Arizona taxpayers spend up to $1.2 billion annually

[Heracles 417]

Don't you think it's interesting the most first world social-democracies are so strict regarding illegal aliens? Why do you think that is? Their lack of compassion? Their ranking in terms of the international human development index clearly suggest otherwise. Their high ranking in terms of human rights also suggests otherwise. Their social socially responsible societies suggest even further that they are compassion. Clearly these nations grasp that no country can provide the world with welfare without burdening all of their citizens and residents. As such, they trickle immigrants in. This way it also gives them a chance to succeed, to live the dream, rather than having to compete with millions of other unskilled labor. Some of you here clearly advocated basically screwing Americans even more, all in the name of helping South America's poor.

The US is rapidly falling in every international ranking yet some here are still advocating we bring more and more poor in. Almost as if the 50,000,000+ million AMERICANS living in poverty is not enough. Therefore, we need more poor and better yet more unskilled labor to fix this issue. Does that make any sense to anyone? Excluding businesses of course, that are clearly profiteering from this cheap labor.

[tmma 467]

I'd like to see real numbers

I'm seeing another Math debate on the way....

There's common sense and then there's common sense. I prefer to keep real numbers in the real numbers range and imaginary numbers on the imaginary numbers range. Once you mix them you get that pesky italicized i in expressions once you go higher or lower than 0i.

Oh how I love explaining i ....I really do. It's joyous to see a class go from this go to this then this (with a lightbulb on top). Takes a while though.

[Heracles 417]

There's common sense and then there's common sense. I prefer to keep real numbers in the real numbers range and imaginary numbers on the imaginary numbers range. Once you mix them you get that pesky italicized i in expressions once you go higher or lower than 0i.

Who does not? but realistically how is anyone going to get those? Just not possible.

Therefore, one must consider the variables at hand:

1. Unskilled labor

2. Poor

3. Working off the books

4. Paid minimum wage

5. Most likely do not own any property

6. What is the average number of kids per illegal alien family? 2 or 3?

7. The number of kids born as anchor babies.

3 kids of illegal aliens would cost a county $30k to educate them each year. Now times that by 12 years. While they ever pay that much in tax?

Edited September 15, 2009 by Booyah!

[HAL 9000 96]

I think I was fairly clear, BY- if you want to legislate something, it is not presently subject to ex post facto principle in the US. From the moment any new legislation on the topic comes into effect, then sure, why not limit- as I stated in the earlier post.

If you educate the ones that are tangibly here now, they will add more to all levels of treasuries.

There's common sense and then there's common sense. I prefer to keep real numbers in the real numbers range and imaginary numbers on the imaginary numbers range. Once you mix them you get that pesky italicized i in expressions once you go higher or lower than 0i.

Who does not? but realistically how is anyone going to get those? Just not possible.

Therefore, one must consider the variables at hand:

1. Unskilled labor

2. Dirt poor

3. Working off the books

4. Paid minimum wage

I'm talking about the US Citizens that are already here, be they children of illegals or not, as I stated before. I think you are talking about the illegals themselves.

[Heracles 417]

I think I was fairly clear, BY- if you want to legislate something, it is not presently subject to ex post facto principle in the US. From the moment any new legislation on the topic comes into effect, then sure, why not limit- as I stated in the earlier post.

If you educate the ones that are tangibly here now, they will add more to all levels of treasuries.

That is pie in the sky talk hal. Once again, if this was the case, why is it no other, as in none, first world countries have a similar stance on illegal aliens?

Everyone else is trying to lift up their living standard for both themselves and their legal immigrants. Whereas, here in the US we have a case where people are fine with lower the living standard, all in the name of allowing the poor from Northern South American nations to get a free ride. Much like health care and the repub stance, someone is wrong here. Either the rest of the developed world or the pro illegal alien advocates in America. As an educated person, who do you believe is in the wrong here?

I'm talking about the US Citizens that are already here, be they children of illegals or not, as I stated before. I think you are talking about the illegals themselves.

I'm talking about both. In my opinion and that of many other first world OECD countries, an anchor baby is not a legitimate citizen.

Edited September 15, 2009 by Booyah!

[HAL 9000 96]

I think I was fairly clear, BY- if you want to legislate something, it is not presently subject to ex post facto principle in the US. From the moment any new legislation on the topic comes into effect, then sure, why not limit- as I stated in the earlier post.

If you educate the ones that are tangibly here now, they will add more to all levels of treasuries.

That is pie in the sky talk hal. Once again, if this was the case, why is it no other, as in none, first world countries have a similar stance on illegal aliens?

Everyone else is trying to lift up their living standard for both themselves and their legal immigrants. Whereas, here in the US we have a case where people are fine with lower the living standard, all in the name of allowing the poor from Northern South American nations to get a free ride. Much like health care and the repub stance, someone is wrong here. Either the rest of the developed world or the pro illegal alien advocates in America. As an educated person, who do you believe is in the wrong here?

I'm talking about the US Citizens that are already here, be they children of illegals or not, as I stated before. I think you are talking about the illegals themselves.

I'm talking about both. In my opinion and that of many other first world OECD countries, an anchor baby is not a legitimate citizen.

Its pragmatic talk. This is the USA, not another nation.

Again, its not about giving out free rides, its about being rational in how current law is applied in the USA. Good luck with the US Supreme Court if you think they'll remove ex post facto principle to US law. As a matter of fact, even wikipedia lists countries on the OECD list that have ex post facto legal precent.

As for anchor babies, in the US, you believe what you believe, and then the rest of us will treat current US Citizens as US Citizens.

[sjr09 155]

I like how the one was lamenting how he had to struggle when he made the decision to come here illegally. Boo Hoo.

How can we afford NOT to build a wall?

Does anyone know how much all those illegal immigrants are adding to the state in terms sales and payroll taxes? Anyone want to take a guess? Anyone know if the ratio of tax and sales revenue to tax burden they are and whether that ratio is any different from USC's within the same income levels?

Facts are funny things.

New Report Highlights Costs of Illegal Immigration in Health Care Reform

On Tuesday, September 8, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) released an analysis estimating that 6.6 million illegal aliens could receive the taxpayer-subsidized affordability credits created by the House health care reform bill (H.R. 3200). According to CIS, if all income-eligible illegal aliens were to receive the new credits, the estimated cost to the federal government would be nearly $31 billion each year. (CIS Memorandum, September 2009).

[sjr09 155]

I like how the one was lamenting how he had to struggle when he made the decision to come here illegally. Boo Hoo.

How can we afford NOT to build a wall?

Does anyone know how much all those illegal immigrants are adding to the state in terms sales and payroll taxes? Anyone want to take a guess? Anyone know if the ratio of tax and sales revenue to tax burden they are and whether that ratio is any different from USC's within the same income levels?

Yes Steve and therein .... is the key to your point.

Most illegals have very low income due to a number of factors

1. no English

2. No visa

3. Very limited education

Sure if you find Americans who are so bad off that this is their "comparison" level I would imagine they would be an equal drain on the system.... in fact they might even be more due to taking up Jail space.

But rather than throw out vague concepts lets do it this way.

Mexican with wife and kid slips over the Border, arrives in city X

WHAT would you guess his income in the next 12 months (subject to withholding) would be on this typical guy?

** .. I'll hire them ....

no paperwork and they will do whatever I want ... including popping steven in the azz for a few $$$$$ more ....

Intelligent, or I should say the lack of!

Edited September 15, 2009 by sjr09

[Heracles 417]

Its pragmatic talk. This is the USA, not another nation.

Again, its not about giving out free rides, its about being rational in how current law is applied in the USA. Good luck with the US Supreme Court if you think they'll remove ex post facto principle to US law. As a matter of fact, even wikipedia lists countries on the OECD list that have ex post facto legal precent.

As for anchor babies, in the US, you believe what you believe, and then the rest of us will treat current US Citizens as US Citizens.

The law doesn't pay the bills. My hard earned tax dollars does; including the salaries of judges. Unfortunately in the US we have a scenario where the supreme courts rather than we the people get to call the shots. You would be pressed to find xyz vs yed cases used to justify something in other developed countries. Actually I had never heard of such a thing until moving here. We the people decide on what is best for the nation; rather than allow a supreme court to tell us what they think is right or wrong.

There is little to no positive justification for illegal aliens apart from compassionate grounds. Whereas, hundreds of reasons why they are a drain to society.

Some seem to confuse and blur the line between legal and illegal immigration. As I said, while the two word wise have a two letter difference, in reality the difference is enormous.

[HAL 9000 96]

Its pragmatic talk. This is the USA, not another nation.

Again, its not about giving out free rides, its about being rational in how current law is applied in the USA. Good luck with the US Supreme Court if you think they'll remove ex post facto principle to US law. As a matter of fact, even wikipedia lists countries on the OECD list that have ex post facto legal precent.

As for anchor babies, in the US, you believe what you believe, and then the rest of us will treat current US Citizens as US Citizens.

The law doesn't pay the bills. My hard earned tax dollars does; including the salaries of judges. Unfortunately in the US we have a scenario where the supreme courts rather than we the people get to call the shots. You would be pressed to find xyz vs yed cases used to justify something in other developed countries. Actually I had never heard of such a thing until moving here. We the people decide on what is best for the nation; rather than allow a supreme court to tell us what they think is right or wrong.

There is little to no positive justification for illegal aliens apart from compassionate grounds. Whereas, hundreds of reasons why they are a drain to society.

Some seem to confuse and blur the line between legal and illegal immigration. As I said, while the two word wise have a two letter difference, in reality the difference is enormous.

No I think I was pretty clear- illegals is one thing. Legal US Citizens born under current legal statutes is another.

Check on whom has the 'final say' on Constitutional Law in this country. It might come on your naturalization exam should you decide to take it someday.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

New Report Highlights Costs of Illegal Immigration in Health Care Reform

On Tuesday, September 8, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) released an analysis estimating that 6.6 million illegal aliens could receive the taxpayer-subsidized affordability credits created by the House health care reform bill (H.R. 3200). According to CIS, if all income-eligible illegal aliens were to receive the new credits, the estimated cost to the federal government would be nearly $31 billion each year. (CIS Memorandum, September 2009).

I have seen the report from CIS before. That report does NOT show how much revenue illegal immigrants bring in for the states in ratio to their tax burden.

Logic would have that that ratio would be no different from USC in the same income levels with the exception of some key factors (are not eligible to file taxes, collect on SS).

...........

And from the CATO Institute:

a new Cato Institute study says that Congress should not reject market-oriented immigration reform because of misguided fears about "importing poverty." Based on recent experience a policy that allows more low-skilled workers to enter the United States legally would not necessarily:

• Expand the number of people living in poverty.
• Increase the number of low-skilled households demanding government services.
• Impose significant costs on American society in the form of welfare spending or crime abatement.

As Cato research has shown elsewhere, strong, positive arguments remain for pursuing a policy of expanding legal immigration for low-skilled workers. Comprehensive immigration reform that includes a robust temporary worker program would:

• Boost economic output and create new middle-class job opportunities for native-born Americans.
• Reduce the inflow of illegal workers across the border, allowing enforcement resources to be redeployed more effectively to interdict terrorists and real criminals.
• Restore the rule of law to U.S. immigration policy, while reducing calls for enforcement measures such as a national ID card or a centralized employment verification system, which compromise the freedom and civil liberties of American citizens.

The shrinking of the American underclass in the past 15 years may have partially been caused by immigration, says Cato. The arrival of low-skilled, foreign-born workers in the labor force:

• Increases the incentives for younger native-born Americans to stay in school and for older workers to upgrade their skills.
• Expands the size of the overall economy, creating openings in higher-paid occupations such as managers, skilled craftsmen, and accountants.
• Results in a greater financial reward for finishing high school and for acquiring additional job skills.

Source: Daniel T. Griswold, "As Immigrants Move In, Americans Move Up," Cato Institute, July 21, 2009.

For text:

http://www.freetrade.org/pubs/FTBs/FTB-038.html

For more on Immigration Issues:

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_Category=34

[natty bumppo 297]

I like how the one was lamenting how he had to struggle when he made the decision to come here illegally. Boo Hoo.

How can we afford NOT to build a wall?

Does anyone know how much all those illegal immigrants are adding to the state in terms sales and payroll taxes? Anyone want to take a guess? Anyone know if the ratio of tax and sales revenue to tax burden they are and whether that ratio is any different from USC's within the same income levels?

Yes Steve and therein .... is the key to your point.

Most illegals have very low income due to a number of factors

1. no English

2. No visa

3. Very limited education

Sure if you find Americans who are so bad off that this is their "comparison" level I would imagine they would be an equal drain on the system.... in fact they might even be more due to taking up Jail space.

But rather than throw out vague concepts lets do it this way.

Mexican with wife and kid slips over the Border, arrives in city X

WHAT would you guess his income in the next 12 months (subject to withholding) would be on this typical guy?

** .. I'll hire them ....

no paperwork and they will do whatever I want ... including popping steven in the azz for a few $$$ more ....

Intelligent, or I should say the lack of!

why do you hate steven having sex?

[Heracles 417]

New Report Highlights Costs of Illegal Immigration in Health Care Reform

On Tuesday, September 8, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) released an analysis estimating that 6.6 million illegal aliens could receive the taxpayer-subsidized affordability credits created by the House health care reform bill (H.R. 3200). According to CIS, if all income-eligible illegal aliens were to receive the new credits, the estimated cost to the federal government would be nearly $31 billion each year. (CIS Memorandum, September 2009).

I have seen the report from CIS before. That report does NOT show how much revenue illegal immigrants bring in for the states in ratio to their tax burden.

Logic would have that that ratio would be no different from USC in the same income levels with the exception of some key factors (are not eligible to file taxes, collect on SS).

...........

And from the CATO Institute:

a new Cato Institute study says that Congress should not reject market-oriented immigration reform because of misguided fears about "importing poverty." Based on recent experience a policy that allows more low-skilled workers to enter the United States legally would not necessarily:

• Expand the number of people living in poverty.
• Increase the number of low-skilled households demanding government services.
• Impose significant costs on American society in the form of welfare spending or crime abatement.

As Cato research has shown elsewhere, strong, positive arguments remain for pursuing a policy of expanding legal immigration for low-skilled workers. Comprehensive immigration reform that includes a robust temporary worker program would:

• Boost economic output and create new middle-class job opportunities for native-born Americans.
• Reduce the inflow of illegal workers across the border, allowing enforcement resources to be redeployed more effectively to interdict terrorists and real criminals.
• Restore the rule of law to U.S. immigration policy, while reducing calls for enforcement measures such as a national ID card or a centralized employment verification system, which compromise the freedom and civil liberties of American citizens.

The shrinking of the American underclass in the past 15 years may have partially been caused by immigration, says Cato. The arrival of low-skilled, foreign-born workers in the labor force:

• Increases the incentives for younger native-born Americans to stay in school and for older workers to upgrade their skills.
• Expands the size of the overall economy, creating openings in higher-paid occupations such as managers, skilled craftsmen, and accountants.
• Results in a greater financial reward for finishing high school and for acquiring additional job skills.

Source: Daniel T. Griswold, "As Immigrants Move In, Americans Move Up," Cato Institute, July 21, 2009.

For text:

http://www.freetrade.org/pubs/FTBs/FTB-038.html

For more on Immigration Issues:

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_Category=34

I am all for legal immigration and no one here has spoken against it either. Legal immigration allows people from all around the world, including the Philippines, to migrate here and build a life for themselves and their family; and participate in America.

Illegal immigration on the other had allows a large number of people, from a handful of neighboring countries, to come in as they please and suppress wages. Furthermore, there is no way in the world an illegal immigrant will ever pay enough taxes to fund his child's education. Let alone any other service they receive.

People need to stop deliberately blurring the line between legal and illegal immigration. Stop trying to act as if anyone against illegal aliens is also against legal immigration. Not only is that cunning but it's disingenuous.

Edited September 15, 2009 by Booyah!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

New Report Highlights Costs of Illegal Immigration in Health Care Reform

On Tuesday, September 8, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) released an analysis estimating that 6.6 million illegal aliens could receive the taxpayer-subsidized affordability credits created by the House health care reform bill (H.R. 3200). According to CIS, if all income-eligible illegal aliens were to receive the new credits, the estimated cost to the federal government would be nearly $31 billion each year. (CIS Memorandum, September 2009).

I have seen the report from CIS before. That report does NOT show how much revenue illegal immigrants bring in for the states in ratio to their tax burden.

Logic would have that that ratio would be no different from USC in the same income levels with the exception of some key factors (are not eligible to file taxes, collect on SS).

...........

And from the CATO Institute:

a new Cato Institute study says that Congress should not reject market-oriented immigration reform because of misguided fears about "importing poverty." Based on recent experience a policy that allows more low-skilled workers to enter the United States legally would not necessarily:

• Expand the number of people living in poverty.
• Increase the number of low-skilled households demanding government services.
• Impose significant costs on American society in the form of welfare spending or crime abatement.

As Cato research has shown elsewhere, strong, positive arguments remain for pursuing a policy of expanding legal immigration for low-skilled workers. Comprehensive immigration reform that includes a robust temporary worker program would:

• Boost economic output and create new middle-class job opportunities for native-born Americans.
• Reduce the inflow of illegal workers across the border, allowing enforcement resources to be redeployed more effectively to interdict terrorists and real criminals.
• Restore the rule of law to U.S. immigration policy, while reducing calls for enforcement measures such as a national ID card or a centralized employment verification system, which compromise the freedom and civil liberties of American citizens.

The shrinking of the American underclass in the past 15 years may have partially been caused by immigration, says Cato. The arrival of low-skilled, foreign-born workers in the labor force:

• Increases the incentives for younger native-born Americans to stay in school and for older workers to upgrade their skills.
• Expands the size of the overall economy, creating openings in higher-paid occupations such as managers, skilled craftsmen, and accountants.
• Results in a greater financial reward for finishing high school and for acquiring additional job skills.

Source: Daniel T. Griswold, "As Immigrants Move In, Americans Move Up," Cato Institute, July 21, 2009.

For text:

http://www.freetrade.org/pubs/FTBs/FTB-038.html

For more on Immigration Issues:

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_Category=34

I am all for legal immigration and no one here has spoken against it either.

Legal immigration allows people from all around the world, including the Philippines, to migrate here and build a life for themselves and their family; and participate in America. Illegal immigration on the other had allows a large number of people from a handful of neighboring countries, to come in as they please and suppress wages.

The argument though being made by the Cato Institute is to reform our current immigration laws to include Visas to low-skilled workers. I happen to agree with the argument unless we are prepared to demand better wages for low-skilled labor.

[Heracles 417]

The argument though being made by the Cato Institute is to reform our current immigration laws to include Visas to low-skilled workers. I happen to agree with the argument unless we are prepared to demand better wages for low-skilled labor.

Visa wise, I do see a problem with the US's current system since no visa exist for people that are not highly educated, let alone do not have a job lined up to work here; to move here. Such a visa would allow low-skilled or high-skill immigrants from around the world to migrate to America and build a life for their family. Currently no such visa exists.

The US also needs a a temporary work visa for those who want to come here for summer work etc. Such temporary visas exist in Aus and Canada, however, seem to be abused by some; so they fixed that loophole too. The government has now mandated that anyone who enters on a temporary work visa, must be paid the same wage as anyone in the country would for doing the same work. Obviously temporary visas work there because hiring illegal aliens is not an option, as the owner or manager can go to jail or will fined into bankruptcy; particularly for second offenses. The punishment is clearly just not worth the economic gain.

Heck, the US doesn't even have a working holiday visa for young adults who want to travel.

Edited September 15, 2009 by Booyah!