With links this time!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Do away with the anchor baby loophole--having a baby here does not gain a free ticket in. Deport the parent--but the baby stays. Put the baby into foster care until legal adoption can be arranged.
Click to expand...

While this may surprise some folks, this is an idea I have proposed myself (though not here) and I agree with...sorta. The only problem I have is that I'd want to see the current state of our foster/adoption system drastically improve before I'd be willing to implement it.

But yes, I fully agree that A) the child should most definitely be a citizen and B) the parents should be able to use the child as an "anchor."

Though I'd say once the child is an adult they should be able to sponsor the parents as family members to get them in, if they choose. Make it a "delayed reaction." Gets rid of a lot of the welfare-related problems, since the parents don't get to come over until the child is grown and can (in theory) take care of him/herself.

Positives from illegal immigration have been mentioned. Economic stimulation, a larger tax base for many forms of taxes (property, sales, etc.), cheaper products and services in many sectors
Click to expand...
Answer: Not a positive. Based on a false premise about cheaper products & services. Low cost illegal wages + actual cost to social system = much more than a legal worker cost the community.
Click to expand...

Maybe more, maybe "much" more...I didn't claim that this positive wasn't offset by other negative impacts. Merely that there was a positive, and that it does by nature of being a positive help offset the negative aspects. Again, people smarter than you or I are still trying to figure out the "net" economic effect...and I'm thinking that on the whole it's a negative. Just a smaller negative than is often claimed, when the "big picture" is looked at.

I also noticed you skipped right over the larger property/sales tax base. As well as the many illegal workers who contribute to Social Security but will never draw it out. Positives, no?

cheaper availability of childcare allowing skilled workers to be more productive, etc).
Click to expand...
Answer: That is really reaching. Are all childcare centers operated by illegals? I don't think I want to make the effort on this one.
Click to expand...

No, not all childcare centers are operated by illegals. Nor are all housekeepers/in-home nannies illegals. But the illegals provide a larger labor pool for these services, thus driving down prices. Sucks if you're a white housekeeper, but it does allow people (especially wives/mothers) more time to pursue more productive careers that housekeeping. If more people can afford childcare/housekeeping, that means they can pursue further education/careers. If mom is working as anything from a teacher to an engineer to a cashier at Wal-Mart, the economic effect is theoretically positive.

Of course, one could go argue that the social impact of two-income households is negative...and I'd agree it's profoundly negative. But economically it makes our country more productive, and that is a positive. A positive that is offset by other negatives, of course...but still a positive.

Note that I'm not making a claim that the overall effect is positive (though some economists have claimed that the economic effect is, though small). I'm just saying if you focus solely on the negatives and dismiss all the positives you're going to get a hideously skewed picture of the overall effect illegal immigration has.
 
Hell, I'd be ecstatic if we could just get a majority of the Anglo population to speak and write proper English.
Click to expand...
hah! fully agreed

language evolves as culture evolves but one shouldn't break grammatical rules unless one actually knows what they are
 
Answer: Not a positive. Based on a false premise about cheaper products & services. Low cost illegal wages + actual cost to social system = much more than a legal worker cost the community.
Click to expand...
Where's the actual data to support this? I've mentioned repeatedly that such conclusions are still under heavy debate. Dozens of economists with doctoral degrees are working on this very problem every single day so I doubt someone here has managed to figure out in their spare time.

If so, I'd like to meet this Charlie Eppes and sign up for an internship.

Answer: That is really reaching. Are all childcare centers operated by illegals? I don't think I want to make the effort on this one.
Click to expand...
Uh, many people use babysitters, not childcare centers. People realize that it's generally healthier for a child to be raised in their own home during those formative years, not in an unfamiliar child care center.
Anyway, I will be off for a few days. Not retreating...just have to do some things for the better half. I could tell her no, but then I would face deportation.
Click to expand...
have fun, stay safe! :)
 
Maybe more, maybe "much" more...I didn't claim that this positive wasn't offset by other negative impacts
Click to expand...


With positives like this we don't need negatives IMO..
Kind of along the line " with friends like that you don't need enemies".

I have a question for both redworm and juan. Do either of you hunt or own a gun? I never see any posts from either of you on either subject. I know you have as much right here as any of us but I kinda thought this was a forum for gun owners, as the name implies " The Firing Line".

Of course it is easy to say you "own" firearms when in reality you don't, and come to this forum for an entirely different reason. I suspect the latter.
 
With positives like this we don't need negatives IMO..
Kind of along the line " with friends like that you don't need enemies".
Click to expand...

What about an increased property/sales tax base or general economic growth is such a bad thing? I'm wondering what your reasoning is for dismissing every positive impact they have. You can argue that the negatives outweigh the positives, but that doesn't make the positives any less positive. And I'll repeat: I'm not claiming that the overall impact is positive, simply that due to the positives that you are dismissing (for what appear to be irrational reasons) it's simply not as negative as you claim.

I have a question for both redworm and juan. Do either of you hunt or own a gun? I never see any posts from either of you on either subject. I know you have as much right here as any of us but I kinda thought this was a forum for gun owners, as the name implies " The Firing Line".

Of course it is easy to say you "own" firearms when in reality you don't, and come to this forum for an entirely different reason. I suspect the latter.
Click to expand...

I actually own multiple firearms...though because I'm both broke and incredibly busy with school I have neither money nor time to show them the love they deserve nowadays. Hence my lack of posts regarding shooting. I come to L&P nowadays to talk...well, legalities and politics. Go figure. And no, I don't hunt.

As far as "firearms-related" posts, I've posted in firearms-rights threads, both in a "pro" and "semi-anti" capacity. Maybe you just missed them.

Also, out of curiosity does one even need to own firearms in order to advocate firearms rights? I mean, one certainly doesn't need to be gay to advocate gay rights or a minority to advocate fair treatment of minorities. There are actually male feminists.

And yes, I could be lying. Then again, you could be an avid white supremacist affiliated with several Neo-Nazi groups, or a KKK member, or all kinds of other things. Heck, you could be a serial killer who bites the heads off kittens and does sexually inappropriate things to the corpses of his victims. I can say I suspect you are, and all you can do is deny it....but you could be lying too, right? So howsabout we think about simply believing people's descriptions of themselves, or things can get stupid real quick.

I'm a 27-year-old married Iraq veteran studying engineering, who happens to be pro-gun (and owns guns) despite having generally socially liberal (and often economically liberal) views. What about that is so utterly hard to believe?

Also, is there a reason this had to be done in-thread rather than by PM? Seems McCarthysim is alive and well around here.

EDIT: And I found this forum because I was looking for some accessories for one of my pistols...I think a google search brought me here. I still lurk in some of the other subforums, but like Redworm I have little to contribute there especially nowadays.
 
yes, I own a few :) I originally came to this forum to learn more about firearms. I frequent the other sections but I don't post often there because I have no quality information to supply, just the occassional question. I prefer to sit back and learn. I come to this one because I have, over the past few years, developed an interest in politics and economics.

I've never hunted but that's because I've never needed to.
Of course it is easy to say you "own" firearms when in reality you don't, and come to this forum for an entirely different reason. I suspect the latter.
Click to expand...
You suspect whatever you want, no sweat off my nuts.
 
Back on topic again.

By S.A. Miller
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
April 5, 2007

Immigration reforms that increase the number of low-skilled workers entering the United States threaten to impose a high cost on taxpayers, says a study being released today.
The Heritage Foundation report calculates that for every $1 unskilled workers pay in taxes they receive about $3 in government benefits, including Medicaid, food stamps, public housing and other welfare programs.
It should serve as a warning to President Bush and lawmakers proposing to give illegal aliens a so-called path to citizenship or what critics call amnesty, said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, which handles immigration bills.
"We need to make sure any legislation does not further strain government services and taxpayers' wallets," said Mr. Smith, who will make public the report for the conservative Washington think tank today.
The report on low-skilled workers, who are defined as those without a high school diploma, did not focus on immigrants, but its authors say 25 percent of legal immigrants and 50 percent of illegal aliens fall into the category. About 9 percent of native-born Americans lack a high school diploma.
Using data from 2004, the report shows the average household headed by a low-skilled worker paid $9,689 in taxes but received $32,138 in benefits a year. The more than $22,000 difference is the "tax burden" which rises to $1.1 million over the worker's lifetime.
Mr. Bush has called for legalizing the estimated 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens in the United States, and for a new program to allow more foreign workers in the future.
He faces opposition from many congressional Republicans who say allowing illegal aliens to remain amounts to amnesty. They also want Mr. Bush to focus on better immigration enforcement before beginning a new guest-worker program.
Chief among the critics is Rep. Brian P. Bilbray, chairman of the Immigration Reform Caucus, who hailed the study.
"The Heritage Foundation report proves what we already know, that illegal immigration is a drain to the American people," the California Republican said. "At more than $22,000 a year, it's like having the American taxpayers buy everyone who doesn't have a high school diploma a brand new Ford Mustang convertible."
Eric Rodriguez, deputy vice president of the National Council of La Raza, the country's largest Hispanic civil rights organization, said studies frequently overlook significant contributions immigrants make to the economy.
"A lot of the more recent studies we've seen show that more undocumented workers are contributing to Social Security and they will never be eligible for Social Security benefits," Mr. Rodriguez said. "A lot of that tends not to be captured by these types of studies."
In 2004, according to the Heritage Foundation report, the country had 17.7 million low-skilled households that together cost taxpayers $397 billion that year. Those households, without an influx of new unskilled workers, will cost at least $3.9 trillion over the next 10 years.

Kenny b
 
Using data from 2004, the report shows the average household headed by a low-skilled worker paid $9,689 in taxes but received $32,138 in benefits a year. The more than $22,000 difference is the "tax burden" which rises to $1.1 million over the worker's lifetime.
Click to expand...

I'll assume this accounts for things like property tax and sales tax (and at $9K in taxes a year, I'm thinking it actually does).

This still fails to take into account broader positive economic effects of unskilled workers. Less pay to workers translates to more profits for businesses, which will be taxed. And more pay for management, including upper management...which will also be taxed. Also capital gains taxes on investment income from those that invested in the company, also taxed (some, at least...we'll ignore IRAs and such for now).

Then, if we're talking about the effect on taxpayers you have to take into account money saved due to low-wage labor, including immigrant labor. Everything from (and I know these have been beaten to death) cheaper lettuce to cheaper childcare to cheaper lawn care all the way up to cheaper items at any retail store because retail pays their employees crap.

Lastly, if we're talking about cheaper household services (housekeeping, lawncare, childcare) then every hour not spent doing those tasks (menial tasks, for the first two) is an hour that can either be spent working (income that is taxed), furthering education (higher income, more taxes), or for leisure (which often costs money, some taxed, some simply growing the economy...which will lead to more tax income elsewhere as well).

No, this may still not offset the cost of the benefits they receive. But when you start talking about 3:1 ratios and "a new Mustang every year" I think you're using an overly simplistic analysis of the economic impacts in order to try and overstate the problem.
 
If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliant, baffle 'em with BS.
Click to expand...

If you're referring to my post, could you point out the part that's BS? Or do you simply think that some of the most basic aspects of economic theory are BS? If you could specifically point to any part of that post (except the last paragraph, which was a statement of opinion) that's untrue, that'd be super.

If you're not replying to my post, then I would suggest making it more clear which post you are replying to.
 
WHy even respond to the enablers guys?
No matter what you say or suggest, they will do cartwheels looking for some reason to knock it down.
Enemies within indeed!
Ranger, I'd go along with keeping the kid and sending the folks back.
 
WHy even respond to the enablers guys?
Click to expand...

If you don't believe in responding to the opposing side in such a discussion, why even post at all? What is the purpose of this forum, then? Do we think all political discussions should have only one side?

No matter what you say or suggest, they will do cartwheels looking for some reason to knock it down.
Enemies within indeed!
Click to expand...

It generally doesn't require cartwheels.

Ranger, I'd go along with keeping the kid and sending the folks back.
Click to expand...

Hey wow...me too. I don't seem to remember doing any cartwheels to knock that one down. It's almost as if the world is not painted in black and white. I did of course suggest that perhaps we should improve the foster case system first...maybe that was unreasonable.
 
If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliant, baffle 'em with BS.

badbob
Click to expand...


Brilliant! Amazing how one sentence can say so much.

Bummer this began as a rather good thread.
Illegals are a large concern and for several pages we did have a good discussion but no more. seems we are just spinning in circles.

Juan your a smart guy. Try and take a step back and see this is a different light, try to stand in another's shoes so to speak. I am not asking you to post about it just try and look from another direction. No race no partisan thoughts try and be completely neutral, if only for a while. I have done this in situations and it has truly helped me to see things from a different perspective, and has altered my views on occasion.
 
Juan your a smart guy. Try and take a step back and see this is a different light, try to stand in another's shoes so to speak. I am not asking you to post about it just try and look from another direction. No race no partisan thoughts try and be completely neutral, if only for a while. I have done this in situations and it has truly helped me to see things from a different perspective, and has altered my views on occasion.
Click to expand...

Odd you'd mention this, since that's exactly what I'm doing. Simply because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm not trying to look at things from a neutral perspective or having my thoughts crowded with partisan prejudice. You do realize that, right?

I mean, the fact that I give a crap about illegal Mexican immigrants even though I'm white (well, mostly...a wee bit Native, too) and a natural-born citizen would suggest that I'm trying to place myself in the shoes of others, no? I personally have no stake in this argument at all...at least none except the social/economic stake we all have in just about any political discussion.

As far as neutrality goes, I'd say that pointing out some of the positive economic aspects that immigration (including illegal immigration) can have is something that can be done quite readily from a neutral standpoint. Economics aren't about race or feelings. I'd say dismissing every positive impact that illegal immigrants could possibly have is a larger sign of a lack of neutrality than anything I've said; heck, I've even admitted that the overall impact may be (and likely is) negative.

EDIT: Also, in case it may be causing any confusion regarding where my opinions might be coming from, my actual name is Carl, not Juan.
 
I would need to go back are reread all the preceding posts to make a real fair judgment which I don't have the inclination or time at this moment. But are you trying to thoroughly confuse us? I mean your arguing so vehemently for the illegals but are saying " more negative than positive" No matter really, I kinda think this one has ran it's course and is dyeing and maybe that is a good thing.

Sometimes I think you just enjoy arguing or debating to much, just a hunch.
 
I mean your arguing so vehemently for the illegals but are saying
Click to expand...
I think the mistake is assuming that because we're not arguing for mass deportations and opening fire on border crossers that we're arguing for illegals.
 
I would need to go back are reread all the preceding posts to make a real fair judgment which I don't have the inclination or time at this moment. But are you trying to thoroughly confuse us? I mean your arguing so vehemently for the illegals but are saying " more negative than positive" No matter really, I kinda think this one has ran it's course and is dyeing and maybe that is a good thing.
Click to expand...

Want to hear something real controversial (for here, at least)? I think gun ownership and the RKBA in the US, as a whole, may present more of a negative than a positive.* Yet I still support the right. Go figure. Mainly because I think that the negative may be small enough that it makes more sense to worry about individual freedoms than trying to get the best "net effect." At least the best net tangible effect. From a "moral" standpoint I think the benefits of more open immigration policies would outweigh whatever negative economic effects it might have.

Or, for another example pertinent to this forum: I think that specifically a ban on "assault weapon" ownership might present a "net positive" to society. Not because the tangible negatives of allowing it are so great, but because the tangible positives are so small. I see very little tangible benefit to society to be had in allowing the private ownership of many of the firearms that qualify as "assault weapons." Of course, again, once the less tangible benefit of "personal freedom" is factored in, then an AWB is a bad thing hands-down.

I think the mistake is assuming that because we're not arguing for mass deportations and opening fire on border crossers that we're arguing for illegals.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that too. I don't think illegal immigration is a "good" thing. I don't believe in completely open borders, either. But I think that rounding everybody who's already here up (or trying to, at least) would do more harm than good. [EDIT: And that figuring out a way to get them into the legitimate system, and paying taxes, would have a more positive impact.] Also, I think that more open immigration policies (for instance, order-of-magnitude increases in quotas) in combination with border enforcement are the best way to cut down on illegal immigration.

Why do I argue increased legal immigration more strongly than enforcement of current laws, and why do I insist that it should come before any such increase in enforcement? Two reasons. One, assuming we're going to open legal immigration up more, it's the first logical step towards securing the border...increase the legal flow, decrease the legal flow, make it easier to stop. Common sense. Two, I know darn well that if we institute enforcement first then the majority that don't want to see increased legal immigration (which includes many that claim they do) will then proceed to fight it tooth and nail...they've already got what they wanted.


* - Notice that I don't say there aren't any positives. In fact, I think there are a whole lot of them. So don't bother listing any of them at me here, I probably already agree with you.
 
Also, note that my arguments regarding Spanish aren't illegal-immigation specific. Not caring if signs are in Spanish and people don't speak English (or barely speak it) doesn't mean I support illegal immigration...it just means I support more immigration and don't much care if those immigrants speak English when they get here. It's actually a separate topic to me, despite the fact that so many can't seem to separate it from the specific issue of illegal immigration.

Basically, if one of your main complaints about illegal immigration is having to press "1" for English, signs being in Spanish, or general bilingualism then I really don't care. I think illegal immigration presents a host of other problems that I do care about (and many that we'd probably agree on, believe it or not)...the problem is that my suggested solution, while helping (or nearly eliminating, in some cases) those problems won't do jack for the whole language issue.

Also, my opinions on immigration don't exist in a vacuum. Welfare reform and handouts in general are a whole separate (and extremely complicated) issue. Don't presume that because I'm not all up-in-arms about seeing Pedro draw welfare that I'm a fan of welfare in general...it just means that I don't care more about an immigrant (illegal or otherwise) drawing welfare (or other public benefits) than I do about a native citizen doing so. Well, I do in the cases of illegals...since they're not necessarily paying all the taxes I'm required to. But it doesn't bother me as much as it does others because I'd rather just let the guy work legally, and pay those taxes. Basically as long as he's not carrying Ebola and didn't once kill a man in Juarez just to watch him die then I think the guy should've been able to come legally anyway.

EDIT: It's almost as though my position (especially my combination of positions) is difficult to push neatly into one side or the other of the "established" political spectrum. As though politics, like so much in life, isn't black or white.
 
Want to hear something real controversial (for here, at least)? I think gun ownership and the RKBA in the US, as a whole, may present more of a negative than a positive
Click to expand...

What a shock that is to hear coming from you.

I don't think illegal immigration is a "good" thing. I don't believe in completely open borders, either.
Click to expand...
Well which on is it. Are you for or against it. You sound like you more support it than you are against it. Actually I think you thrive on the controversy and you get your jollys by just being a general PIA.

Or, for another example pertinent to this forum: I think that specifically a ban on "assault weapon" ownership might present a "net positive" to society. Not because the tangible negatives of allowing it are so great, but because the tangible positives are so small. I see very little tangible benefit to society to be had in allowing the private ownership of many of the firearms that qualify as "assault weapons." Of course, again, once the less tangible benefit of "personal freedom" is factored in, then an AWB is a bad thing hands-down
Click to expand...

Good you give up yours.In fact give it to some Mexican or some Muslim so he can protect himself from some hard working American who's house he just tried to rob while he his here illegally. Again

Like a previous post stated, I bet you don't even own a gun. I checked your posting since you got here last July? and almost every one is just a bunch of pissing people off and being a general PIA. I have your number

It's almost as though my position (especially my combination of positions) is difficult to push neatly into one side or the other of the "established" political spectrum. As though politics, like so much in life, isn't black or white
Click to expand...
Well then smart guy. Why don't you just try to explain to us just what the heck you do stand for ?

Why do I argue increased legal immigration more strongly than enforcement of current laws, and why do I insist that it should come before any such increase in enforcement? Two reasons. One, assuming we're going to open legal immigration up more, it's the first logical step towards securing the border...increase the legal flow, decrease the legal flow, make it easier to stop. Common sense
Click to expand...

You couldn't even sell this one to Ted Kennedy.

I gotta go. More another day if its still here
 
Hey RERICK, if you're just going to air your personal problems with me instead of talking about the subject at hand, put a sock in it.

EDIT: Or take it to PM. You've got one, BTW.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top