| |
|
|||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#2
05-30-2006, 08:27 PM
|
||||
|
||||
I am against it for the reasons that the House stipulated, primarily it favors one so-called minority over all others by granting them citizenship by virtue of their ability to have evaded legal citizenship all this time. It is unconstitutional in that respect and I sincerely hope the House prevails.
I firmly believe our borders need more guard, if not outright closure. Many countries dont allow people in unless they can prove they have a place to live, a visible means of support, etc. I also believe companies who exploit illegal labor should be fined so severely they will never think of repeating the offense.  
|
|
#3
05-30-2006, 08:47 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Totally support it. These folks are here and better to legalize their status so they can be better integrated into our society and less exploited.
Our immigration laws discriminate against gays and lesbians by not giving their foreign partners immigrant status. I experienced this firsthand several years ago with my first boyfriend and it basically destroyed the relationship. At a minimum, amnesty will right that wrong. It's way more than that, though. If people have been here illegally for some time, they have done so at a sacrifice. Constantly in fear of being deported, often refusing to access the healthcare system, don't report crimes. Many have left families behind as they seek work. The whole idea that these are freeloaders coming for our so-called fabulous social benefits is a load of crap, in my opinion.
|
|
#4
05-30-2006, 09:13 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I think it is a disaster, and am furious that the senate passed this. There are already laws about immigration and they are not enforced. Does our country essentially want and need slave labor ? Clearly. Are other laws just tossed aside when the problem is too big to fix ? Nope. Los Angeles has changed dramatically since I have been here, and mostly it has gotten worse. It is dirtier, the traffic is apocalyptic, and the health care system is in free fall. Illegal immigration has contributed mightily to the slide of this city. I think it is the friggin fall of Rome.
__________________
======================================== All animals are equal. But some animals are more equal than others.
|
|
#5
05-30-2006, 09:39 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
In addition a form of Amnesty was offered 20 years ago (1986) and all it did was exacerbate the problem! Amnesty is basically a green light for MORE people to come across the border!! Absolutely a mistake!! Last edited by irishgrl; 05-31-2006 at 08:22 AM..
|
|
#6
05-30-2006, 10:31 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
IMO I have no opinion.  No, seriously, if you want to be in this country one had best be born here or legally have gained the right to live here prior to entry. What about the Oregon coast? I watched a documentary on that. One man patrolling hundreds of beach miles! Edit: ____________ Last edited by BTFLCHLD; 05-30-2006 at 10:46 PM..
|
|
#7
05-30-2006, 11:39 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
If you worked in HIV/health care, you would see women who came here to make a better life for their kids, but are afraid to access the healthcare system, and presented at the hospital with full-blown AIDS. You know nothing about their lives. The reason homelessness doesn't get the money it deserves is NOT because of the undocumented. That is right wing talk show radio propaganda. I didn't say that the undocumented don't get social benefits. I said that those who claim the reason they come to this country is because of our supposedly fantastic social benefits are wrong. They come here to help their families. They work harder than anyone here on this board who has the luxury of owning a computer and posting during their coffee break, if not all day long at work. They are not the problem in this country, and I think it is shameful that people are falling into the neo-con trap of finding a scapegoat. Two years ago it was queers who want to get married, this year it is "illegals". You are wrong--amnesty from 20 years ago caused absolutely no problem. I know several people who are now functioning, productive residents because of that law. It is all smoke and mirrors.
|
|
#8
05-30-2006, 11:41 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#9
05-31-2006, 12:04 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#10
05-31-2006, 06:19 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Number of illegal aliens in the US and another: Amnesty is not the solution Ryan, this isnt an aids/hiv issue! its an issue of ILLEGAL ALIENS staying here and accessing benefits they arent entitled to, and clogging up a system that is already clogged up! Your whole premise seems to revolve around HIV/AIDS and that is quite apart from the illegal alien problem. How you can even tie the two together is beyond me! And YES the problem WAS exacerbated when amnesty was offered 20 years ago--it just signalled to others that it was OK if you didnt have a green card/visa/alien card come on in anyway, if you stay here long enough with a fake ID you can eventually be a citizen! and if you lived in CA then you'd KNOW how bad it is! Anyone who knows me knows Im as far away from right wing as you can get. But lets face it, this country is FULL! there is a breaking point and our borders have been porous for far too long. I think we need stricter security and fences and patrols, and we need to prosecute and deport any illegals that we find here. period. You dont have to like it but the fact remains, they are ILLEGAL and shouldnt be here Last edited by irishgrl; 05-31-2006 at 09:13 AM..
|
|
#11
05-31-2006, 06:21 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
here is an interesting article from a LEGAL Immigrant: Illegal Immigration Costs California $10.5 Billion Annually Tony Dolz Immigration and its consequences has become a serious concern for liberals, conservatives, environmentalists, the elderly who are dependent on affordable healthcare and families with school children. The “Mervin Field Poll” taken in September of 2005 indicates that 81% of Californians are concerned about the impact of illegal aliens on the State and that 49% are alarmed. The overwhelming majority of Californians are now aware that the State's "cheap labor" costs the average household $1,183 a year. It is harder to put a cost on the “dumbing-down” of our schools to accommodate a massive number of non-English speakers, the closing of 60 Los Angeles County emergency rooms due to uninsured illegal aliens as reported by Dr. Madeleine Melner Cosman) , the clogging of our highways where thousands of drivers are illegal aliens, most driving without insurance; which makes uninsured motorist coverage more expensive. Can we put a price on the harm of over-population on the environment? America and certainly California is addicted to cheap desperate labor, which is allowed to pour illegally through our broken borders. Unlike what most Americans believe, our border security relies on thousand of miles of mostly un-maintained rusted wires nailed to 4x4 stakes. This flimsy excuse for America’s border security in the post 9/11 era might be disgraceful, but it is not by accident. America turned a blind eye to the exploitation of desperate workers once before in its history when 10% of its population were slaves. Many free citizens before the Civil War would have picked cotton for a fair free-market wage, but not for a slave's wage. Before the Civil War, slave owners argued that without slavery, agriculture in the South would collapse. Following emancipation they were proven wrong. In a free marketplace, the price of all commodities, including labor, raise and fall under the influence of demand and supply until it reaches a fair and natural equilibrium. This is what we can call a “fair wage”. Today, thanks to a cozy collaboration between some of our elected officials on one hand and on the other the unethical employers and criminal cartels that line our elected representative's pockets, our country is awash with illegal aliens that have been allowed to pour in by the millions through our broken borders. The numbers are staggering. The accounts range from 11 million to 20 million or more. No one can say for sure, because the government does not know who they are or where they are, or how many of them are criminals or potential terrorist – our government doesn't want to know! Why? Because, the drug cartels do a brisk 140 billion dollars per year while the traffickers in humans rack in 10 billions; and unethical employers and their lobbyist enrich our politicians campaign coffers unabashedly. Others who rather leave things as they are include the Feds that through the Internal Revenue Service pockets the taxes collected on 9 million bogus Social Security numbers. Among the usual suspects is the government of Mexico which relies on 17 billion dollars in remittances from illegal aliens (Mexico’s second larges source of income after oil) to bolster their economy. Naturally Mexico opposes any threat to a sizeable source of national income. The most despicable are the politicians who engorged themselves with contributions from employers of low-skilled cheap illegal workers in the likes of agriculture and construction and from unpatriotic employers of H1B visa high-skilled foreign worker who earn their way into our economy by paying Congress for their visas. Yes, our high paying technical jobs are for sale to foreigners who then work on the cheap for the likes of Microsoft Corp! The number of illegal aliens already in the shadows of our cities, the kitchens of our restaurants, and our construction sites is not just huge, it is exploding. The under-funded Border Patrol arrests over 1.5 million aliens per year, but the most conservative estimates are that 2.5 million slip through annually and disappear among the now visible massive underclass. The numbers do not swell just on account of those that violate our borders. This illegal cheap–labor underclass burdens our healthcare system giving birth to hundreds of thousands of anchor babies, who automatically become United States citizens. Los Angeles County spent $340 million to treat the uninsured – roughly $1,000 for every taxpayer – while illegal immigrants receive medical treatment for free. Even if both parents are in the country illegally many in our government believe that the 14th Amendment gives their United State born children automatic citizenship – some legal authorities dispute that right. To put the automatic citizenship provision of the 14th Amendment in context, the United States born children of foreign diplomats legally residing in the United States are NOT granted automatic United States citizenship, so why should law-breakers avoiding detection and apprehension by illegal and mischievous means be given special treatment? Anchor babies are the illegal alien's most obvious ticket to the tax-payer footed social support services that cost us billions of dollars. (Which is exactly what I said.) A new study from the Center for Immigration Studies is one of the first to estimate the impact of illegal immigration on the federal budget. Based on Census Bureau data, the study estimates that households headed by illegal aliens used $10 billion more in government services than they paid in taxes in 2002. These figures are only for the federal government; costs at the state and local level are also likely to be significant. Among the largest federal costs: Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion). The study also finds that if illegals were given amnesty, the fiscal deficit at the federal level would grow to nearly $29 billion. The estimated cost for the State of California alone is 10.5 billion dollars or $1183 per household. The breakdown includes $7.7 billion a year to school the children of illegal aliens; $1.4 billion toward providing health care and $1.4 billion is spent incarcerating illegal aliens criminals. On December 16th the House of Representatives passed HB 4437 which is a good attempt at putting an end to the real cost of the proverbial “cheap” illegal alien picked tomatoes. The debate on border security and immigration law enforcement will pass on to the Senate in mid February. The Senate seems bent on granting guest-worker-amnesty to 15 to 20 million illegal aliens so that crooked employers do not loose a single day of labor from their present day illegal alien worker force. There comes a time when having an opinion is not enough, there is a time when incessantly demanding accountability from our elected representatives is not enough. I personally arrived at that point. On December 30 I filed to run for California State 41st Assembly District, which includes the cities of Santa Monica, Malibu, Malibu Heights, Topanga, Westlake Village, Agoura, Agoura Hills, Hidden Hills and Calabasas. I am a foreign born Hispanic legal immigrant who attained naturalized citizenship through the legal process. Like most Americans, I favor legal immigration and oppose illegal immigration. Although I have compassion for the five billion people who live outside of the industrialized world who would like to live in California, I believe that the immigration process must be sustainable, orderly and in observance of the law. I will work diligently to ensure that the State of California collaborates with the Federal Government in securing our borders and in enforcing immigration law. We must be especially vigilant that the corrupt politicians under pressure from crooked employers do not add betrayal to their failure to enforce the law. Make no mistake; guest-worker-amnesty is a betrayal. Lets not accept a Guest Worker-Amnesty Program for the 15 to 20 million foreigners who have already violated our borders and taken advantage of the tax-payers. Let the employers who are addicted to cheap labor pay living wages and medical insurance to Americans instead. The net result will be less congestion, lower taxes, living wages for both low-skill and technical workers, higher quality of education moving at a faster pace and in less crowded classrooms, better and lower-cost healthcare for the elderly and solvent hospitals. Tony Dolz Candidate for the State of California 41 st Assembly District Tel. 310 371 7500 Fax 320 923 6566 Email tony@dolz.com Web www.dolz.com Granted, this article is written by a political candidate, but he DOES use real numbers, not rhetoric. I dont know if he was elected or not (maybe in June?) but I hope he is! Last edited by irishgrl; 05-31-2006 at 07:43 AM..
|
|
#12
05-31-2006, 06:44 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Here's another article from the Center for Immigration Studies
The Impact of Immigration on California Summary and Analysis of Immigration in a Changing Economy: California's Experience by Steven A. Camarota Immigration Review #32 Summer 1998 Earlier this year, Rand released an extensive new study on immigration's impact on California. The report, authored by Kevin F. McCarthy and Georges Vernez, contains both new research as well as information drawn from several recent monographs published by Rand and concludes that immigration has both positive and negative effects on the states economy. The authors specifically do not explore the potential impact of immigrant-induced population growth on the environment or the general quality of life in the state. This article examines the report's findings, which include: * Immigration to California in the last three decades has been extraordinary. By the mid-1990s, California's eight million immigrants represented one in four state residents and fully one-third of all immigrants in the United States. * Of the 16-percentage-point advantage in the creation of jobs California enjoyed in the 1980s over the rest of the nation, two percentage points can be attributed to immigration; however, few of these jobs went to natives; overall, in fact, immigration reduces job opportunities for natives. * Immigration in the 1970s lowered the wages of high school dropouts by between 10 and 16 percent annually ($2,250 to $3,800) and, in the 1980s, immigration primarily affected employment, with between 128,000 and 195,000 natives in California either unemployed or withdrawn from the labor force because of immigration. * Immigration is increasingly out of step with the needs of the state's economy. Few if any new jobs are created that require only a high school degree or less, yet most immigrants are either high school dropouts or have a high school education. * Immigrants as a group do not pay enough in taxes to cover their consumption of public services, though the size of the impact is undetermined and varies considerably by country of origin, education level, and admission category. * The authors suggest reducing immigration to the United States to between 300,000 and 800,000 annually and selecting more immigrants based on needed skills and fewer based on family relationships. Demographic Effects As the report makes clear, immigration to California in recent years has been unprecedented. Between 1960 and 1995, the number of immigrants living in the state increased six-fold, from 1.3 million to eight million, and tripled as a percentage of the state's population, from 8.2 percent to 24.1 percent. Relative to the rest of the country, growth in California's immigrant population has been just as dramatic. In 1960, California had 8.8 percent of the nation's total population and was home to 13.9 percent of its immigrants. By 1995, California accounted for 12.1 percent of the country's population and 32.7 percent of the nation's immigrants. The high concentration of immigrants in California makes the state unique: Immigrants account for less than five percent of the population in 33 states. In addition to their high concentration, California's immigrants differ from the rest of the country in a number of important ways. Compared to immigrants in the rest of the country, California's 1995 immigrants had a much higher percentage of Mexican and Central Americans (50 percent in California vs. 23 percent nationwide), Asian immigrants (33 percent vs. 21 percent) illegal aliens (20 percent vs. 14 percent), amnesty recipients (19 percent vs. 7 percent), and refugees (9 percent vs. 6 percent). California's immigrants also had lower rates of naturalization (29 percent vs. 41 percent). Not only has the level of immigration changed, there has also been a significant shift in the countries sending immigrants to the state. In the 1950s, half of California's immigrants came from either Canada or Europe and the majority of the remainder came from Mexico. By 1990, the number of European and Canadian immigrants had fallen dramatically, to less than 10 percent, and the number of immigrants from Mexico and Central America had climbed to well over half of the total. Additionally, California's share of Asian immigrants doubled and now accounts for 40 percent of new immigrants in the state. These trends have transformed California into the most racially and ethnically diverse state in the country, so that by the year 2000, if not already, no racial/ethnic group will constitute a majority. Economic Effects Table 1 (below) provides information about the educational level of immigrants and natives. It indicates that there is a sizable gap between the educational attainment of natives and that of immigrants both for the nation as a whole and for California, though the difference is much greater in California. Compared to immigrants in the rest of the country, California's immigrants are much more likely to lack a high school degree and have one year less of schooling on average.  Table 1 also indicates that, while the educational level of both immigrants and natives has improved significantly since 1970, the increase has been more rapid for natives. As a result, the educational gap between immigrants and natives has grown more pronounced nationwide, almost entirely because of the relative deterioration in California. The larger educational gap in California is caused primarily by the high concentration of immigrants from Mexico and Central America, who tend to have much lower levels of educational attainment than other immigrant groups. This high concentration of low-education immigrants in the state has supplied California's businesses with a large pool of unskilled labor. In addition, the authors found that California's immigrants earn lower wages than natives in almost all educational categories and occupations. This pattern contrasts sharply with the pattern observed nationally, where immigrant wages either exceed or roughly equal those of similarly skilled natives. While the reasons for this disparity are not entirely clear, the report suggests that it is due to the younger age, lower English proficiency, and higher percentage of illegal aliens and immigrants educated abroad living in the state as well as increased competition among immigrants for jobs. The authors do not think that discrimination accounts for the difference because there is no systematic evidence that it is more prevalent in California and because surveys of employers generally find that immigrants are viewed as reliable and hard working. The authors conclude that employers' ability to pay immigrants less than natives coupled with the fact that there is no indication that immigrant labor is less productive than native labor, gives businesses in California a competitive advantage. The authors state: "Although the characteristics of immigrants have changed... the state's economy continues to benefit from immigration." Based on a cross-industry comparison of the concentration of immigrants and job creation, the report estimates that, in the 1980s, about two percentage points of the 16 percentage point advantage that California enjoyed in employment growth was attributable to immigration. While the authors acknowledge that comparisons of this kind do not establish causality and the effect appears small, their analysis suggest that the arrival of immigrants in an industry is positively associated with growth. This positive effect on job growth does not, however, seem to translate into more jobs or higher wages for native-born workers. In fact, the labor market opportunities available to less-educated natives are reduced by immigration. Thus, by "benefit" to the economy the authors mean that the immigrants and employers are better off. Native-born workers either are unaffected or are harmed by immigration. The negative effect on native workers has varied over time and is dependent on education level. The report controls for a variety of factors and compares differences between California and the rest of the country. The authors conclude that, in the 1970s, the wages of native-born high school dropouts were between 10 and 16 percent lower ($2,250 to $3,800) in California because of immigration. In the 1980s, the negative effect primarily took the form of reduced job opportunities for natives, with perhaps 200,000 natives in the state either unemployed or withdrawn from the labor force because of immigration. Table 2 (see below) reports the job displacement effect of immigration on native workers using two different estimation methods. The study also concluded that the presence of immigrants does not negatively affect natives with a college degree and may actually improve the job prospects for this group. The reason that immigration's effect on native workers was different in the 1970s and 1980s is not entirely clear. The most likely explanation is that there was higher overall employment growth in the 1970s than in the 1980s, allowing for easier incorporation of immigrants into the labor force — though wages for native-born dropouts declined significantly because of immigration. In the 1980s, wages declined for the less-educated for a number of reasons and, as a result, less-educated workers withdrew from the work force. Increased competition from immigrants exacerbated this trend. The authors acknowledge that the estimates found in Table 2 probably understate the size of the impact of immigration. They point out that many less-educated natives either left the state or did not come to California because of immigrant competition, the same conclusion reached by the National Research Council in its report last year (see Immigration Review Nos. 29, 30, and 31). Thus, because it changes the internal migration patterns of natives, immigration alters the supply of labor throughout the country. As a result, the effect of immigration is likely to be felt nationally, not simply in areas of high immigration. The authors also concluded that African-Americans were more adversely affected by immigration than any other racial/ethnic group because they are more likely to be in the adversely affected educational categories and because employers may view immigrants as more desirable workers.  In addition to the reduction in labor market opportunities available to natives, the second economic problem identified in the study is that there is an increasing discongruity between the kinds of jobs being created in the state and the skills of entering immigrants. The number of jobs for persons with only a high school degree or less has held steady or declined in the last 20 years and immigrants have, in effect, been "back filling" less-skilled jobs as the number of natives doing such work has declined; however, this cannot continue indefinitely. Moreover, this process has caused a slow and steady "downskilling" of California's work force relative to the rest of the country. Whereas the state's work force was once more educated on average than the rest of the country, this advantage has now been entirely eliminated by immigration (see "California's Labor Force" on page 1). In addition to expressing concern about the competitiveness of the state's economy, McCarthy and Vernez also point out that the low educational level of immigrants may adversely affect the social mobility of today's immigrants and perhaps their children. More than at any time in the past, earnings and employment are dependent on educational level. What's more, one of the best predictors of the future labor-market performance of children is the educational level of their parents. Immigration policy, therefore, may be setting the stage for large ethnic differentials in economic outcomes that could have important socio-economic and political implication for decades to come. Fiscal Effects The report does not contain any new research on the fiscal impact of immigration; instead, the chapter on the public sector summarizes the authors' previous study of the issue (Vernez and McCarthy, 1996), which explored the relevant questions and reviewed findings from a number of different studies. As in their earlier work, the authors conclude that there is no consensus regarding the budgetary consequences of immigration in California, as different studies have produced a wide range of estimates. The reason for the divergent findings stems from a number of factors: In many cases there is no agreement on how to estimate immigrant and native tax revenue and public service use from existing administrative and survey data. There is also a disagreement on whether to count public services, such as welfare, used by the U.S.-born minor children of immigrants as a cost attributable to immigration. Despite a wide range of estimates from various studies, the authors draw a number of general observations. First, the average tax revenue from all residents, immigrant or native, is generally found not to equal average expenditures in the state. This is because not all sources of revenue to state and local government are included in any of the studies. At both the state and local level, revenue from the federal government and from other sources such as the taxation of businesses are used to close this "deficit." Second, no matter how it is defined, the size of the deficit is larger in California for immigrants than it is for natives. Third, the deficit is larger for illegal aliens than for legal residents. The authors also point out that the larger fiscal burden created by immigrants is explained almost entirely by educational and other socio-economic characteristics of immigrants and not by their immigrant status per se. In other words, immigrants create a burden on public coffers in California because they are less educated, hold lower paying jobs, and have larger families than natives. This means that they generally pay less in taxes and have a greater propensity to consume public services than natives. It is also clear that the large differences between immigrants from different countries is almost entirely due to differences in socio-economic characteristics. Policy Recommendations The authors make a number of policy recommendations in the final chapter of their report. Partly out of concern for less-skilled natives, the social mobility of immigrants, and the competitiveness of the California economy, the authors suggest increasing the number of immigrants admitted based on needed skills and admitting fewer based on family relationships. The authors do not provide much guidance on what specific changes should be made to immigration policy, nor do they provide a specific number, except to suggest that the annual level of immigration be set at between 300,000 and 800,000. The authors also suggest several other changes, including: special treatment for Mexico, establishing specific programs designed to facilitate the incorporation of immigrants, and more flexibility in immigration policy to meet changing circumstances. While the authors acknowledge that illegal immigration is a significant problem, both for economic and non-economic reasons, the report contains no new suggestions on how to deal with this issue. Conclusion Immigration in a Changing Economy is clearly an important work. Though at times the narrative tends to be more positive than the data warrant, the report provides the most detailed picture of California's immigrant population produced to date. Moreover, their general observation that immigration should not be seen as inherently positive or negative, but instead that its effects are dependent on the volume and characteristics of the immigrants, is unassailable. Anyone seeking to better understand the implications of immigration for California, the largest and most important state in the country, would do well to read this book. — Steven Camarota To obtain a copy of Immigration in a Changing Economy: California's Experience, contact Rand at (310) 451-7002 or http://www.rand.org The cost is $20.
|
|
#13
05-31-2006, 06:53 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Yet another article by the Center for Immigration Studies:
The Costs of Illegal Immigration Illegals Cost Feds $10 Billion a Year; Amnesty Would Nearly Triple Cost Read the Report WASHINGTON (August 25, 2004) — A new study from the Center for Immigration Studies is one of the first to estimate the impact of illegal immigration on the federal budget. Based on Census Bureau data, the study estimates that households headed by illegal aliens used $10 billion more in government services than they paid in taxes in 2002. These figures are only for the federal government; costs at the state and local level are also likely to be significant. The study also finds that if illegals were given amnesty, the fiscal deficit at the federal level would grow to nearly $29 billion. Among the findings: * Illegal alien households are estimated to use $2,700 a year more in services than they pay in taxes, creating a total fiscal burden of nearly $10.4 billion on the federal budget in 2002. * Among the largest federal costs: Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion). * If illegal aliens were legalized and began to pay taxes and use services like legal immigrants with the same education levels, the estimated annual fiscal deficit at the federal level would increase from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for a total federal deficit of $29 billion. * With nearly two-third of illegals lacking a high school diploma, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments — not their legal status or their unwillingness to work. * Amnesty increases costs because illegals would still be largely unskilled, and thus their tax payments would continue to be very modest, but once legalized they would be able to access many more government services. * The fact that legal immigrants with little schooling are a fiscal drain on federal coffers does not mean that legal immigrants overall are a drain. Many legal immigrants are highly skilled. * Because many of the costs are due to their U.S.-born children, who are awarded U.S. citizenship at birth, barring illegals themselves from federal programs will not significantly reduce costs. * Although they create a net drain on the federal government, the average illegal household pays more than $4,200 a year in federal taxes, for a total of nearly $16 billion. * However, they impose annual costs of more than $26.3 billion, or about $6,950 per illegal household. * About 43 percent, or $7 billion, of the federal taxes illegals pay go to Social Security and Medicare. * Employers do not see the costs associated with less-educated immigrant workers because the costs are spread out among all taxpayers. Why Legalization Is So Costly. Costs rise unavoidably because amnesty will not change the low education levels of illegal aliens or the fact that the American economy offers such workers very limited opportunities, regardless of legal status. The vast majority of illegal aliens will continue to have very low incomes, and make very modest tax payments. However, legal status would allow them to use many more programs. We know that costs would rise dramatically because legal immigrants with the same levels of education make extensive use of public services. Thus, even though we estimate that average tax payments would rise by 77 percent, we also find that costs would rise 117 percent. To understand why this happens, it is helpful to consider a program like the Earned Income Tax Credit, which pays cash to low-income workers. Illegals currently account for only 1.5 percent of the program’s total costs, but if they were legalized their use of the program would grow tenfold because with legal status they would no longer need stolen or bogus Social Security numbers to get the credit. This dramatic rise in costs is not due to laziness on the part of immigrants. In fact, only those who work receive the EITC. The dramatic rise in costs simply reflects the low educational attainment of illegals and their resulting low incomes. If Illegals Stay, So Will the Costs. To the extent that policy makers have considered the fiscal costs of illegal immigration, they have generally tried to reduce the costs while allowing illegals to remain. But this strategy has not been effective because the average illegal already receives less than half as much in services from the federal government as do other households. Moreover, many of the costs are due to their U.S.-born children, who are awarded American citizenship at birth under current law. Other programs are simply too politically sensitive to cut, such as the Women, Infants and Children nutrition program. And others costs are unavoidable, such as incarcerating illegals who have been convicted of crimes. Conversely, enforcing immigration laws is both popular with voters and administratively more feasible. There are really only two options: either we begin to enforce the law, significantly reducing the number of illegals in the country, or we accept the costs created by the presence of a large pool of unskilled workers. Results Similar to Other Studies. A 1997 report by the National Research Council (NRC) on the fiscal impact of immigrants concluded that education levels and resulting income are the primary determinants of tax payments and service use, which is also a central finding of this report. The results of this study closely match the findings of a 1998 Urban Institute study. Our estimated average tax payment for illegal households in New York State is almost identical to that of the Urban Institute, when adjusted for inflation. The results of this study are also buttressed by an analysis of illegal alien tax returns done by the Inspector General’s Office of the Department of Treasury in 2004, which found that about half had no federal income tax liability, very similar to our findings of 45 percent. The panel discussion is open to the public. For more information, contact Steven Camarota at (202) 466-8185 or sac@cis.org.
|
|
#14
05-31-2006, 09:08 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
back to the issue of Amnesty, here are Senator Chuck Hagel's proposed fixes to what he identifies as flaws with the Senate Bill (obviously, the Senate didnt heed him, more's the pity):
GRASSLEY UNVEILS TOP 10 FLAWS WITH AMNESTY AND GUEST WORKER OF COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM BILL WASHINGTON --- Sen. Chuck Grassley today said the immigration reform bill being debated in the U.S. Senate is riddled with loopholes and flaws. During a speech on the Senate floor, he outlined for the American people nearly 30 flaws within only two sections of the bill. “I was burned once in 1986 when I voted for amnesty believing that it would solve our problems. Now, we have a 12 million illegal immigrant problem. I’m not getting burned again,” Grassley said. “Not only do we have a glide path to citizenship, but it’s a glide path with plenty of loopholes that don’t meet the common sense test.” Grassley has a number of amendments that would help fix the shortcomings in the bill. It’s expected that debate on the bill will conclude this week. Here is a list of Grassley’s “Top 10.” 1. $2,000 Fine -- Under the bill, an illegal alien can go from illegal to legal by paying a small fine of $2,000. Often, illegal aliens will pay more than five times this amount to a smuggler to get across the border. Also, the $2000 fine may not have to be paid until year eight, which allows the illegal alien to live, work, and play in the United States for years free from deportation. This imposes a financial burden on the American taxpayer for health, education, and infrastructure costs that aren’t reimbursed for five or ten years. 2. Taxes -- Under the bill, illegal aliens get an option to only have to pay three of their last five years in back taxes. Law-abiding American citizens do not have the option to pay some of their taxes. The bill would treat lawbreakers better than the American people. The bill also makes the IRS prove that illegal aliens have paid their back taxes. It will be impossible for the IRS to truly enforce this because they cannot audit every single person in this country. 3. Security Clearances in 90 days – Under the bill, the Department of Homeland Security must perform background checks on illegal aliens in the United States. It also encourages the federal government to complete the background checks on 10 million illegal aliens in 90 days. This is a national security concern because Homeland Security will be pressured to complete these checks without doing a thorough job. 4. Work Requirements – Under the bill, illegal aliens must prove they’ve worked in the United States for three of the last five years. It also says they have to work for six years after the date of enactment of the bill. However, there is no continuous work requirement for amnesty. They could work for 30 days, take off 30 days, work for 30 days. The bill also says that illegal aliens have to prove that they’ve worked in the United States for three of the last five years by showing IRS or Social Security records, or records maintained by federal, state, or local governments, employers, unions or day labor centers. However, the bill also allows illegal aliens to ask anybody to attest that they have been employed. This invites fraud, and the government cannot realistically investigate all these cases. 5. Confidentiality – Under the bill, if an illegal alien applies for amnesty, the federal government cannot use information provided in the application for anything but adjudicating the petition. For example, if illegal aliens write in their applications that they are related to Osama Bin Laden, then our government cannot use that information. In fact, it says that the Secretary of Homeland Security can only share that information if someone requests it in writing. This provision severely handicaps national security and criminal investigators. Also, if a federal agent does use information provided by an illegal alien in an application for amnesty the agent would be fined $10,000. This is five times more than the alien has to pay to get amnesty. 6. Social Security to illegal aliens -- Under the bill, illegal aliens are not prohibited from getting credit for the money they’ve put into the Social Security system if they’ve worked in the U.S. illegally. Illegal immigrants who paid Social Security taxes using a stolen Social Security Number did not do so with the expectation that they would ever qualify for Social Security benefits. (The Ensign amendment would have taken care of this, but it did not pass.) 7. Employers get a tax pardon for hiring illegal aliens -- Under the bill, employers of aliens applying for adjustment of status “shall not be subject to civil and criminal tax liability relating directly to the employment of such alien.” Businesses that hired illegal workers would now get off scott-free from paying the taxes that they owe the government. This encourages employers to violate our tax laws and not pay what they owe the federal government. In addition to not having to pay their taxes, employers are also off the hook for providing illegal aliens with records or evidence that they have worked in the U.S. The employer is not subject to civil and criminal liability for having employed illegal aliens in the past, or before enactment. 8. Family Members of H-2C Visa Holder need not be healthy -- Under the bill, spouses and children of H-2C visa holders are exempt from a requirement proving that they meet certain health standards. The visa holder is required to undergo a medical exam, but their family members are not which potentially puts Americans at risk. 9. Mandatory Departure isn’t really Mandatory -- Under the bill, the Secretary of Homeland Security “may grant” Deferred Mandatory Departure to illegal aliens in the 2-5 year category. The Secretary “may” also waive the departure requirement if it would create substantial hardship for the alien to leave. 10. No Interview Required. – Under the bill, illegal aliens in the 2nd tier who are required to leave the country can re-enter the United States on a visa. However, the bill does not require these individuals to be interviewed. The bill doesn’t give discretion to our consular offices to require an interview. The 9/11 hijackers weren’t subject to appear in person. Today, the State Department requires most applicants to submit to interviews, and waives them only for children and the elderly. ------------------------------------ I personally think the Senate goofed. I hope the House manages to eliminate this "guest worker" program, does away with amnesty, tightens border security and severely penalizes companies who hire illegal labor.
|
|
#15
05-31-2006, 09:41 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
geez, this is such a sensitive topic for me as well. I have mixed feelings both on Rickypt's side and irishgrl's side with a little bit of sparky thrown in. so, I can't really make a definitive decision. at this point I do not support it for the reasons irishgrl pointed out, specifically the fact that it would allow those who broke the law and have fallen through the cracks to be pardoned...um, no...
I also agree that we should control our borders more and screw making those that are already here feel comfortable. sorry, we have legal citizens that need help and need the assistance the illegal aliens are looking to receive. Quote:
and I don't think it's accurate to compare this to the fight for equality...by a long shot. Last edited by JazmenFlowers; 05-31-2006 at 09:50 AM..
|
|
|
|
Lindsey Buckingham Christine McVie
$9.00
Christine McVie Posing Headshot 8x10 PHOTO PRINT
$7.98
Lindsey Buckingham & Christine McVie : Lindsey Buckingham/Christine McVie CD
$7.77
Christine McVie …1984 Original Video Promo Poster 24” x 36”
$19.99
$8.56
Linear Mode
