US Govt. to revisit penalty for employing illegal aliens

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You do know what "net burden" means, don't you?

I have yet to see quantitative proof that they are a 'net burden' on society.Not saying they're not, but it's not that simple.

I have seen plausible back up for the net burden claim but none for net gain or zero effect claims.

ETA: Importing Poverty: Immigration and Poverty in the United States: A Book of Charts

Edited November 26, 2007 by Mr. Big Dog

[Heracles 417]

The economy has stalled. The value of the US dollar has fallen. The average wage has stalled. Public services are already stretched to their limits. This is not the time for a nation to be importing more or to allow 12,000,000+ extra low socioeconomic people to stay here. The US simply cannot afford to take care of them without cutting services and increasing taxes for everyone else

Edited November 26, 2007 by Boo-Yah!

[Heracles 417]

You do know what "net burden" means, don't you?

I have yet to see quantitative proof that they are a 'net burden' on society.

Not saying they're not, but it's not that simple.

$400,000,000,000 estimated 10 year cost

Low skilled households

Pay $9,689 in taxesReceive $32,138 in benefits.

-----------

$12,000,000,000 annual cost to America to educate the kids of illegal aliens.another $17,000,000,000 to pay for educating the anchor babies of illegal aliens.50% of the illegal immigrants do not even have a high school diploma.30% of FEDERAL PRISONERS are not US citizens. American taxpayers spend $3,300,000 every day to house non-us citizen prisoners.

-----------

[Dan J 277]

The economy has stalled. The value of the US dollar has fallen. The average wage has stalled. Public services are already stretched to their limits. This is not the time for a nation to be importing more or to allow 12,000,000+ extra low socioeconomic people to stay here. The US simply cannot afford to take care of them without cutting services and increasing taxes for everyone else

We can fix that by simply not creating more debt. The largest factor in the decrease of the dollar is the borrowing for the war in Iraq.

[Dan J 277]

You do know what "net burden" means, don't you?

I have yet to see quantitative proof that they are a 'net burden' on society.Not saying they're not, but it's not that simple.

I have seen plausible back up for the net burden claim but none for net gain or zero effect claims.

ETA: Importing Poverty: Immigration and Poverty in the United States: A Book of Charts

The Heritage report is very limited in scope. It only covers the direct costs and it really applies to any one in poverty illegal or not. Should we start exporting all our poor because they cost us too much? Like or not, they are a necessary part of our economic system. If everyone was collage educated, a collage education would be worthless.

What about the costs of enforcement that we will still incur, even after all the illegal aliens are gone? What about the increased tax collections from the economic growth generated from lower labor costs? What about the increased opportunities in other fields generated by economic growth?

[Craneman 2]

The economy has stalled. The value of the US dollar has fallen. The average wage has stalled. Public services are already stretched to their limits. This is not the time for a nation to be importing more or to allow 12,000,000+ extra low socioeconomic people to stay here. The US simply cannot afford to take care of them without cutting services and increasing taxes for everyone else

We can fix that by simply not creating more debt. The largest factor in the decrease of the dollar is the borrowing for the war in Iraq.

The key word is still "ILLEGAL"

Is that not what we are seeking to avoid here, doing it the Leagal way?

[mawilson 2,133]

Should we start exporting all our poor because they cost us too much?

No, but we probably shouldn't be importing other countries' poor either.

[Ban Hammer 14,269]

Should we start exporting all our poor because they cost us too much?

No, but we probably shouldn't be importing other countries' poor either.

how about we exchange on a one for one basis one crack addict or welfare queen for one poor person?

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

Should we start exporting all our poor because they cost us too much?

No, but we probably shouldn't be importing other countries' poor either.

Exporting jobs overseas for cheap labor may not seem like a good idea either, but in the global scheme of things, its all part and parcel to having a global economy. Protectionism lost out long ago.

Edited November 26, 2007 by Mister Fancypants

[mawilson 2,133]

Should we start exporting all our poor because they cost us too much?

No, but we probably shouldn't be importing other countries' poor either.

Exporting jobs overseas for cheap labor may not seem like a good idea either, but the global scheme of things, its all part and parcel to being globally competitive.

Well, for the record, I'm also against exporting jobs overseas for cheap labor.

Cheap labor is the root of all evil. It makes things ridiculously cheap, which means

people keep buying ####### they don't really need just because they can, which in turn

increases our trade deficit with the countries where the ####### is produced, which

contributes to the demise of the dollar. It's all connected, you see.

[russ 1]

Self-employed contractors need valid Social Security numbers too.

No they don't. An EIN, or TIN is fine. SSN's should never be used with corporate W-9's. There are also many cases where foreign nationals do not need US work authorization to do business with the US. For instance, a foreign corporation can generally own US corporations or property, or sell products to US entities.

The contractor is generally responsible in this case anyway.

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

Should we start exporting all our poor because they cost us too much?

No, but we probably shouldn't be importing other countries' poor either.

Exporting jobs overseas for cheap labor may not seem like a good idea either, but the global scheme of things, its all part and parcel to being globally competitive.

Well, for the record, I'm also against exporting jobs overseas for cheap labor.

Cheap labor is the root of all evil. It makes things ridiculously cheap, which means

people keep buying ####### they don't really need just because they can, which in turn

increases our trade deficit with the countries where the ####### is produced, which

contributes to the demise of the dollar. It's all connected, you see.

I partially agree. However, the free market is driven by the dollar which in turn advocates cheap labor to maximize profit. The supposed grace of liberal economics was that eventually, the quality of life would level off for all. I don't think it's realistic to try and close the barn door now.

Edited November 26, 2007 by Mister Fancypants

[Peikko 1,575]

QUOTE(mawilson @ Nov 26 2007Today, 09:15 AM

Cheap labor is the root of all evil. It makes things ridiculously cheap, which means

people keep buying ####### they don't really need just because they can, which in turn

increases our trade deficit with the countries where the ####### is produced, which

contributes to the demise of the dollar. It's all connected, you see.

I agree with a lot of that statement. Well, the parts about cheap labour and buying ####### I don't know if it is a direct correlation to the other stuff though. It could be.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You do know what "net burden" means, don't you?

I have yet to see quantitative proof that they are a 'net burden' on society.Not saying they're not, but it's not that simple.

I have seen plausible back up for the net burden claim but none for net gain or zero effect claims.

ETA: Importing Poverty: Immigration and Poverty in the United States: A Book of Charts

The Heritage report is very limited in scope. It only covers the direct costs and it really applies to any one in poverty illegal or not. Should we start exporting all our poor because they cost us too much? Like or not, they are a necessary part of our economic system. If everyone was collage educated, a collage education would be worthless.

From this response, it is quite clear that your reading of the report is very limited in scope.

Should we start exporting all our poor because they cost us too much?

No, but we probably shouldn't be importing other countries' poor either.

Bingo!

[Heracles 417]

Should we start exporting all our poor because they cost us too much?

No, but we probably shouldn't be importing other countries' poor either.

Exporting jobs overseas for cheap labor may not seem like a good idea either, but in the global scheme of things, its all part and parcel to having a global economy. Protectionism lost out long ago.

Exporting jobs and dropping protectionism is not the main problem here. How many countries, who have the highest standard of living in this world, do you think have an illegal immigration problem anywhere close to that of the United States? America seems to be importing poverty faster than any other developed nation in the world. The consequences of this speaks for itself.

In terms of exporting jobs, people have the choice on whether to buy goods and services from the US. There are companies who still manufacture goods and provide services from the US. What it comes down to is how many Americans give a ###### about buying American.

PS Also with regards to the exporting of jobs. If so many jobs have been exported then why the hell would America be importing more and more low to no skilled poverty stricken aliens.

Edited November 27, 2007 by Boo-Yah!