FanboyOf91 Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 Cucked! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 36 minutes ago, Larry said: Could you point or quote the part of the above that shows that illegals pay more to the government than they consume? (You know, the claim you made?) I do think we get some indication from the Heritage Foundation study right? The article Twa posted says: Quote In contrast to lawful immigrants, unlawful immigrants at present do not have access to means-tested welfare, Social Security, or Medicare. This does not mean, however, that they do not receive government benefits and services. Children in unlawful immigrant households receive heavily subsidized public education. Many unlawful immigrants have U.S.-born children; these children are currently eligible for the full range of government welfare and medical benefits. And, of course, when unlawful immigrants live in a community, they use roads, parks, sewers, police, and fire protection; these services must expand to cover the added population or there will be “congestion” effects that lead to a decline in service quality. To get to their number of 24K of government costs per illegal immigrant household, Heritage foundation includes 1) Public education (looks like for both illegal immigrants and US citizen children of illegal immigrants) 2) Full range of government benefits to US citizen children of illegal immigrants 3) Use of road, parks, sewers, police, fire (I have no idea whether these costs are reflected in the 24K and if so, how Heritage would quantify this cost) Assuming the use of road, etc is not included, main cost breaks down to public education for illegal immigrants, public education for US citizen children of illegal immigrants, and government benefits to US citizen children of illegal immigrants. I don't think it is fair to include costs attributable to US citizen children of illegal immigrants as costs attributable to illegal immigrants. Even without the presence of illegal immigrant parents, these children would be legally entitled to those assistance (and quite frankly would add to it by virtue of foster care costs). That leaves us with public education for illegal immigrants. As of now, law restricting public education for illegal immigrants is actually unconstitutional. I'm also not sure what portion of the averaged 24K is attributable to public education for actual illegally present children. I think the main concern of studies like the one from Heritage is the concern that future burden on the system by illegal immigrants after legalization. Currently, it seems hard to see how they pose a bigger burden than contribution without some creative definition. With regards to future burden, I think any immigration reform will have to legislative address that issue with care and thought. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 58 minutes ago, bearrock said: I do think we get some indication from the Heritage Foundation study right? The article Twa posted says: To get to their number of 24K of government costs per illegal immigrant household, Heritage foundation includes 1) Public education (looks like for both illegal immigrants and US citizen children of illegal immigrants) 2) Full range of government benefits to US citizen children of illegal immigrants 3) Use of road, parks, sewers, police, fire (I have no idea whether these costs are reflected in the 24K and if so, how Heritage would quantify this cost) Assuming the use of road, etc is not included, main cost breaks down to public education for illegal immigrants, public education for US citizen children of illegal immigrants, and government benefits to US citizen children of illegal immigrants. I don't think it is fair to include costs attributable to US citizen children of illegal immigrants as costs attributable to illegal immigrants. Even without the presence of illegal immigrant parents, these children would be legally entitled to those assistance (and quite frankly would add to it by virtue of foster care costs). That leaves us with public education for illegal immigrants. As of now, law restricting public education for illegal immigrants is actually unconstitutional. I'm also not sure what portion of the averaged 24K is attributable to public education for actual illegally present children. I think the main concern of studies like the one from Heritage is the concern that future burden on the system by illegal immigrants after legalization. Currently, it seems hard to see how they pose a bigger burden than contribution without some creative definition. With regards to future burden, I think any immigration reform will have to legislative address that issue with care and thought. There's some excellent basis, there, for a conclusion that the article twa posted is an inflated number. But not to jump from his article's claim of vast government costs, to your claim of vast government profit. (And I'll point out that yous assertion that "law restricting public education for illegal immigrants is actually unconstitutional" in no way supports any assertion that said education doesn't cost. And whether it costs or not is the topic being debated.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 2 hours ago, FanboyOf91 said: Cucked! Waiting for this same tweet regarding Trump's new tax plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 23 minutes ago, Larry said: There's some excellent basis, there, for a conclusion that the article twa posted is an inflated number. But not to jump from his article's claim of vast government costs, to your claim of vast government profit. (And I'll point out that yous assertion that "law restricting public education for illegal immigrants is actually unconstitutional" in no way supports any assertion that said education doesn't cost. And whether it costs or not is the topic being debated.) Ok, let's approach it another way (BTW, the assertion regarding public education and constitutionality, that's Plyler v. Doe, but I concede that's besides the point). If we can agree that only government spending fairly attributable to presence of illegal immigrant right now is spending on public education for illegal immigrant children, the formula would be comparing (# of illegal immigrant children X per student spending) vs total tax revenue from illegal immigrants. State and local tax contribution is apparently 11 to 12 billion. I couldn't find federal contribution studies, but this article sheds some light https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/undocumented-immigrants-and-taxes/499604/ Quote The Social Security system has grown increasingly reliant on this stream of revenue, particularly as aging Baby Boomers start to retire. Stephen Goss, the chief actuary of the Social Security Administration, estimates that about 1.8 million immigrants were working with fake or stolen Social Security cards in 2010, and he expects that number to reach 3.4 million by 2040. He calculates that undocumented immigrants paid $13 billion into the retirement trust fund that year, and only got about $1 billion in benefits. “We estimate that earnings by unauthorized immigrants result in a net positive effect on Social Security financial status generally, and that this effect contributed roughly $12 billion to the cash flow of the program for 2010,” Gross concluded in a 2013 review of the impact of undocumented immigrants on Social Security. also from article Quote And in the past 20 years, the Internal Revenue Service has made it easier for workers to pay taxes if they don’t have a social security number (or a fake one, for that matter). Workers who are paid illegally in cash can still pay their taxes with an Individual Tax Identification Number (ITIN), filing a return just like any other taxpayer; having a history of paying taxes can be an important step in securing legal status. In 2010, about 3 million people paid over $870 million in income taxes using an ITIN, and according to the IRS, ITIN filers pay $9 billion in payroll taxes annually. (The IRS says it does not share ITIN information with immigration authorities.) Now, legal immigrants and non-immigrants with work permit gets a SSN, so they do not use ITIN. Quite frankly, only people with legal status who I can imagine needing an ITIN while in US are spouses of non-immigrants without work permits, but needing to file joint returns. There is also medicare tax, which would be about a quarter of of Social Security tax, so that's another 3 billion or so. So, Federal, state, local, would be 12(ss) + 3(medi) + 11(state+local) even without figuring in fed income tax. That's 26 billion per year. Using average of 12K per student, if we are paying for more than 2.167 million illegal immigrant children in public schools, it's a net loss without figuring in federal income tax (which should be a large amount considering what is being collected as SS and medi tax). According to Wikipedia, about 2 million illegal immigrants are below the age of 18, which would capture more than just those in public school. Some estimates show as low as 777K school aged children, although that seems low. But even if the number is close to 2 million like Wikipedia's source, 26 billion plus federal income tax would far surpass the cost of educating illegal immigrant children in public schools. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 that we do not even have good numbers on the kids in schools illustrates the problems. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 11 minutes ago, twa said: that we do not even have good numbers on the kids in schools illustrates the problems. I agree with you. Which has been happening with alarming frequency lately 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redmustangpony Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 Simply put, you want to come here do it the right way like others have. Can't afford to just let everybody come here and not know who they are or if they pose a risk to our communities . The way things are now, better safe than sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elessar78 Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 11 minutes ago, redmustangpony said: Simply put, you want to come here do it the right way like others have. Can't afford to just let everybody come here and not know who they are or if they pose a risk to our communities . The way things are now, better safe than sorry. More xenophobia. For pretty much the whole existence of America most people have come here without background checks. Most of the terrorist attacks, until 9/11, were perpetrated by guys named "Mcveigh", "Rudolph", "Lanza", "Harris". You need to go look at the federal budget and see where most money is spent. You'd figure out the pretty quickly it's not immigrants or immigrants kids that are the problem. come back when you can tell me where most of Federal expenditures go toward. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 (edited) "Do it the right way" translated means "you're screwed because we ain't letting you in." I bet that most saying that have no freaking clue that what they are suggesting is nearly impossible, that it's like getting a winning lottery ticket. If you're not highly skilled, well connected, wealthy or getting married then your chances of getting an immigration visa to the US are miniscule. Sooo many on the Right still think all these immigrants have to do is go and get checked out at some "Ellis Island" like place to get premission to enter just like their grand parents did. That concept is laughable. The reality is that under current immigration laws there won't be stories from this generation of an immigramt travelling to the US with nothing but the clothes on his/her back to make it in America. Those histories will die with our grandfathers. Today, you need to be getting paid or getting laid to immigrate to the US. The rest are screwed. http://g92.org/find-answers/process/ Edited February 24, 2017 by AsburySkinsFan 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elessar78 Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 Further, I see a lot of disdain for education in the high school aged here in this old Rust Belt town. Not all, but a good percentage. I see the mid-twenties version of these high schoolers underemployed and complaining about minorities taking their jobs. Uh, no. You didn't gun it in high school so this is your lot in life. Ironic when the personal responsibility crowd blames others for their plight. but don't worry, the Democratic part is trying to help you-because it's not your fault. You probably don't realize the generational forces at play. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 10 hours ago, bearrock said: Now, legal immigrants and non-immigrants with work permit gets a SSN, so they do not use ITIN. Quite frankly, only people with legal status who I can imagine needing an ITIN while in US are spouses of non-immigrants without work permits, but needing to file joint returns. Any dependent will have an ITIN, including kids. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 6 minutes ago, Corcaigh said: Any dependent will have an ITIN, including kids. I guess I should narrow it to anyone with legal status, without ssn, but also pay taxes (either as single or joint filer). Dependents with ITINs aren't contributing to the revenue mentioned above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 I keep thinking demographics rules most macro economic models. We have a baby boom generation approaching retirement. It will hurt our economy as things stand now, but if one needs to feel better, it is a problem shared across all of the industrialized world save for one country, The U.S. is lucky because the only country that is not facing an aging population issue happens to be directly to our south with a long history of sending workforce northward. If you worry about the our economic output lowering our status in the world over the next generation, I would point out the areas most frequently thought to take over first place are in a worse spot than we are. China is in much worse shape due to 30 years of a one child law. India and Europe have larger baby boomer problems than we do. At the end of the day, we need workers to produce the goods and services that make our economy productive. If the thought is the immigrants don't have the skills we need, I would say that is on us. We need to train them to the point where they can be a net positive in this generation or the next. Assimilation is a tough problem, but I would maintain it is a better problem to have than the problem of a decline in the potential size of an economy's workforce. I think of it as like having ants in your house. It's annoying, but it beats having termites. Since ants and termites don't peacefully coexist, having ants generally means not having termites. Likewise, having an immigrant workforce beats not having workers. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor703 Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 4 hours ago, AsburySkinsFan said: "Do it the right way" translated means "you're screwed because we ain't letting you in." I bet that most saying that have no freaking clue that what they are suggesting is nearly impossible, that it's like getting a winning lottery ticket. If you're not highly skilled, well connected, wealthy or getting martied then your chances of getting an immigration visa to the US are miniscule. Sooo many on the Right still think all these immigrants have to do is go and get checked out at some "Ellis Island" like place to get premission to enter just like their grand parents did. That concept is laughable. The reality is that under current immigration laws there won't be stories from this generation of an immigramt travelling to the US with nothing but the clothes on his/her back to make it in America. Those histories will die with our grandfathers. Today, you need to be getting paid or getting laid to immigrate to the US. The rest are screwed. http://g92.org/find-answers/process/ So I'm confused? What do you propose we do? Should we just let everyone in, laws be damned? Should you be rewarded for illegally entering a country? I'm not trying to be a dick, I just want to know how you feel things should be handled... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 17 minutes ago, Taylor703 said: So I'm confused? What do you propose we do? Should we just let everyone in, laws be damned? Should you be rewarded for illegally entering a country? I'm not trying to be a dick, I just want to know how you feel things should be handled... Right, because the only option between the "paid or laid" system is 100% open borders. That's what we call the falacy of bifurcation because you're presenting this as if there are only two options 1) status quo or 2) anarchy. The reality is that lots of options have been suggested for decades including legal work status for existing undocumented workers, real and possible paths to citizenship for existing and incoming people that aren't punitive and don't deport. I'm all for deporting violent offenders etc. But the folks who are here and are part of our society (i.e. picking your veggies and cooking my food) deserve the chance to continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 As someone who looks at this at times through a lens other than a political one, I remain focused on the long-established truth of the ease and effectiveness of manipulating fear, even if the degree of the fear isn't supported by factual reality. If you look at the main trump themes of appeal to his base (muslim ban/wall/crime-cops-blacks/ icky-sex people/war on xtians) there are claimed/perceived threats behind each of them giving them their passion and strength, whereas the actual threat of each is exceeded by a number of very much more real and pressing matters that demand better addressing than we currently provide. Nor do the proposed solutions really seem to offer real gains in most cases and even can hamper things getting better. Like reasonable people say, all those topics are real problems and should be addressed, too, and immigration has long been need of serious reform and politicians on both sides have failed. I think trump's political use of these victims of murder committed by undocumented crimmals gets downright disgusting, though I understand the anger of the victims' families themselves. More than the resources to building that wall to fight that supposed threat (efficacy very debatable) what about that level of interest and alarm being devoted to our culturally widespread spouse and child abuse in this great xtian nation, or addressing the penal system (a huge deal) and crime, period---inc. the murders committed by white rural legal citizens cuz it ain't just non-whites in "depleted urban areas" who are crooks, thieves, looters, drug dealers, and murderers. The list of other **** not even being called out as "time to ****ing end THIS ****" is long. Certainly in politics right now, it's fear and emotion and manipulation, and a great deal of xenophobic attitude, denials aside > arguing within informed, rational, factual, and pragmatic boundaries. Religion and politics. There are reasons. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Why am I Mr. Pink? Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 "Reptile" approach to persuading a group of people. Very very effective. It basically started with Karl Rove theory and strategy in re to tort reform -- about 10 to 15 years ago you may remember hearing a whole lot of hub bub about how doctors cant afford malpractice insurance anymore bc costs are skyrocketing and how doctor's offices have to close down and how towns now dont have doctors and sick dying children have to drive 700 miles to the nearest doctor etc .... It was a way to subconsciously effect potential jurors into thinking that if they award big verdicts, they are hurting their own community and perhaps themselves if they ever need medical help but no doctors would be there. Reptile strategy has taken the plaintiffs' bar by storm. The Reptile theory asserts that you can prevail at trial by speaking to, and scaring, the primitive part of jurors' brains, the part of the brain they share with reptiles. The Reptile strategy purports to provide a blueprint to succeeding at trial by applying advanced neuroscientific techniques to pretrial discovery and trial. The fundamental concept is that the reptile brain is conditioned to favor safety and survival. Therefore, if plaintiff's' counsel can reach the reptilian portion of the jurors' brains, they can influence their decisions; the jurors will instinctively choose to protect their families and community from danger through their verdict. Thus, the focus of the plaintiff’s case is on the conduct of the defendant, not the injuries of the plaintiff. The jurors are not interested in plaintiff’s injury, even when severe, according to the theory. Rather, the only truly effective way to engage jurors is to demonstrate how the defendant's conduct endangers the jurors and their families. ^^ very basic overview. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FanboyOf91 Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 Another Trump cabinet member cleaning up for the boss' tomfoolery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 rience and bannon, talking to matt shclapp, made it real clear that despite all the pull trump feels from varying directions at times, they are both "dogged" in making sure trump does exactly what he said he would do during his campaign on every promise, and thinking that because of getting elected and there are more competing voices now in play that it will go otherwise is mistaken... i wonder if such assertions by those top two admin figures might be used by a court re: "ok then---it is a muslim ban" maybe we still might even see a lock up hillary deal sometime Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 (edited) Let's hear it for the rainbow tour.... Edited February 23, 2017 by visionary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 I understand why others will react negatively to it, but my hat's off to the members of the various faith communities that are starting a new underground railroad type of support for immigrants. That seems more like WWJD to me. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 How are we really expecting sustained 3 percent growth in GDP with a declining work age population? Do people ever think what that would mean in their job or business? Imagine being told you must make more this year and more again every year after...right after being told your hours are being cut...and your hours will be cut every year. Maybe...If you can count on new tech to make your job easier, but the new tech better be exclusively yours or you will lose business to your competitors. Don't worry though because we are cutting education because new tech advancements don't come from studies. We need more workers to at least offset some of the demographic losses we will see in coming years. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 Constantly being told to do more with less? Sounds like typical private sector to me. On the flip side the government's mentality seems to do less with more. One seems to be doing better than the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 8 hours ago, gbear said: The U.S. is lucky because the only country that is not facing an aging population issue happens to be directly to our south with a long history of sending workforce northward. Have you worked in a Mexican restaurant? I did for 10 years. Made it all the way to General Manager. I'm white, known the owner forever, btw. My non-English-speaking kitchen manager made more than me. I'd been in the biz for 20 years at the time, a former salaried Hardee's and Arby's manager. They send folks here to work to help their aging population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now