What should be done about illegal immigration?

Quote:

12 to 20 million illegal aliens aren't just employees; they are 12 to 20 million consumers as well. I remain convinced that the net effect on our overall economy is a good one. Probably a VERY good one. Even if it did fall a little short; I'm fine with that too.

It's not just 12 to 20 million employees, though. Not all are employed and a fair portion (44% I think) are women. Add the parents, adult siblings, and children that each illegal is eligible to bring in. Do that math and then consider the poverty-level in which they live due to their skill and education levels and the social services that will be required to sustain them. As citizens, they will be entitled to all of the services. Do you really think we can absorb, say, 50 million more on the welfare rolls and still see a positive fiscal impact?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

The federal government now spends 51% on current military and past military needs, 32% on human resources that includes social security and medicare, and 9% goes to pay interest. Not very efficient to promote capitalism or the efficient circulation of money.

This is clearly your assertion.

O'Bill, My assersion is "Not very efficient to promote capitalism or the efficient circulation of money." That's my statement.

Dude, there is only a 110 million of them left in Mexico. I assure you there aren't 50 million more who wish to come. If there was; we could win the annexation in a landslide simply by making it a condition of citizenship.

OCCOM BILL
It most definitely be a net loss. Generally, these people are at the lowest rung of the financial ladder and pay little or no tax. In addition they demand the most in the way of social services. ie Food stamps, medical,{Medicaide] special schooling, SSI for the elderly and financial assistance and whatever handout is available. You can bet your bottom dollar they financially speaking will be a net loss. And another millstone around the necks of the American taxpayer.

Here is a perfect example of not understanding the true division of the tax burden, nor the economic impacts of money changing hands

The current laws prohibit illegals from receiving certain benefits. When those here become legal, however, and are eligible to bring in extended family members, the dynamics change drastically, I think.

Regardless, I'd much rather adopt your scenario. I just don't see how it's realistic.

Quote:

Dude, there is only a 110 million of them left in Mexico. I assure you there aren't 50 million more who wish to come. If there was; we could win the annexation in a landslide simply by making it a condition of citizenship.

I didn't say 50 million more. I said those here already, plus their parents, adult siblings and children. If there are already 20M here, 50 million altogether seems a conservative number to throw out there.

Do you really think we can absorb, say, 50 million more on the welfare rolls and still see a positive fiscal impact?

Foxfyre wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

So, when you are able to better educate yourself on the hard facts and not just base your opinion on squishy feel good criteria with no basis in fact, you will probably see things more as I see them. Or not. Depends on which of us chooses to remain ignorant I guess. You've said in the past that you didn't hire any illegals so you may not have any experience with this at all.

After reading the IRS Numbers that I provided and you completely ignored, it became clear that the IRS doesn't give a rat's ass who's legal and who isn't; hence, I'm going to go ahead and assume that much the ID I accepted, and passed on through new hire reporting, was actually bogus but no one cared.

Your denial of fundamental laws of supply and demand cannot be explained with any amount of experience doing anything. All you're accomplishing is reinforcing what everyone already knows; it is a waste of time to prove things to you because you have an incredible ability to ignore the obvious when it suits your purpose.

IRS numbers don't reflect wages that are paid under the table. IRS numbers don't reflect who is being paid what wages. If you were paying your people substandard wages just because you could, shame on you along with everybody else who is benefitting from illegal labor.

A hundred or so pages back, I conceded that my numbers of incarcerated illegals was inflated. Other numbers are also probably off here and there. So far you haven't conceded anything nor even attempted to dispute what I and many other are trying to tell you. But you are resorting to 'the liberal way' of personally attacking and/or insulting the messenger because that's all the ammo you have. I use your quote in this post as graphic evidence of that.

So would you care to rephrase?

Why? A fundamental law of supply and demand is if you decrease the supply(cooks) it increases the demand. After years and years of these positions being filled by illegal aliens; if they suddenly disappear; there WILL BE A SHORTAGE of cooks, which WILL ARTIFICIALLY INFLATE THE VALUE OF SAME, well beyond where the equilibrium would have been had there never been Mexicans trained into place in the first place. This is obvious, and I've re-worded it repeatedly, yet you continue to deny it inexplicably. How else do you expect me to react to such blatant disregard for the obvious?

OBill: Knock it off CI. There is nothing there to differentiate that from the balance of the paragraph, and even that is based on the bogus stats you swallowed. Simply accept your error and move on. It happens to all of us.

It's not "bogus" until you prove otherwise. My assersion "Not very efficient to promote capitalism or the efficient circulation of money" doesn't matter whether it's 51% or 36%, my assersion still remains the same.

HokieBird wrote:

The current laws prohibit illegals from receiving certain benefits. When those here become legal, however, and are eligible to bring in extended family members, the dynamics change drastically, I think.

Regardless, I'd much rather adopt your scenario. I just don't see how it's realistic.

There is no reason to assume Congress cannot sufficiently conditionalize citizenship, and all the benefits that entails, to sufficient hoops to NOT have it become a 50,000,000 person welfare package. 8 year probationary period is more than enough time to learn English or even graduate high school for that matter. Have you ever seen a GED sample? I suspect your average 8th grader could pass it.

All I'm really looking for is:

A: Don't kick anyone out for doing what's been accepted for decades, save criminals of course.

B: A light at the end of the tunnel. It doesn't have to be without hoops; it just has to be.

C: A new policy that lets in a sufficient number that you can realistically punish businesses for hiring illegals. Call it temporary if you want; but understand that's temporary until they earn citizenship. Our ecconomy will continue to benefit and grow, and the poor slobs on the other side of the fence will be able to see the light in their future without hoping the fence. If that's the truth; then I have no objection to making it a condition of being caught here illegally to be that you are never, ever allowed to come back. NOT until they have a legitimate opportunity to wait their turn, however. 200,000 per year is stupid number. IF it must be limited; it should be hinged to something flexible and reasonable like unemployment.

D: Higher educated, best and the brightest, immediate green card from this day forward. There can be no downside to having more brains in the country.

E: live..... happily ever after.

Now that is my argument. Can you refute it with a reasoned, disciplined argument that doesn't include personally directed insults?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

HokieBird wrote:

The current laws prohibit illegals from receiving certain benefits. When those here become legal, however, and are eligible to bring in extended family members, the dynamics change drastically, I think.

Regardless, I'd much rather adopt your scenario. I just don't see how it's realistic.

There is no reason to assume Congress cannot sufficiently conditionalize citizenship, and all the benefits that entails, to sufficient hoops to NOT have it become a 50,000,000 person welfare package. 8 year probationary period is more than enough time to learn English or even graduate high school for that matter. Have you ever seen a GED sample? I suspect your average 8th grader could pass it.

All I'm really looking for is:

A: Don't kick anyone out for doing what's been accepted for decades, save criminals of course.

B: A light at the end of the tunnel. It doesn't have to be without hoops; it just has to be.

C: A new policy that lets in a sufficient number that you can realistically punish businesses for hiring illegals. Call it temporary if you want; but understand that's temporary until they earn citizenship. Our ecconomy will continue to benefit and grow, and the poor slobs on the other side of the fence will be able to see the light in their future without hoping the fence. If that's the truth; then I have no objection to making it a condition of being caught here illegally to be that you are never, ever allowed to come back. NOT until they have a legitimate opportunity to wait their turn, however. 200,000 per year is stupid number. IF it must be limited; it should be hinged to something flexible and reasonable like unemployment.

D: Higher educated, best and the brightest, immediate green card from this day forward. There can be no downside to having more brains in the country.

E: live..... happily ever after.

Then all I can say is you really, really need to read the frickin' bill. You aren't even discussing reality here. You're off in some dream-world of what you'd like to see, but what in reality isn't going to happen if this bill passes.

The 200,000 is a done deal. This is compromise. My side had to give in to your side in the interest of compromise. That's all there is to it.

The 50M because of legalizing parents, adult siblings and children is a done deal if Obama, etal have their way. No point system because it devalues families.

I've already mentioned I have a highly-educated friend from Canada that waited 13 long years to be admitted. Want to guess why the long wait?

What kind of comic bunny hole have I fallen into. I've got Hokie arguing he didn't say what I quoted him saying, CI arguing statistics he disproved himself, and Foxy arguing 9 cooks for 10 jobs won't have the effect of a bidding war.

Foxfyre wrote:

Now that is my argument. Can you refute it with a reasoned, disciplined argument that doesn't include personally directed insults?

Yes. Your tense is wrong. To the extent the illegal aliens drove the price of kitchen help downward (more accurately held it down compared to other industries), that has already been done for years and years and the country adjusted around it. As of today; IA's represent a very significant number of cooks; hence; if they disappear; the supply/demand doesn't just correct; IT OVER CORRECTS because there is no longer a sufficient number of people trained into place to replace them. While this situation would eventually work itself out; the immediate effect would be payroll costs that exceed available capital of many many restaurants. Even with the AI's here; the only good cooks I know that are unemployed are unemployed because they are lousy employees who've lost a dozen jobs already and will no doubt lose a dozen more. I don't know how I could possibly make this any clearer.

Bill
Maybe I missed it but can you tell us your Ideas on this fantasy annexation. Will Mexico be a state or a commonwealth. Will the X amount of poor Mexicans now be entitled to all of our many social services? Will their elderly be entitled to SS, Medicare and all that goes with it?
And last but by far not least will the US go bankrupt.

This not to bright a2k member would like to know.

The part of the equation you are leaving out is that if you need that 10th cook, you can invite him/her to come from Mexico, BUT, if you are opposed to manipulating the law of supply and demand, you will pay that cook the prevailing wage. Problem solved for everybody.

And I don't know how I can possibly make this any clearer.

Foxfyre wrote:

The part of the equation you are leaving out is that if you need that 10th cook, you can invite him/her to come from Mexico, BUT, if you are opposed to manipulating the law of supply and demand, you will pay that cook the prevailing wage. Problem solved for everybody.

And I don't know how I can possibly make this any clearer.

You could start by not contradicting yourself. Continuing to pay your loyal employee is hardly the same as paying one to come from Mexico (that may or may not be his equal) complete with the additional obligations you listed. This is NOT the same.

This whole discussion--assuming that you are actually reading what I'm writing while you are complaining that I ignore your posts--was based on my quite detailed arguments re how a guest worker program should be structured. The point in question--that you raised--was a competent cook. All I said before you went off on your latest wild tangent was that if you're going to bring a cook from Mexico is that you should be required to provide him/her with no less in benefits as a legally resident cook can demand. Any other plan of action would allow you to exploit the imported cook and cut out the legal resident. Now accept that I have not contradicted myself in any way or show via specific posts, in context, how I have contradicted myself.