Amnesty for illegals.

[BytheRules]

Congress wrestles with legislation to grant lawbreakers a pathway to citizenship. Bush should be a very happy man now that his Democrat
majority in congress will likely side with his attempts to grant an amnesty plan. What treason! Anyone who has studied this subject sees a disaster coming. How many will be enough? All politicians who vote for this crap should be required to live in Laredo, Tx for five years.

[USMC the Almighty]

Congress wrestles with legislation to grant lawbreakers a pathway to citizenship. Bush should be a very happy man now that his Democrat majority in congress will likely side with his attempts to grant an amnesty plan. What treason! Anyone who has studied this subject sees a disaster coming. How many will be enough? All politicians who vote for this crap should be required to live in Laredo, Tx for five years.

I can't even believe there's a debate about this. We are contemplating whether or not to deport ILLEGAL immigrants? This is absolutely absurd. We don't reward people for breaking the laws of this country.

[Enlightened One]

I can't even believe there's a debate about this. We are contemplating whether or not to deport ILLEGAL immigrants? This is absolutely absurd. We don't reward people for breaking the laws of this country.

That's the truth, if I have ever heard it. They will kick American illegals out of most countries without thinking twice, why should we be any different?

[1krazykapt]

The fact that we have an illegal proplem is an out rage. They are not helping our econemy at all. they depress wages use a higher share of socal services and send billions evry year out of the country. And that song and dance that there only trying to feed the kids is getting old.

[saggyjones]

The fact that we have an illegal proplem is an out rage.

Maybe we should tighten the border security.

They are not helping our econemy at all.

Yeah, agriculture doesn't really matter all that much. Who needs to eat?

they depress wages use a higher share of socal services and send billions evry year out of the country.

If we legalize them, we can tax them, and they won't depress wages because they'll be forced to compete.

And that song and dance that there only trying to feed the kids is getting old.

What, do you think they are trying to take Americans' jobs because they hate us? *Edit: I apologize for the insult.* Also, learn how to spell.

[saggyjones]

We need to legalize the ones here for the following reasons:

- The government gets more money from their taxes.

- We don't spend money looking for illegals and deporting them.

- They would have a much better life.

- The strain on the welfare system will be alleviated by us taxing them.

- They won't strain the health care system anymore because they will be taxed and can get health insurance.

- They will be paid the same as Americans and wouldn't be taking jobs away from them.

But we also need to tighten border security so more illegals can't cross.

After legalizing them, the president would explain why it was happening and state that any more illegals would be promptly deported. But the ones here now are already rooted into our economy.

[Lilly Marlene]

Just a quick reply saggyjones, to the posts you've made in response to krazykapt.

Three of your arguments are flawed (please see my answer to you from last night, in the other thread about illegal immigration).

Unfortunately, the flawed arguments are the three upon which your position (granting legal citizenship) most depends.

[saggyjones]

Just a quick reply saggyjones, to the posts you've made in response to krazykapt.

Three of your arguments are flawed (please see my answer to you from last night, in the other thread about illegal immigration).

Unfortunately, the flawed arguments are the three upon which your position (granting legal citizenship) most depends.

Why don't you reply to my response to your answer in the other thread? At least respond to the post below the response to krazykapt.

Confusing lol

[Friendindeed]

What, do you think they are trying to take Americans' jobs because they hate us? You are one dumb asshole. Also, learn how to spell.

There is an intelligent comeback. If you had skill at debate, you wouldn't resort to name calling in your post to krazykat.

[Lilly Marlene]

Why don't you reply to my response to your answer in the other thread? At least respond to the post below the response to krazykapt.

Confusing lol


saggyjones, this sounds strange but I tell you honestly, when I was here in the evening I didn't see any replies to what I had written last night.

I know you posted one (I just checked and saw it there) but the name showing when I left before was "Lilly Marlene".

Anyway, let me go see it now; a lot of what you wrote to krazykapt reiterates what you wrote in that other thread.

[Lilly Marlene]

Okay, saggyjones, now I'm responding to the post beneath your reply to krazykapt, as you asked.


We need to legalize the ones here for the following reasons:

- The government gets more money from their taxes.

- We don't spend money looking for illegals and deporting them.

- They would have a much better life.

- The strain on the welfare system will be alleviated by us taxing them.

- They won't strain the health care system anymore because they will be taxed and can get health insurance.

- They will be paid the same as Americans and wouldn't be taking jobs away from them.

But we also need to tighten border security so more illegals can't cross.

After legalizing them, the president would explain why it was happening and state that any more illegals would be promptly deported. But the ones here now are already rooted into our economy.


So ...I'll just repeat each one using " " and then bolds to avoid the more cumbersome coding.

"The government gets more money from their taxes."

It has been estimated according to the expertise of both economists and social workers that citizens in the income range most immigrants would achieve - once naturalized - tend to use more dollars in social services than what they contribute with their income, property and sales taxes combined.
These are generally in the form of public education, income support like food stamps and Medicaid, and law enforcement/prison expenses.
Please see the website FAIR.org for a full treatment of that topic.

The only assessment differing with that was made by state employee Carol Strayhorn in Texas, last December, and has been dismantled since that time, because she failed to inject expenses for the County into her equation as a factor.

" We don't spend money looking for illegals and deporting them."

According to your model, we would start doing that immediately following the amnesty, so I fail to follow the reasoning there.

"They would have a much better life."

The job which America's elected officials are hired to do is to take care of Americans first, just as the parent of children is obligated to take care of his or her children before taking care of the neighbor's children.
The presence in this country of 12 to 20 million more low-skilled workers creates stress and depresses wages for low skilled Americans and will continue to do so even after amnesty because of the numbers. That is not an acceptable way to take care of America first.

"The strain on the welfare system will be alleviated by us taxing them."

See my response to your first contention above, of which that contention was essentially an elaboration.

"They won't strain the health care system anymore because they will be taxed and can get health insurance."

LOL, Yeah ... once you start getting taxed on your low skilled job you can easily afford health insurance, right? I guess tens of thousands of US citizens just don't want any health insurance then.


" They will be paid the same as Americans and wouldn't be taking jobs away from them."

It's quite clear that they would be competing for the exact same jobs as many rural and/or mimimally-educated Americans who did NOT enter illegally.

Please recall for example that after the Swift Plant raids in December, lines of Americans citizens were queuing out onto the streets ...US citizens hoping to get those jobs.

"But we also need to tighten border security so more illegals can't cross."

Agreed.

"After legalizing them, the president would explain why it was happening and state that any more illegals would be promptly deported. But the ones here now are already rooted into our economy."

That puppet would explain nothing to them.
Please acquaint yourself with his groveling exchanges last week among our southern neighbors.

Illegal immigrants are 'rooted into our economy' for the sole reason that this administration has allowed it as payback to their corporate buddies for contributions and as part of the globalist plan to weaken our national sovereignty.

[saggyjones]

There is an intelligent comeback. If you had skill at debate, you wouldn't resort to name calling in your post to krazykat.

Guess I don't have skill. But I apologize for the insult and it's been edited. Don't get me wrong, I don't change my opinion of him, because I truly don't like him for what he said about immigrants. But it's not right to say that on a forum, so I apologize krazykat.

[Friendindeed]

Guess I don't have skill. But I apologize for the insult and it's been edited. Don't get me wrong, I don't change my opinion of him, because I truly don't like him for what he said about immigrants. But it's not right to say that on a forum, so I apologize krazykat.


He didn't say it about immigrants.
He said it about ILLEGAL immigrants.
;)
There is a B-I-G difference.

[saggyjones]

Okay, saggyjones, now I'm responding to the post beneath your reply to krazykapt, as you asked.

So ...I'll just repeat each one using " " and then bolds to avoid the more cumbersome coding.

Yeah, it's much easier this way.

"The government gets more money from their taxes."

It has been estimated according to the expertise of both economists and social workers that citizens in the income range most immigrants would achieve - once naturalized - tend to use more dollars in social services than what they contribute with their income, property and sales taxes combined.
These are generally in the form of public education, income support like food stamps and Medicaid, and law enforcement/prison expenses.
Please see the website FAIR.org for a full treatment of that topic.

The only assessment differing with that was made by state employee Carol Strayhorn in Texas, last December, and has been dismantled since that time, because she failed to inject expenses for the County into her equation as a factor.

First of all, can you link to the article? I looked at the FAIR.org archives and there are lots having to do with immigration.

Immigrants go to school and use our tax money for education regardless of status, so that one's out.

About food stamps, this quote explains it:
...'immigrants' need not worry about their 'status' and are encouraged to apply. States are barred (by the federal Privacy Act) from denying an applicant any benefits if the applicant refuses to provide a social security number.

http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2006/11/03/usda-approved-illegal-immigrants-food-stamps-for-illegals/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alipac.us%2Farticle1618.html&frame=true

Hospitals have to accept someone regardless of status. But you're right, Medicaid is something they would be eligible for. I really don't find it possible that they will start taking out more than they will put in with taxes, because they were already using too many government funded programs before they were made legal. (That was a hard tense to write in, so I messed up a bit, but bear with me).

" We don't spend money looking for illegals and deporting them."

According to your model, we would start doing that immediately following the amnesty, so I fail to follow the reasoning there.

I really don't know how to make it more clear, but I'll try. If we make illegal immigrants here now legal, we won't have to spend money deporting them since they'll be legal.

Of course we will spend more money patrolling the border, because we don't want more immigrants entering.

"They would have a much better life."

The job which America's elected officials are hired to do is to take care of Americans first, just as the parent of children is obligated to take care of his or her children before taking care of the neighbor's children.
The presence in this country of 12 to 20 million more low-skilled workers creates stress and depresses wages for low skilled Americans and will continue to do so even after amnesty because of the numbers. That is not an acceptable way to take care of America first.

These 12-20 million low-skilled workers are already here! Making them legal will force companies to pay them minimum wage, which they aren't paying now. That means it would give Americans a chance to compete with them and wages would go up. Just think about it.

"They won't strain the health care system anymore because they will be taxed and can get health insurance."

LOL, Yeah ... once you start getting taxed on your low skilled job you can easily afford health insurance, right? I guess tens of thousands of US citizens just don't want any health insurance then.


No, you can't easily afford health insurance on a low-skilled job. But it gives them the ability because they're legal. Also, some companies provide health insurance.

" They will be paid the same as Americans and wouldn't be taking jobs away from them."

It's quite clear that they would be competing for the exact same jobs as many rural and/or mimimally-educated Americans who did NOT enter illegally.

Please recall for example that after the Swift Plant raids in December, lines of Americans citizens were queuing out onto the streets ...US citizens hoping to get those jobs.

Do you not understand that the illegal immigrants are taking American jobs because they don't get paid minimum wage, because they're illegal? If we make them legal Americans can get the jobs because they will be competing for the same wage.

"After legalizing them, the president would explain why it was happening and state that any more illegals would be promptly deported. But the ones here now are already rooted into our economy."

That puppet would explain nothing to them.
Please acquaint yourself with his groveling exchanges last week among our southern neighbors.

I never mentioned George Bush. Do you think he would actually support legalizing all immigrants here now? I was thinking of a future president.

Illegal immigrants are 'rooted into our economy' for the sole reason that this administration has allowed it as payback to their corporate buddies for contributions and as part of the globalist plan to weaken our national sovereignty.

Actually they are rooted into the economy because they sneak across the border and work for less than minimum wage.

[saggyjones]

He didn't say it about immigrants.
He said it about ILLEGAL immigrants.
;)
There is a B-I-G difference.

Are you saying illegal immigrants aren't people? Or that they just aren't as good people as citizens and legal immigrants?

When he said he's sick of the cries that 'they're just trying to feed the kids' is the reason i called him a dumb a-hole. They are not part of some conspiracy to take over the country, and they are just trying to feed the kids and find a better life for them. Even though they made a mistake coming here illegally, they are still people. I know an illegal family with a terminally ill daughter, and they are some of the nicest people I've ever met. All they're trying to do is get some good health care for the daughter. So until he either takes back or clarifies his remarks, I will stand by my original statement. I deleted it to comply with forum rules.

[Friendindeed]

Are you saying illegal immigrants aren't people? Or that they just aren't as good people as citizens and legal immigrants?

Are you delusional ?
Where did I say anything about them not being people or not being good people.

What I did was clarify the issue you are trying to muddy up, that ILLEGAL immigrants are different than just plain immigrants.

When he said he's sick of the cries that 'they're just trying to feed the kids' is the reason i called him a dumb a-hole. They are not part of some conspiracy to take over the country, and they are just trying to feed the kids and find a better life for them. Even though they made a mistake coming here illegally, they are still people. I know an illegal family with a terminally ill daughter, and they are some of the nicest people I've ever met. All they're trying to do is get some good health care for the daughter. So until he either takes back or clarifies his remarks, I will stand by my original statement. I deleted it to comply with forum rules.

Your fight with krazykat is your own affair, my objection was to the name calling.
You can stop trying to pretend that anyone here has said illegal immigrants aren't people because that is a complete lie.
And finally, your rebuttal of Lily's points is ridiculous. You must not know the first thing about economics, not one of your statements holds water.

[saggyjones]

Are you delusional ?
When did I ever say anything about them not being people or not being good people.

What I did was clarify the issue you are trying to muddy up, that ILLEGAL immigrants are different than just plain immigrants.

"And that song and dance that there only trying to feed the kids is getting old."
That is the quote. It angers me because they are just trying to feed the kids. To think that they are coming here just to take over the country or something is ridiculous. Then when you say there is a big difference between legal and illegal immigrants, I interpreted it as you saying that one group is just trying to feed the kids and one is part of some malicious act other than that. Obviously they're different from a legal standpoint, and I find it hard to believe that you would just say that for no reason.

Your fight with krazykat is your own affair, my objection was to the moronic name calling.

And I apologized and deleted the name.

You can stop trying to pretend that anyone here has said illegal immigrants aren't people because that is a complete lie.

That's your interpretation.

And finally, your rebuttal of Lily's points is completely ridiculous. You must not know the first thing about economics.

Apparently not, because I fail to see how forcing illegal immigrants who are working at less than minimum wage to work at or above minimum wage will take more jobs away from Americans. In fact, it will give them jobs because immigrants and citizens will be working for the same wages, so Americans have a chance to compete.

[Friendindeed]

I'm having trouble with this site now, I'll be back in a little while.

[Friendindeed]

"And that song and dance that there only trying to feed the kids is getting old."
That is the quote. It angers me because they are just trying to feed the kids. To think that they are coming here just to take over the country or something is ridiculous. Then when you say there is a big difference between legal and illegal immigrants, I interpreted it as you saying that one group is just trying to feed the kids and one is part of some malicious act other than that. Obviously they're different from a legal standpoint, and I find it hard to believe that you would just say that for no reason.

That quote is from krazykat, I told you before that's between him and you. Don't try to get answers from me about it, I just objected to you calling him names.

When I remind you that there's a big difference between legal and illegal immigrants, I am not saying they are not people and I am not saying they are trying to take over the country. In fact no one has mentioned those two things except you as far as I can see, so that is why I asked about delusions.


And I apologized and deleted the name.

Cool but you're still discussing him to me, please don't.


That's your interpretation.

There is no other interpretation possible, if I am wrong tell me what the other interpretation is.
Let me refresh your memory. I said there was a big difference between legal and illegal immigrants and you asked me,

"Are you saying illegal immigrants aren't people? Or that they just aren't as good people as citizens and legal immigrants?"


Apparently not, because I fail to see how forcing illegal immigrants who are working at less than minimum wage to work at or above minimum wage will take more jobs away from Americans. In fact, it will give them jobs because immigrants and citizens will be working for the same wages, so Americans have a chance to compete.

Do you understand the most basic principles of supply and demand at all ?
The more workers available to do the job, the lower the wage can and will be kept. Saturation keeps the wage artificially lowered.
I can't believe I even have to tell that to anyone.

[Friendindeed]

I keep editing because I don't want you to criticize my spelling like you did the other guy's lol.
Now I will tell you why I ridiculed your rebuttal to Lily's points.


Immigrants go to school and use our tax money for education regardless of status, so that one's out.

Nope, not out.
That is why we have a limit on the number of LEGAL immigrants and why the schools are so burdened because of ILLEGAL immigrants which exceed the numbers we can absorb. Legalizing all of them will not change that at all.


About food stamps, this quote explains it:

Just like with the schools, we allow only a limited number of immigrants for a reason. All of those extra unplanned ones are a heavy burden on these social services and they will need them after they are "legalized" too because there is always a percentage of people who don't keep a job or who go to prison or who get a catastrophic illness.


Hospitals have to accept someone regardless of status. But you're right, Medicaid is something they would be eligible for. I really don't find it possible that they will start taking out more than they will put in with taxes, because they were already using too many government funded programs before they were made legal.

Are you aware that that doesn't even make sense ?
Read what you wrote again and you will see that. You are saying that because they have been using too many government funded programs before being legal, that means it is not possible that they will use more than their tax contributions after they are legalized.
WTF, give me one reason why that would be true.


I really don't know how to make it more clear, but I'll try. If we make illegal immigrants here now legal, we won't have to spend money deporting them since they'll be legal.

You didn't answer the point. At all. Her point was not even about saving money on deportation, it was about how you said deporting doesn't work and then you said we should start deporting anyone who comes after the amnesty.


These 12-20 million low-skilled workers are already here! Making them legal will force companies to pay them minimum wage, which they aren't paying now. That means it would give Americans a chance to compete with them and wages would go up. Just think about it.

Again you failed to deal with the point. She said that the motivation to hire them has been the slave level compensation so there would be a large number that would lose their jobs.

And saturation of the labor market as both Lily and I and someone else has pointed out to you.
Another point you have not answered.

No, you can't easily afford health insurance on a low-skilled job. But it gives them the ability because they're legal.

Wrong. It doesn't give them the ability. It gives them legal status to buy it if they have the ability but most won't have the ability.


Do you not understand that the illegal immigrants are taking American jobs because they don't get paid minimum wage, because they're illegal? If we make them legal Americans can get the jobs because they will be competing for the same wage.


Do YOU not understand that there are only so many jobs available ?
You also didn't answer her point about the Swift raids or the stress on low skill class from importing direct competition even at equal wages.


I never mentioned George Bush. Do you think he would actually support legalizing all immigrants here now?

Of course he would.
What in the bloody hell do you think he has been promoting for the past two or three years ?

Actually they are rooted into the economy because they sneak across the border and work for less than minimum wage.

Because they have been deliberately allowed to do that. So you failed again to answer the point because the point being made was about the open border as a favor to corporations from people like George Bush.


[coming back later to add one more thing]
Do you understand what the big picture is and what the plans are for the United States and Mexico ? Until you do it will not be possible to get a grip on why any of this is happening and you will only be looking at the symptoms and not the disease.

And please don't ask me if I am saying illegal immigrants are a disease, I am using an analogy.

[saggyjones]

That quote is from krazykat, I told you before that's between him and you. Don't try to get answers from me about it, I just objected to you calling him names.

When I remind you that there's a big difference between legal and illegal immigrants, I am not saying they are not people and I am not saying they are trying to take over the country. In fact no one has mentioned those two things except you as far as I can see, so that is why I asked about delusions.

Cool but you're still discussing him to me, please [don't.

But you're the one who brought it up. Are you allowed to discuss him and I'm not? Or do you just decide when the discussion ends? I can discuss whatever I want; you have the freedom not to respond to it, which I assume you will choose to take.

There is no other interpretation possible, if I am wrong tell me what the other interpretation is.

Let me refresh your memory. I said there was a big difference between legal and illegal immigrants and you asked me,

"Are you saying illegal immigrants aren't people? Or that they just aren't as good people as citizens and legal immigrants?"

I already explained my interpretation in the last post.

Do you understand the most basic principles of supply and demand at all ?

I thought so...

The more workers available to do the job, the lower the wage can and will be kept. Saturation keeps the wage artificially lowered.
I can't believe I even have to tell that to anyone.

They are already at minimum wage! It can't get any lower! Making them legal will raise the wage to minimum; after that of course it's going to stay there.

[Friendindeed]

But you're the one who brought it up. Are you allowed to discuss him and I'm not? Or do you just decide when the discussion ends? I can discuss whatever I want; you have the freedom not to respond to it, which I assume you will choose to take.

No, I did not bring up the topic of krazykat and his attitudes, I just objected to the name calling. I do not know krazykat from the man in the moon and so there is no use in you repeating what he said and expecting me to answer for it.
Do you understand the words coming out of my mouth?

I had two things only to say about krazykat. Number one stop calling him names, and number two, he didn't say immigrants he said ILLEGAL immigrants.


I thought so...


Well I don't think you do if you cannot see the harm involved when we import direct foreign competition to a whole class of workers who are already at the bottom of the heap.


They are already at minimum wage! It can't get any lower! Making them legal will raise the wage to minimum; after that of course it's going to stay there.


Wrong on two counts. One of the reasons that the Swift plant incurred legal trouble after the raids is that the wages had been held down by hiring illegals.
And where you were also wrong is that it was not minimum wage, it was $11 an hour.
Everything wrong with your arguments bascily comes down to a lack of correct information.

What about all my other points and what about my remark on the big picture ?

[Lilly Marlene]

saggyjones, having read the rest of the thread I can see that most of my remarks were vindicated amply well by Friendindeed.

You did ask me for a link to the article; here is one to which you might give better consideration than the FAIR article, because it is authored by those who presumably share more of your views:

http://www.progressiveu.org/093920-why-legalizing-immigration-is-a-bad-thing-very-bad-with-capital-letters

[saggyjones]

saggyjones, having read the rest of the thread I can see that most of my remarks were vindicated amply well by Friendindeed.

You did ask me for a link to the article; here is one to which you might give better consideration than the FAIR article, because it is authored by those who presumably share more of your views:

http://www.progressiveu.org/093920-why-legalizing-immigration-is-a-bad-thing-very-bad-with-capital-letters

I still don't think you understand me, I support tightening border security, even a wall. I don't want more immigrants coming here. I hope you get it with this post because I don't know how to put in any clearer.

By the way I read the article, and they share my views on tightening security, but not on sending them back now.

[saggyjones]

No, I did not bring up the topic of krazykat and his attitudes, I just objected to the name calling. I do not know krazykat from the man in the moon and so there is no use in you repeating what he said and expecting me to answer for it.
Do you understand the words coming out of my mouth?

I had two things only to say about krazykat. Number one stop calling him names, and number two, he didn't say immigrants he said ILLEGAL immigrants.

OK, I think the issue is settled then.

Well I don't think you do if you cannot see the harm involved when we import direct foreign competition to a whole class of workers who are already at the bottom of the heap.

We aren't importing it, the illegals are already here. Are you reading my posts at all?

Wrong on two counts. One of the reasons that the Swift plant incurred legal trouble after the raids is that the wages had been held down by hiring illegals.
And where you were also wrong is that it was not minimum wage, it was $11 an hour.
Everything wrong with your arguments bascily comes down to a lack of correct information.

The Swift plant is not the majority of illegal workers. It is in agriculture picking plants, and they get paid less than minimum wage. Once they become legal they will demand higher wages.

[Lilly Marlene]

I still don't think you understand me, I support tightening border security, even a wall. I don't want more immigrants coming here. I hope you get it with this post because I don't know how to put in any clearer.

Of course I understand you; we are speaking the same language and I'm not an idiot.

I know that you support tightening the border ...as I recall our disagreement was over whether to grant citizenship or not.

I pointed out to you what the devastating consequences were when Reagan did that in 1986, and you have not given any response.

I also cited the harm of importing direct competition into the US - legal or not - for the most vulnerable classes of US laborer ...to which you have also given no response.

In fact, I wish you would reread my entire post and respond to those and all the rest of the points.

[Lilly Marlene]

The Swift plant is not the majority of illegal workers. It is in agriculture picking plants, and they get paid less than minimum wage. Once they become legal they will demand higher wages.

Do you still not understand that there are completely different stipulations covering agricultural work ?

[saggyjones]

Nope, not out.
That is why we have a limit on the number of LEGAL immigrants and why the schools are so burdened because of ILLEGAL immigrants which exceed the numbers we can absorb. Legalizing all of them will not change that at all.

They will pay taxes.

Just like with the schools, we allow only a limited number of immigrants for a reason. All of those extra unplanned ones are a heavy burden on these social services and they will need them after they are "legalized" too because there is always a percentage of people who don't keep a job or who go to prison or who get a catastrophic illness.

But they already use food stamps, and they will pay taxes.

Are you aware that that doesn't even make sense ?
Read what you wrote again and you will see that. You are saying that because they have been using too many government funded programs before being legal, that means it is not possible that they will use more than their tax contributions after they are legalized.
WTF, give me one reason why that would be true.

They will pay taxes, and since they are already using many government funded programs, the difference between them being illegal and legal will be more than made up once they pay taxes. It's kind of hard to phrase and I hope you understand now.

You didn't answer the point. At all. Her point was not even about saving money on deportation, it was about how you said deporting doesn't work and then you said we should start deporting anyone who comes after the amnesty.

Deportation is difficult with so many immigrants, but if we tighten border security fewer will get in. I really don't know how to answer this; of course it doesn't work all that well but how does that affect giving amnesty to people? In fact it strengthens my argument. I understand your logic but it really isn't an answerable question, because there are no alternatives to deportation of future illegals after amnesty to the ones here.

Again you failed to deal with the point. She said that the motivation to hire them has been the slave level compensation so there would be a large number that would lose their jobs.

And saturation of the labor market as both Lily and I and someone else has pointed out to you.
Another point you have not answered.

The unemployment rate will still be the same though.

How can you saturate a market when there are illegals already here? I don't want to add new ones. Think of a sponge that is filled with water; if you add water, it will get bigger. But if you take water already in the sponge and move it somewhere else in the sponge it won't get any bigger.

Wrong. It doesn't give them the ability. It gives them legal status to buy it if they have the ability but most won't have the ability.

So you agree that they have the ability to buy insurance.

Do YOU not understand that there are only so many jobs available ?
You also didn't answer her point about the Swift raids or the stress on low skill class from importing direct competition even at equal wages.

Once again I don't support new illegals immigrating.

Also I believe I answered her question sufficiently. You are simply attacking my response rather than trying to respond yourself.

Of course he would.
What in the bloody hell do you think he has been promoting for the past two or three years ?

You got me on this one; I forgot about his immigration bill. It's just so unlike him.

Because they have been deliberately allowed to do that.

Does that change the fact that they are rooted into the economy?

So you failed again to answer the point because the point being made was about the open border as a favor to corporations from people like George Bush.

What does this have to do with George Bush? We're not debating reasons behind his policy in this thread.

It seems that you believe answering the point means agreeing with you. I have sufficiently addressed the point and I really don't care if you don't think so.

[coming back later to add one more thing]
Do you understand what the big picture is and what the plans are for the United States and Mexico ? Until you do it will not be possible to get a grip on why any of this is happening and you will only be looking at the symptoms and not the disease.

And please don't ask me if I am saying illegal immigrants are a disease, I am using an analogy.

I don't support more illegal immigrants coming, as I've said.

[Lilly Marlene]

They will pay taxes.

You told me you had read the Progressive article I linked for you. Please reread the sixth paragraph, which indicates why the income taxes they would pay CAN NOT cover the expenditures they would require in education, health care, prison and other social programs. As a matter of fact, our expenditures on these benefits for them will increase because they will be entitled to apply for a little more than they now can. Again, you can read that in the sixth paragraph or else go to the two other websites I mentioned prior to that (CIS or FAIR).


But they already use food stamps, and they will pay taxes.

As above (read the article, which gives numbers instead of just opinions).


They will pay taxes, and since they are already using many government funded programs, the difference between them being illegal and legal will be more than made up once they pay taxes. It's kind of hard to phrase and I hope you understand now.

By now (having hopefully read the article[s] more attentively) you will probably no longer be asserting that their income taxes will cover it.

I think part of the problem is also that you don't seem to understand this: infrastructure is dependent on planning for a projected estimate of the number of persons. You make your case as though an infinite number of people can be served by an infrastructure stipulated for a finite number of US citizens, LEGAL immigrants within calculated parameters, and their offspring.

Please keep in mind also that the people to whom you want to extend another amnesty are mostly very traditionally Catholic in their reproductive ethos.
Thus,
You have not only the 12-20 million (or more) people who were not considered in the planning, but you also have their children.

Why should we misrepresent reality in looking at this ... just to assist the likes of G.W. Bush in helping his buddies keep wages artificially lowered as well as do away with our national sovereignty ?


Deportation is difficult with so many immigrants, but if we tighten border security fewer will get in. I really don't know how to answer this; of course it doesn't work all that well but how does that affect giving amnesty to people? In fact it strengthens my argument. I understand your logic but it really isn't an answerable question, because there are no alternatives to deportation of future illegals after amnesty to the ones here.

There really will be no need to roundup and deport anyone. They will deport themselves back home soon after the jobs and welfare dry up for them.
But yes -
your logic is noticeably flawed as I highlighted earlier, because you said deportation is an unsuccessful tactic ...and yet you suggest an amnesty followed by a deportation strategy.


And by the way - contrary to what you wrote - Friendindeed did NOT agree with you that illegal immigrants will have the ability to buy health insurance just because they are granted citizenship.

He merely said they would have the legal status to buy it. As I pointed out to you long ago, most will be poorer even than the many US citizens who cannot afford health insurance, so it is absurd to suppose that they would be able to afford it. They mostly will not be.


The unemployment rate will still be the same though.

Please explain how that could be possible.


How can you saturate a market when there are illegals already here? I don't want to add new ones. Think of a sponge that is filled with water; if you add water, it will get bigger. But if you take water already in the sponge and move it somewhere else in the sponge it won't get any bigger.

Giving amnesty does not "move it somewhere else". It keeps all the extra water in a sponge which badly needs wringing out.
The market is already saturated as shown by the example I gave you of the Swift plant.

And as I mentioned before,
The amnesty would also be a slap in the face to every person who comes here legally, fills out the paperwork, undergoes screening for infectious disease and violent criminal history, and so forth.


Also I believe I answered her question sufficiently.

No, you actually did not answer my question sufficiently.

If - as you claim - the foreign nationals are not competing for the same jobs as many American citizens, then why were US citizens lined up fanning out into the streets at the Swift plant the next day, hoping to get those jobs after the illegal immigrant workers were arrested ?

Please do not tell me that the Swift plant was a unique situation because the same thing happened at the Smithfield plant in North Carolina.

As anyone can plainly see, that competition will still be in place even if the competitors are legal. And obviously, the more people who want the job, the less the employer can get away with offering to pay.

[Koios]

This seems to be a hot topic... so I just wanted to give a friendly reminder to try to keep things as "civilized" as possible.

Now that that's out of the way. I would like to point out that many strong economies have historically needed a form of "migrant" labor (i.e Japan has Korea and South Africa had bantustan/homelands).

Here is something to ponder about. A good friend used to work for the border patrol but after years of noticing the same trend he decided to quit. What he noticed is that during certain times of the year they would be told not to patrol certain areas of the border and instead to patrol less active areas. Again, I emphasis, our current economic model relies heavily on migrant labor.

[Friendindeed]

This seems to be a hot topic... so I just wanted to give a friendly reminder to try to keep things as "civilized" as possible.

If you are referring to the insult back on the other page, the person edited it out of his post.


Now that that's out of the way. I would like to point out that many strong economies have historically needed a form of "migrant" labor (i.e Japan has Korea and South Africa had bantustan/homelands).

No one I know is opposed to LEGAL migrant labor especially for seasonal agricultural work.


Here is something to ponder about. A good friend used to work for the border patrol but after years of noticing the same trend he decided to quit. What he noticed is that during certain times of the year they would be told not to patrol certain areas of the border and instead to patrol less active areas. Again, I emphasis, our current economic model relies heavily on migrant labor.

He was told that because it serves business interests for cheap labor that is easy to exploit. I have heard other BP stories that were similar.

It's complete crap too, telling them to turn a blind eye to lawbreakers just to favor business interests. Just because something is currently being done does not make it right.

[Koios]

Just to clarify, when I cited the need for migrant labor by other major economies I was actually referring to so called "illegal" migrant labor. Like has been pointed out many times before, if there was no demand for "illegal" migrant labor then these "illegals" would not come here in the first place. This is why I believe strongly in implementing heavier fines for those businesses that continue to hire them.


PS: I just don't want personal attacks to get in the way of such a great discussion.... it was just a friendly reminder, don't worry, I too understand that abuse of authority will also render this discussion useless.

[Lilly Marlene]

Just to clarify, when I cited the need for migrant labor by other major economies I was actually referring to so called "illegal" migrant labor. Like has been pointed out many times before, if there was no demand for "illegal" migrant labor then these "illegals" would not come here in the first place. This is why I believe strongly in implementing heavier fines for those businesses that continue to hire them.

I can surely agree with that !

It is not difficult to see the position in which some business owners are placed, particularly smaller business owners .
But even so,
the status quo is unacceptable chiefly because it calls on the middle and lower classes to pick up the tab for that situation.
They pick up the tab in terms of tax dollars and (as per the article and the other two websites I posted) that is significant and will not be relieved by income taxes the illegal immigrants would pay if granted amnesty citizenship.

But the middle and lower classes - particularly the lower classes - also pick up that tab in terms of stressed infrastructure, in the areas they populate.
For example,
I live in a border state and at one point a full half of our elementary schools in my town were "on probation" because of failing scores.
Why?
It was due to the strain of that influx of non-English speaking children ...contrary to what some people might think, the program is not "immersion" at all - instead everything is translated for them which of course slows down the learning of the entire class.

I have some additional material I'd like to offer, let me go get that.

[Lilly Marlene]

This is a site I happened to see which summarizes one portion of the CIS section I alluded to (saggyjones asked me to link it and instead I had given him a link to a more left leaning source which I thought he might prefer).
It addresses the problem of the saturated pool of labor which is what was being explored in the sponge analogy:

From www.familysecuritymatters.org:

As for the economic impact of illegal immigration, I would urge you to read a report for the Center for Immigration Studies by no less an authority than George J. Borjas, a noted economist and the Robert W. Scrivner Professor of Economics and Social Policy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. You can find this report at:

http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/back504.html

To sum up some of Prof. Borjas' findings:

. By increasing the supply of labor between 1980 and 2000 immigration reduced the average annual earnings of native-born men by an estimated $1,700 or roughly 4 percent.

. Among natives without a high school education, who roughly correspond to the poorest tenth of the workforce, the estimated impact was even larger, reducing their wages by 7.4 percent.

. The 10 million native-born workers without a high school degree face the most competition from immigrants, as do the eight million younger natives with only a high school education and 12 million younger college graduates.

. The negative effect on native-born black and Hispanic workers is significantly larger than on whites because a much larger share of minorities are in direct competition with immigrants.

. The reduction in earnings occurs regardless of whether the immigrants are legal or illegal, permanent
or temporary. It is the presence of additional workers that reduces wages, not their legal status.

His report was prepared in 2004. Obviously, the rapid increase in the number of illegal aliens in the United States can only have exacerbated the impact on wages since then.

[saggyjones]

i'll reply when i get the chance

[Friendindeed]

PS: I just don't want personal attacks to get in the way of such a great discussion.... it was just a friendly reminder, don't worry, I too understand that abuse of authority will also render this discussion useless.

Know what you are talking about there, I saw that first hand on a couple of other boards. Your level of moderator involvement here is excellent in my opinion.

[Koios]

Know what you are talking about there, I saw that first hand on a couple of other boards. Your level of moderator involvement here is excellent in my opinion.

Thanks, I appreciate it. Please always feel free to notify us whenever you may start seeing any of us abuse our power--even if that is me or the Admin (hehehe).

Lilly, I appreciate the sources.. they are excellent.

My main problem is that I don't really see a clear solution to the problem--I almost feel like I could literally choose and pick any side and argue this issue and still make quite valid points. I know this is possible with almost any topic of debate but I think it is more so with this issue.

[Lilly Marlene]

I guess the reasons this issue seems clear cut to me are:

1. It is never fair - it never will be fair - for one segment of the population to accrue a non-emergency benefit at the expense of another segment, especially if that other segment is already in a more unfortunate position.

[The benefit is to business owners; that benefit is a steady pool of cheap, docile, easily-manipulated labor with no bargaining leverage of their own.
The class who pays for it is the lower middle and lower class of this country - already two of the most vulnerable groups of US citizens.]

2. No matter what benefits we can cite ...even to consumers as a result of keeping costs down ...
they are possible only secondary to exploitation of the foreign nationals.
Thus, that puts us in a similar position to those who derived benefits from slavery and on another level also to those who lived in the last days of the Roman Empire.

3. Even if we were to reward the illegal entry with citizenship, that would not in any way ameliorate the problems presented to the lower-middle and lower classes from importing direct competition against them, as my citations have shown.