because those taxes are withheld from their paychecks whether they ultimately file returns or not.

If they have taxes withheld under a specific SS#, why can't the IRS find them if they subsequently fail to file a return? Wouldn't that mean they have broken yet another law? There is a penalty attached to failure to file a return, even if no taxes are owed.

I might imagine that some more highly skilled illegals pay taxes, while those in lower-paying jobs slip through the cracks.

So, we're stuck with trying to estimate how much money is NOT paid in taxes, but sent to another country instead.

Certainly in my experience people come here to get jobs, not to try to collect welfare. Some work is cash jobs and those are unlikely to pay taxes. Most work for regular companies either using false papers or with companies that fail to check. In those cases taxes are withheld.

I think it is a safe assumption that the illegals come here to work, although it is not out of the question that some are also of a criminal intent. We're also going to get legal immigrants with criminal intent, but there should be some part of the vetting process to reduce the %-age. With illegal immigrants there is zero opportunity to weed out those of criminal intent.

When jobs dry up, immigration -- legal and illegl -- slows down simply because there are fewer jobs and those here legally are more willing to accept them.

Makes sense, of course. What worker would accept a $15,000 job, if they qualified for a $20,000 job? OTOH, high unemployment, even in good economic times, is a characteristic of low-income (often minority) groups who are US citizens. We might not need illegally resident laborers if we could find a way to encourage employment in the perennially highly unemployed legal residents.

Actually, without immigration reform the government has very limited ability to establish worker visa programs.

Establishing an effective worker visa program would not preclude "immigration reform". I believe the issue of conflicting opinions is exactly what overall reform is needed. Whatever a new law may be, it must also include enforcement. It seems that we have laws now that are not effectively enforced. No law is any good if it is not enforced.


The achor baby situation is not a "feature", it is an integral part of the Constitution. Anyone born here is a citizen by right.

Okay, I stand corrected. In that case, when an individual immigrates illegally, knowing they could face deportation, they are taking responsibility for the consequence of having a child who is a US citizen. That means they either return home with their child, or return home without their child. As a parent, I would want to keep my child with me. Is the parent prevented from taking their child back to their native country when deported?


When my father was on a work visa in Switzerland, he was precluded from seeking citizenship. However, when my sister was born, she had an absolute right of citizenship. My father could have been deported at any time. My sister never could have been deported. When illegal immigrant parents of US citizens are deported, their children retain the right to stay here. They become wards of the state, as would any orphan, and must be cared for accordingly. There are no easy solutions to this issue.

See choices above ... unless the parent is not allowed to keep their child due to some existing US law.

No one wants to pull up the rope faster than the guy who was last to board the boat.:rolleyes:

Sorry, Jeff, that is a low blow to many legal immigrants. Such people gave up much emotionally to strike out to a new country where they had to learn a new language and find a way to make themselves productive workers. Many such immigrants (whom I meet in my real estate career), are highly motivated to succeed and readily help one another. Children of previous immigrants have not forgotten the hard work and thrift of their ancestors, and also are very willing to offer and abet opportunity for others who would have similar character and values to succeed ... and obey the laws.

The big difference, perhaps, is that those immigrants (and many today as well) come to the US to become Americans. They did not have to give up their native traditions & heritage to become Americans; nor do immigrants today. They brought along their traditions to enrich the fabric of their adopted society, not to re-make the society in the image of their former country. They truly adopt the US as "their" country. They learn the language. They encourage their children to become educated and advance their economic opportunities.

To imply that these law-abiding immigrants, past or present, would willfully deny opportunity to others who lawfully seek the same opportunities is way off the mark.

david gibson
05-03-2010, 09:25 AM
The achor baby situation is not a "feature", it is an integral part of the Constitution. Anyone born here is a citizen by right. When my father was on a work visa in Switzerland, he was precluded from seeking citizenship. However, when my sister was born, she had an absolute right of citizenship. My father could have been deported at any time. My sister never could have been deported. When illegal immigrant parents of US citizens are deported, their children retain the right to stay here. They become wards of the state, as would any orphan, and must be cared for accordingly. There are no easy solutions to this issue.



as typical for liberals, you are misguided. the anchor baby law was intended as an aid for freed slaves, to guarantee that their children would be citizens though they themselves may not be. it is AN AMENDMENT, not "an integral part of the Constitution". it is outdated and is being misused by illegal immigrants and should be reexamined for possible repeal.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Anchor Babies and Interpreting the 14th Amendment

It is well known that a person born in the United States is an automatic citizen regardless of the mother's citizenship status. However, the United States is unusual in its offer of citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil. Only a few European countries still grant automatic citizenship at birth. The United Kingdom and Australia repealed their U.S. style policy in the 1980s after witnessing abuses similar to those plaguing the U.S. today. Why does the United States continue to allow a practice subject to widespread fraud? The answer lies in how American jurisprudence has interpreted the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

The 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution as part of the post Civil War reforms aimed at addressing injustices to African Americans. It states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States" and was crafted so that state governments could never deny citizenship to anyone born in the United States. However, when the amendment was crafted, the United States had no immigration policy, and thus the authors saw no need to state explicitly, what they believed was understood. The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude from automatic citizenship American-born persons whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. In the case of illegal aliens who are temporarily or unlawfully in the United States, because their native country has a claim of allegiance to the child, the completeness of the allegiance to the United States is impaired and logically precludes automatic citizenship.

"Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.
Senator Jacob Howard, Co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.
The Price We Pay

* The Urban Institute estimates that the cost of educating an estimated 800,000 illegal alien school children in the nation's seven states with the highest concentration of illegals was $3.1 billion in 1993 (extrapolated to $4.6 billion in 1996 by FAIR), but this estimate does not at all take into account the additional costs of bilingual education or other special educational needs.
* It is estimated that the number of children born to illegal aliens each year is 165,000. This figure is based on the crude birth rate of the total foreign-born population (33 birth per 1000) and the size of the illegal alien population (five million).
* In 1994, California paid for 74,987 deliveries to illegal alien mothers, at a total cost of $215.2 million (an average of $2,842 per delivery). Illegal alien mothers accounted for 36 percent of all Medi-Cal funded births in California that year.

What This All Means and What Can Be Done

Higher Taxes: The federal government has control over immigration law for the United States. By not addressing this abuse, the funds that state and local governments must provide to anchor babies amounts to a virtual tax on U.S. citizens to subsidize illegal aliens.

Disrespect for the rule of law: By not closing this loophole, the federal government in effect rewards law-breakers and punishes those who have chosen to follow the rules and immigrate legally. Allowing illegal aliens to give birth to American citizens, in effect, makes citizenship a license for welfare. [Peter Brimelow. National Review, April 7, 1997.]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

YardleyLabs
05-03-2010, 09:41 AM
Originally Posted by YardleyLabs http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=607406#post607406)
Why do you think only small percentage are paying taxes? I suspect that a large majority pay taxes simply because those taxes are withheld from their paychecks whether they ultimately file returns or not.

If they have taxes withheld under a specific SS#, why can't the IRS find them if they subsequently fail to file a return? Wouldn't that mean they have broken yet another law? There is a penalty attached to failure to file a return, even if no taxes are owed.

I might imagine that some more highly skilled illegals pay taxes, while those in lower-paying jobs slip through the cracks.

So, we're stuck with trying to estimate how much money is NOT paid in taxes, but sent to another country instead.

The responsibility for withholding taxes rests with the employer, not the employee. The employee only influences the number of exemptions included for the calculation. At the income levels of most illegals, the primary taxes paid will be payroll taxes such as social security, Medicare, unemployment, and state taxes. For the most part, the illegals are not eligible to collect any benefits from the program for which they pay payroll taxes. Many, if not most. illegals are working under false SSN's. Some are working under SSN's that were issued while they had a legal status (e.g. student) that has since expired. Confidentiality rules prohibit wide use of social security and withholding information to track down illegals. More importantly, there is nothing in those records that would distinguish between persons requiring a visa and those that do not.

...

Actually, without immigration reform the government has very limited ability to establish worker visa programs.

Establishing an effective worker visa program would not preclude "immigration reform". I believe the issue of conflicting opinions is exactly what overall reform is needed. Whatever a new law may be, it must also include enforcement. It seems that we have laws now that are not effectively enforced. No law is any good if it is not enforced.

I would actually put it the other way. Effective immigration reform is precluded if it does not include a worker visa program and if it does not include enforcement. However, I also believe effective reform will need to address the status of current illegals in a manner that does not rely on mass deportation, and I believe that the only effective method of enforcement is to focus on employers of illegals more than on sealing the borders.

The anchor baby situation is not a "feature", it is an integral part of the Constitution. Anyone born here is a citizen by right.

Okay, I stand corrected. In that case, when an individual immigrates illegally, knowing they could face deportation, they are taking responsibility for the consequence of having a child who is a US citizen. That means they either return home with their child, or return home without their child. As a parent, I would want to keep my child with me. Is the parent prevented from taking their child back to their native country when deported?

Actually, many are prepared to leave, and do leave, without their children because they believe that will offer the child a better future than going back to the parents' country of origin. The pressure against doing this comes primarily from state governments that do not want to be stuck with the responsibility.

...

No one wants to pull up the rope faster than the guy who was last to board the boat.:rolleyes:
Sorry, Jeff, that is a low blow to many legal immigrants. Such people gave up much emotionally to strike out to a new country where they had to learn a new language and find a way to make themselves productive workers. Many such immigrants (whom I meet in my real estate career), are highly motivated to succeed and readily help one another. Children of previous immigrants have not forgotten the hard work and thrift of their ancestors, and also are very willing to offer and abet opportunity for others who would have similar character and values to succeed ... and obey the laws.

The big difference, perhaps, is that those immigrants (and many today as well) come to the US to become Americans. They did not have to give up their native traditions & heritage to become Americans; nor do immigrants today. They brought along their traditions to enrich the fabric of their adopted society, not to re-make the society in the image of their former country. They truly adopt the US as "their" country. They learn the language. They encourage their children to become educated and advance their economic opportunities.

To imply that these law-abiding immigrants, past or present, would willfully deny opportunity to others who lawfully seek the same opportunities is way off the mark.
My comment on pulling up the rope was a direct response to the argument that a legal immigrant believe illegal immigration was an insult to the work they had gone through to be legal.

I am in no way anti-immigrant or anti0immigration. Quite the opposite. I believe that we would have stagnated as a nation if we had closed our borders 100 or 200 years ago in the manner desired by anti-immigration forces today. 200 years ago, there was no such thing as illegal immigration; all were welcome. 100 years agothere were widespread efforts to limit immigration of Asians, the Irish, and Italians since these groups were seen as ethnically inferior by many of the children of earlier waves of immigration. Despite opposition, however, immigration remained almost completely unrestricted. Serious restriction of immigration is relatively recent in our country and I believe it will weaken us over time if the controls are not relaxed. I believe, as you have also noted, that the new blood and cultures brought to America by its immigrants have been a source of our strength, not a weakness. The big shift came with the onslaught of immigration from Mexico and Latin America attributable to the relative collapse of the Mexican economy at a time when our needs for laborers in agriculture, construction, etc. were growing rapidly. The sharp growth in the number of illegals happened largely over the last 10-12 years, and largely ended when the current recession began (The estimated illegal population today is down from its peak levels). While Reagan's amnesty program is blamed by conservatives for stimulating increased illegal immigration, that view is not supported by any evidence.

YardleyLabs
05-03-2010, 10:59 AM
as typical for liberals, you are misguided. the anchor baby law was intended as an aid for freed slaves, to guarantee that their children would be citizens though they themselves may not be. it is AN AMENDMENT, not "an integral part of the Constitution". it is outdated and is being misused by illegal immigrants and should be reexamined for possible repeal.
...
Typical of reactionaries, -- failing to distinguish between the legitimacy of parts of the Constitution that you like versus parts that you don't. Few things are more "integral" to our Constitution than the amendments that have been duly adopted since adoption of the Constitution in 1787. These included the first 10, the "Bill of Rights". By any measure, the 14th amendment has been one of the most far reaching in part because it redefined citizenship and because it extended the reach of the Constitution more explicitly to individual states. Its text is very clear and does not need a lot of "spin" to qualify its words:

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

The only case heard by the Supreme Court that explicitly addresses the case of children born in the US to non-citizen parents is the US v. Wong Kim Ark. The language of the majority (6-2) opinion was pretty clear in upholding brthright citizenship in this case. However, both parents were here legally. No case has ever been brought to the Supreme Court seeking to deny citizenship to a person born here to parents that were illegal immigrants. One reason might be that in the Wong case itself, the reason that Wong's parents could not be US citizens was that they were excluded under the Chinese Exclusion Acts which would also have excluded Wong because of his Chinese ancestry.

I believe that it is pretty obvious that illegal immigrants (as well as legal immigrants and citizens) that are inside the United States are subject to our jurisdiction -- how else could we ever arrest them to deport them? That is very different from diplomatic employees of another country who are not subject to US jurisdiction and may not be prosecuted under our laws even if they commit a crime.

david gibson
05-03-2010, 11:24 AM
so then you must also feel we should have never repealed the 18th amendment? cant pick and choose, once it was in we should have kept prohibition forever if the amendments are so integral as you see it.

YardleyLabs
05-03-2010, 12:02 PM
so then you must also feel we should have never repealed the 18th amendment? cant pick and choose, once it was in we should have kept prohibition forever if the amendments are so integral as you see it.
The Constitution consists of the original document and ther 27 amendments that have been adopted since then. These include amendments that have modified or repealed parts of the original documents and/or parts of the amendments adopted previously. Together, all of these represent the highest law of our country. They may be interpreted by the Courts, but are only subject to modification or repeal through adoption by Congress and ratification by the states. Our Constitution includes many "mistakes" such as the sub-human status accorded slaves, the original approach required for taxation, prohibition, the absence of universal suffrage for all adult citizens, the absence of equal rights based on gender, etc. Some changes have been made along the way and more will be made in the future. The requirements for adopting changes are difficult to meet. That was intentional. However, once a change is adopted, that language becomes an integral part of our governance.

david gibson
05-03-2010, 12:15 PM
The Constitution consists of the original document and ther 27 amendments that have been adopted since then. These include amendments that have modified or repealed parts of the original documents and/or parts of the amendments adopted previously. Together, all of these represent the highest law of our country. They may be interpreted by the Courts, but are only subject to modification or repeal through adoption by Congress and ratification by the states. Our Constitution includes many "mistakes" such as the sub-human status accorded slaves, the original approach required for taxation, prohibition, the absence of universal suffrage for all adult citizens, the absence of equal rights based on gender, etc. Some changes have been made along the way and more will be made in the future. The requirements for adopting changes are difficult to meet. That was intentional. However, once a change is adopted, that language becomes an integral part of our governance.

and i submit that the anchor baby amendment is a mistake as well.

YardleyLabs
05-03-2010, 12:33 PM
and i submit that the anchor baby amendment is a mistake as well.
That is your privilege, and another amendment to the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment can certainly be considered for adoption. However, as noted by the Supreme Court in their decision in Wong Kim Ark, most of our citizens through 1898, when the case was decided, became citizens through birth to non-citizen parents. BTW, calling an amendment and court decision that date back to the 19th century the "anchor baby" law strikes me as more than a little disingenuous.

Hew
05-03-2010, 02:50 PM
Typical of reactionaries, -- failing to distinguish between the legitimacy of parts of the Constitution that you like versus parts that you don't.
LMAO. A liberal's liberal arguing for a strict and literal interpretation of the US Constitution. That's the last road you should want to head down.

Gawthorpe
05-03-2010, 03:30 PM
So my Uncle was playing golf in Tubac, AZ. Approximately 40 minutes north of the Border. While teeing off the border patrol runs out of the bushes and tackles an alien. Not sure if he had paperwork of he the alien knew his handicap.

Does my Uncle get a Mulligan?;-)

BonMallari
05-03-2010, 07:54 PM
So my Uncle was playing golf in Tubac, AZ. Approximately 40 minutes north of the Border. While teeing off the border patrol runs out of the bushes and tackles an alien. Not sure if he had paperwork of he the alien knew his handicap.

Does my Uncle get a Mulligan?;-)

was it your uncles caddie ? :razz: or was he two down with a press ?

Gerry Clinchy
05-05-2010, 05:13 PM
My comment on pulling up the rope was a direct response to the argument that a legal immigrant believe illegal immigration was an insult to the work they had gone through to be legal.


Yes, and then extrapolated that was due to some motive other than the one expressed ... legal immigrants do not condone illegal means to achieve entry. If shoplifters were given a "get-out-of-jail-free card", that would be likely to cause some annoyance to those who abide by the law & pay for their goods in those stores.

But you could be right. Today in the NY Times this problem does occur in England
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/05/world/europe/05britain.html?th&emc=th
In the UK they have the same problem!


Voters consistently rank the high level of immigration as one of the most pressing issues, after the recession-hit economy, the state-run health service and crime.[/QUOTE]

I thought it was interesting that UK citizenss have the same concerns as US citizens. Universal health care has not removed health care as a major concern for their citizenry either.

[QUOTE]200 years ago, there was no such thing as illegal immigration; all were welcome.

And that policy made good sense even 100 years ago. If the same conditions do not exist today, then a change in policy would be in order.


Serious restriction of immigration is relatively recent in our country and I believe it will weaken us over time if the controls are not relaxed.

It would seem that immigration rules could be changed as conditions change. We do this with other regulations all the time.


[/ The sharp growth in the number of illegals happened largely over the last 10-12 years, and largely ended when the current recession began (The estimated illegal population today is down from its peak levels).QUOTE]

Makes a good case for watching the employers' behavior, rather than focusing on "tracking down" individual illegals. Fines could surely take the advantage out of hiring illegals.

[QUOTE]Many, if not most. illegals are working under false SSN's. Some are working under SSN's that were issued while they had a legal status (e.g. student) that has since expired. Confidentiality rules prohibit wide use of social security and withholding information to track down illegals.

I really don't follow this well, Jeff. You said the employers were doing withholding. Thus the IRS gets a deposit to record with those SS #s. When no tax return is forthcoming at the end of the year, the IRS has the info to follow up for failure to file a return. And they sure ought to be able to compare SS#s with one of their expensive computers so that dead people's #s aren't being used.

YardleyLabs
05-05-2010, 05:50 PM
...

Makes a good case for watching the employers' behavior, rather than focusing on "tracking down" individual illegals. Fines could surely take the advantage out of hiring illegals.



I really don't follow this well, Jeff. You said the employers were doing withholding. Thus the IRS gets a deposit to record with those SS #s. When no tax return is forthcoming at the end of the year, the IRS has the info to follow up for failure to file a return. And they sure ought to be able to compare SS#s with one of their expensive computers so that dead people's #s aren't being used.
1. That is why I believe that the only effective means for controlling immigration is through employers. They need to be given the ability to determine work status and then need to be held accountable for only employing those with legal work visas or proof of citizenship. This would be cheaper and more effective than efforts to secure the border.

2. The IRS is not very quick to track down non-filers, and is not very concerned with those whose taxes are being withheld. While they are required to file, the only penalty is for underpayments. Given that withholding rates are designed to result in overpayment, it is not big priority. However, even without that, the IRS needs an address for enforcement unless they are going to track the person down at the place of employment. The addresses on file are not likely to be real. The reality is that immigration enforcement is not part of the mandate of either the social security administration or the IRS.

Gerry Clinchy
05-05-2010, 07:10 PM
1. That is why I believe that the only effective means for controlling immigration is through employers. They need to be given the ability to determine work status and then need to be held accountable for only employing those with legal work visas or proof of citizenship. This would be cheaper and more effective than efforts to secure the border.


I see nothing wrong with placing more emphasis on implementing this aspect. But I don't think we can rely on this alone.


The reality is that immigration enforcement is not part of the mandate of either the social security administration or the IRS.

Not asking them to enforce immigration laws, but they should be doing their jobs. The ripple effect wouldn't hurt. I begin to wonder how effective the IRS is. Do they only go after the easiest cases? We hear of them freezing bank accounts, etc. for unpaid taxes ... and also hear of them settling huge tax debts or others for pennies on the dollar.

dback
05-06-2010, 07:33 PM
1. That is why I believe that the only effective means for controlling immigration is through employers. They need to be given the ability to determine work status and then need to be held accountable for only employing those with legal work visas or proof of citizenship. This would be cheaper and more effective than efforts to secure the border.

2. The IRS is not very quick to track down non-filers, and is not very concerned with those whose taxes are being withheld. While they are required to file, the only penalty is for underpayments. Given that withholding rates are designed to result in overpayment, it is not big priority. However, even without that, the IRS needs an address for enforcement unless they are going to track the person down at the place of employment. The addresses on file are not likely to be real. The reality is that immigration enforcement is not part of the mandate of either the social security administration or the IRS.

Again, the Federal Government has been complicit in enabling illegals to function in our society for some time. They actually are fairly quick at identifying false SS# and up until April 30th of this year they simply issued an 'itin' number to assist the illegal in filing his return. It is supposed to end there, however, banks and other lending institutions have used the number as a SS# allowing illegals to buy homes, acquire credit cards (visa, MC, AMEX), buy cars, insurance and the list goes on. Many times the 'press 1 for english...press 2 for spanish' tells the computer to not only route the call to a 'spanish speaking' customer service rep. but that it will request an itin #.....and never ask for a SS#. The Feds..."ALL ADMINISTRATIONS" have brought us to this point and now that Arizona is trying to do something about it we are taking an 'Ass Beating' from every Lib that wants to score a few with the Hispanic community.

Gerry Clinchy
05-08-2010, 11:05 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/08/us/08soldier.html?th&emc=th

This is really ludicrous. There are definitely some cases where illegal immigrants are caught between a rock and a hard spot with existing law.

Why is it so difficult for our Congress to fix a little problem/error in a law's detail without re-doing a monster? How tough would it be for them to set up an expediting of citizenship for service spouses; and close the catch 22 that would send such a spouse back to their homeland for 10 years? Certainly, they should be able to use a stateside consulate to do the paperwork?

I'm sure that there are other scenarios that also deserve compassion as well. Waiting for Congress to get around to it is not going to help some of those scenarios.

toddh
05-09-2010, 07:47 PM
So....I'm filling out the paperwork for a concealed carry permit today....one of the blanks is for "ethnicity". The only answers are "N" for Non-Hispanic and "H" for Hispanic. No other options. Interesting.