This topic is locked from further discussion.
Parties won't matter....if people would vote out incumbents. The politicians would get the message. Neither party is worthwhile IMO. But they need to be sent a message.LJS9502_basic
A lot of incumbents need to go, on both sides. But would you be willing to keep any that voted well, such as voting against the bills that ballooned our deficit?
Not as much gets spent as it costs the country.....[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]
[QUOTE="fat_rob"]I'm referring to the American business owner who saves money by hiring illegals . . .
coolbeans90
...Read the study you posted. That is not what it concluded.
This is what I posted....Illegal immigrants to the US cost the country at least $10 billion more than they contribute to the economy. The CIS (Center for Immigration Studies) advises that if amnesty is put into place, these costs to the American economy (and the American taxpayer) will triple. The average illegal immigrant family uses $2,700/year more in services than it pays in taxes. In 2002, this amounted to a $10.4 billion drain on the federal budget. Some of the greatest federal costs included: 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).
I'm not sure why you are mentioning that in this aspect of the discussion.
[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
I am not looking at benefits only. You however are limiting your field of view to a single aspect of the economy.You CANNOT by any reasonable means come to the conclusion that this accounts for overall economic contribution/costs.
If one takes into account that illegals tend to work at a lower wage than native born, production per cost of labor that the rest of the market benefits from likely far exceeds the $10 billion difference.
How much of the money gets sent back to Mexico? Is it in U.S. dollars? Then they'll eventually recirculate via trade thereby providing jobs/economic activity here. If it doesn't, the money supply over there that is not recovered is adjusted for by inflation and no real value of money is lost.
It's nice that you haven't heard anything positive regarding illegal immigration, but that doesn't necessitate that there isn't.
For the record, I do support enforcing the border and immigration laws, primariliy for security reasons. Those are however, seperate from economic consqeuences.
Are you implying that the dilution of the labor force with sub-minimum wage labor is a good thing?Not at all what I said. I'm saying that they contribute to the economy by and large due to this. Though it does tend to free up the labor market to enter more skilled sectors of labor, (furthr allows specialization of labor due to an increased, mroe versatile labor market...) it tends to bring down those in the native population who do not move on.
Although minimum wage does cause its own problems for those whom the policy is supposed to protect. While certainly helping those who work minimum wage jobs, it increases unemployment, specically amongst teenagers and minorities. It's not as black and white as people make it out to be.
I'm fine with eliminating the minimum wage laws - but I don't think you'll find many who agree. Basically those who are part of the skilled labor force and few else, as the floor for unskilled labor would be far lower, and corporations would be quick to take advantage of that.And you see increased unemployment as a benefit?[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
Pretty much what I said in my post. Those who won't or cannot move onto a more skilled area are harmed by immigration, or anything that reduces the cost of labor. (goes for technological advancements in industries that reduce the amount of required labor) This cause either reduced wages, increased unemployment, or both.
LJS9502_basic
No. Two points worth mentioning though. it is unemployment in a certain sector of the ecomomy, not necessarily overall unemployemt. Secondly, it is not the only economic factor worthy of consideration. Cuba has about full employment.
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Not as much gets spent as it costs the country.....
LJS9502_basic
...Read the study you posted. That is not what it concluded.
This is what I posted....Illegal immigrants to the US cost the country at least $10 billion more than they contribute to the economy. The CIS (Center for Immigration Studies) advises that if amnesty is put into place, these costs to the American economy (and the American taxpayer) will triple. The average illegal immigrant family uses $2,700/year more in services than it pays in taxes. In 2002, this amounted to a $10.4 billion drain on the federal budget. Some of the greatest federal costs included: 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).
I'm not sure why you are mentioning that in this aspect of the discussion.
that does not take into effect the purchases made by business that hire illegals. Hell, I don't even think the CIS even cares to track where that money is spent . . .And you see increased unemployment as a benefit?[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
Pretty much what I said in my post. Those who won't or cannot move onto a more skilled area are harmed by immigration, or anything that reduces the cost of labor. (goes for technological advancements in industries that reduce the amount of required labor) This cause either reduced wages, increased unemployment, or both.
coolbeans90
No. Two points worth mentioning though. it is unemployment in a certain sector of the ecomomy, not necessarily overall unemployemt. Secondly, it is not the only economic factor worthy of consideration. Cuba has about full employment.
Here's another stat for you....From the L.A. Times and Rice University's Professor Donald Huddle: "Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops but 29% are on welfare." And as far back as 1997, according to Huddle, the cost of illegal immigrationto the American taxpayer was a net (after subtracting taxes immigrants pay) $69 Billion.
^ are you implying that artificially high wages that dilute the job market is a good thing? See fallacious arguments work both ways :)fat_robActually, yes, I think that the minimum wage law is a good thing for society. It doesn't benefit me at all directly, but I think the lower class would be in a far worse situation without it.
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Not as much gets spent as it costs the country.....
LJS9502_basic
...Read the study you posted. That is not what it concluded.
This is what I posted....Illegal immigrants to the US cost the country at least $10 billion more than they contribute to the economy. The CIS (Center for Immigration Studies) advises that if amnesty is put into place, these costs to the American economy (and the American taxpayer) will triple. The average illegal immigrant family uses $2,700/year more in services than it pays in taxes. In 2002, this amounted to a $10.4 billion drain on the federal budget. Some of the greatest federal costs included: 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).
I'm not sure why you are mentioning that in this aspect of the discussion.
Is that a quote from the page, or something that you typed yourself? A link would be helpful so I can reread the document. When I read when you posted it in an eariler thread, it explicity referred to tax benefits.
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"][QUOTE="mattbbpl"]Are you implying that the dilution of the labor force with sub-minimum wage labor is a good thing?
mattbbpl
Not at all what I said. I'm saying that they contribute to the economy by and large due to this. Though it does tend to free up the labor market to enter more skilled sectors of labor, (furthr allows specialization of labor due to an increased, mroe versatile labor market...) it tends to bring down those in the native population who do not move on.
Although minimum wage does cause its own problems for those whom the policy is supposed to protect. While certainly helping those who work minimum wage jobs, it increases unemployment, specically amongst teenagers and minorities. It's not as black and white as people make it out to be.
I'm fine with eliminating the minimum wage laws - but I don't think you'll find many who agree. Basically those who are part of the skilled labor force and few else, as the floor for unskilled labor would be far lower, and corporations would be quick to take advantage of that.Yeah, there would be more jobs availible though...
This is what I posted....[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
...Read the study you posted. That is not what it concluded.
coolbeans90
Illegal immigrants to the US cost the country at least $10 billion more than they contribute to the economy. The CIS (Center for Immigration Studies) advises that if amnesty is put into place, these costs to the American economy (and the American taxpayer) will triple. The average illegal immigrant family uses $2,700/year more in services than it pays in taxes. In 2002, this amounted to a $10.4 billion drain on the federal budget. Some of the greatest federal costs included: 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).
I'm not sure why you are mentioning that in this aspect of the discussion.
Is that a quote from the page, or something that you typed yourself? A link would be helpful so I can reread the document. When I read when you posted it in an eariler thread, it explicity referred to tax benefits.
It's from the CIS....[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]And you see increased unemployment as a benefit?
LJS9502_basic
No. Two points worth mentioning though. it is unemployment in a certain sector of the ecomomy, not necessarily overall unemployemt. Secondly, it is not the only economic factor worthy of consideration. Cuba has about full employment.
Here's another stat for you....From the L.A. Times and Rice University's Professor Donald Huddle: "Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops but 29% are on welfare." And as far back as 1997, according to Huddle, the cost of illegal immigrationto the American taxpayer was a net (after subtracting taxes immigrants pay) $69 Billion.
That does not account for the overall difference. I'll admit that I am wrong on the issue and change my stance on regards to the economic aspect of illiegal immigration if it can be proven that illegal immigration costs the economy more than it benefits. While I have no doubt that it cost exorbitant amounts of taxpayer money, (most often from government programs that I would prefer did not exist...) I am highly skeptical of the claim that it is a net loss with regards to GDP.
[QUOTE="fat_rob"]^ are you implying that artificially high wages that dilute the job market is a good thing? See fallacious arguments work both ways :)mattbbplActually, yes, I think that the minimum wage law is a good thing for society. It doesn't benefit me at all directly, but I think the lower class would be in a far worse situation without it.
I disagree as it helps some of the lower class, but leaves others unemployed. Overall they are worse off. Most economists disagree with the policy for his reason.
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]This is what I posted....
Illegal immigrants to the US cost the country at least $10 billion more than they contribute to the economy. The CIS (Center for Immigration Studies) advises that if amnesty is put into place, these costs to the American economy (and the American taxpayer) will triple. The average illegal immigrant family uses $2,700/year more in services than it pays in taxes. In 2002, this amounted to a $10.4 billion drain on the federal budget. Some of the greatest federal costs included: 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).
I'm not sure why you are mentioning that in this aspect of the discussion.
LJS9502_basic
Is that a quote from the page, or something that you typed yourself? A link would be helpful so I can reread the document. When I read when you posted it in an eariler thread, it explicity referred to tax benefits.
It's from the CIS....I'll look into it.
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]And you see increased unemployment as a benefit?
LJS9502_basic
No. Two points worth mentioning though. it is unemployment in a certain sector of the ecomomy, not necessarily overall unemployemt. Secondly, it is not the only economic factor worthy of consideration. Cuba has about full employment.
Here's another stat for you....From the L.A. Times and Rice University's Professor Donald Huddle: "Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops but 29% are on welfare." And as far back as 1997, according to Huddle, the cost of illegal immigrationto the American taxpayer was a net (after subtracting taxes immigrants pay) $69 Billion.
How can an illegal immigrant be on welfare? Surely you need a social security number and proper government identification to get welfare?Well if it costs the taxpayer anything...it's a cost. If it balanced out...it would be zero....roughly. But the costs attached are because it's one sided.That does not account for the overall difference. I'll admit that I am wrong on the issue and change my stance on regards to the economic aspect of illiegal immigration if it can be proven that illegal immigration costs the economy more than it benefits. While I have no doubt that it cost exorbitant amounts of taxpayer money, (most often from government programs that I would prefer did not exist...) I am highly skeptical of the claim that it is a net loss with regards to GDP.
coolbeans90
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Here's another stat for you....[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
No. Two points worth mentioning though. it is unemployment in a certain sector of the ecomomy, not necessarily overall unemployemt. Secondly, it is not the only economic factor worthy of consideration. Cuba has about full employment.
Ninja-Hippo
From the L.A. Times and Rice University's Professor Donald Huddle: "Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops but 29% are on welfare." And as far back as 1997, according to Huddle, the cost of illegal immigrationto the American taxpayer was a net (after subtracting taxes immigrants pay) $69 Billion.
How can an illegal immigrant be on welfare? Surely you need a social security number and proper government identification to get welfare?I find that to be rather odd myself.
Well if it costs the taxpayer anything...it's a cost. If it balanced out...it would be zero....roughly. But the costs attached are because it's one sided.[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
That does not account for the overall difference. I'll admit that I am wrong on the issue and change my stance on regards to the economic aspect of illiegal immigration if it can be proven that illegal immigration costs the economy more than it benefits. While I have no doubt that it cost exorbitant amounts of taxpayer money, (most often from government programs that I would prefer did not exist...) I am highly skeptical of the claim that it is a net loss with regards to GDP.
LJS9502_basic
Yes, I am aware that illiegals are a drain on the government spending side. Something that could be fixed by not allowing illegals govermnet service, but I'll leave that alone for the time being. My argument was based upon the premise that the losses incurred by society are recovered by having cheap labor. Still need to check the study.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Here's another stat for you....[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
No. Two points worth mentioning though. it is unemployment in a certain sector of the ecomomy, not necessarily overall unemployemt. Secondly, it is not the only economic factor worthy of consideration. Cuba has about full employment.
Ninja-Hippo
From the L.A. Times and Rice University's Professor Donald Huddle: "Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops but 29% are on welfare." And as far back as 1997, according to Huddle, the cost of illegal immigrationto the American taxpayer was a net (after subtracting taxes immigrants pay) $69 Billion.
How can an illegal immigrant be on welfare? Surely you need a social security number and proper government identification to get welfare?Heard of anchor babies?Heard of anchor babies?LJS9502_basic
How widespread is this? Prevalent proportions?
How does cheap labor from illegal immigrants cycle much back into the economy? Think about the things that get lost in paying an illegal under the table....many of who send the money back home to family. Obviously the tax revenue is less....even if the illegal pays a bit...it's not the amount that would be collected from employers hiring legal employees and not paying them under the table. Then there is the money that is lost to medicare, social security...all of which are struggling. The increased money from legal employees would help eleviate the problem...though the politicians are to blame as well. The estimate I last read is that each illegal costs the taxpayer $9000 a year...each illegal. How much do you estimate they help the economy? I've given you some reasons...and some figures but I haven't seen any of yours.Yes, I am aware that illiegals are a drain on the government spending side. Something that could be fixed by not allowing illegals govermnet service, but I'll leave that alone for the time being. My argument was based upon the premise that the losses incurred by society are recovered by having cheap labor. Still need to check the study.
coolbeans90
[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Here's another stat for you....How can an illegal immigrant be on welfare? Surely you need a social security number and proper government identification to get welfare?Heard of anchor babies? Well then does that not make their parents legal citizens? I mean they're not illegal any more are they? By definition my brother is an 'anchor baby', but my family are by no means illegal aliens. I don't think that statistic can possibly be true either, to be honest, as it was my understanding that you cannot give your parents legal citizenship until you reach the age of 21. If you're an illegal immigrant you're also not allowed to be sponsored by your own child in most states.From the L.A. Times and Rice University's Professor Donald Huddle: "Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops but 29% are on welfare." And as far back as 1997, according to Huddle, the cost of illegal immigrationto the American taxpayer was a net (after subtracting taxes immigrants pay) $69 Billion.
LJS9502_basic
The baby is legal...the parents are not. But they don't force the parents to leave...thus they are illegals who now do get welfare in many cases.Well then does that not make their parents legal citizens? I mean they're not illegal any more are they? By definition my brother is an 'anchor baby', but my family are by no means illegal aliens. I don't think that statistic can possibly be true either, to be honest, as it was my understanding that you cannot give your parents legal citizenship until you reach the age of 21. If you're an illegal immigrant you're also not allowed to be sponsored by your own child in most states.
Ninja-Hippo
How does cheap labor from illegal immigrants cycle much back into the economy? Think about the things that get lost in paying an illegal under the table....many of who send the money back home to family. Obviously the tax revenue is less....even if the illegal pays a bit...it's not the amount that would be collected from employers hiring legal employees and not paying them under the table. Then there is the money that is lost to medicare, social security...all of which are struggling. The increased money from legal employees would help eleviate the problem...though the politicians are to blame as well. The estimate I last read is that each illegal costs the taxpayer $9000 a year...each illegal. How much do you estimate they help the economy? I've given you some reasons...and some figures but I haven't seen any of yours.[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
Yes, I am aware that illiegals are a drain on the government spending side. Something that could be fixed by not allowing illegals govermnet service, but I'll leave that alone for the time being. My argument was based upon the premise that the losses incurred by society are recovered by having cheap labor. Still need to check the study.
LJS9502_basic
I've given plenty of reasons. Fairly good ones to. Just fewer numbers. One thing is clear though, you haven't established that anything more than the fact that illegals place a drain on the I'll get back to you later. While you have numbers, they do not substantiate the claim that illegal immigration is bad for the economy. Have to go to work. Hopefully this thread is still up tonight. Found the CIS study, and it only makes mention of the government taxes to benefits issue, which is undoubtedly a problem, but does not nessecitate that illegals are in point of fact bad for the economy.
The baby is legal...the parents are not. But they don't force the parents to leave...thus they are illegals who now do get welfare in many cases. I don't think that's true at all. Can you provide an example? You cannot sponsor your parents to be legal citizens until you're 21, and even then you cannot sponsor your parents in a citizenship application if they are illegal immigrants and you were born in the country when they were illegal immigrants, in most states. It is physically impossible for an illegal immigrant to receive welfare (outiside of some form of ridiculously well done identity theft) because you have to be a legal citizen by default to get welfare.[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]
Well then does that not make their parents legal citizens? I mean they're not illegal any more are they? By definition my brother is an 'anchor baby', but my family are by no means illegal aliens. I don't think that statistic can possibly be true either, to be honest, as it was my understanding that you cannot give your parents legal citizenship until you reach the age of 21. If you're an illegal immigrant you're also not allowed to be sponsored by your own child in most states.
LJS9502_basic
Your ideas/opinions don't actually serve as proof though. Uh....economically if you cost more than you add...it's bad for the economy.I've given plenty of reasons. Fairly good ones to. Just fewer numbers. One thing is clear though, you haven't established that anything more than the fact that illegals place a drain on the I'll get back to you later. Have to go to work. Hopefully this thread is still up tonight. Found the CIS study, and it only makes mention of the government taxes to benefits issue, which is undoubtedly a problem, but does not nessecitate that illegals are in point of fact bad for the economy.
coolbeans90
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]The baby is legal...the parents are not. But they don't force the parents to leave...thus they are illegals who now do get welfare in many cases. I don't think that's true at all. Can you provide an example? You cannot sponsor your parents to be legal citizens until you're 21, and even then you cannot sponsor your parents in a citizenship application if they are illegal immigrants and you were born in the country when they were illegal immigrants, in most states. It is physically impossible for an illegal immigrant to receive welfare (outiside of some form of ridiculously well done identity theft) because you have to be a legal citizen by default to get welfare.What are you talking about? I said the parents aren't legal....they are in fact illegal.:|[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]
Well then does that not make their parents legal citizens? I mean they're not illegal any more are they? By definition my brother is an 'anchor baby', but my family are by no means illegal aliens. I don't think that statistic can possibly be true either, to be honest, as it was my understanding that you cannot give your parents legal citizenship until you reach the age of 21. If you're an illegal immigrant you're also not allowed to be sponsored by your own child in most states.
Ninja-Hippo
Edit: And in fact the Welfare Reform of 1996 removed some...but not all illegals from welfare.
Yes i know the parents are illegal, and if they're illegal how on earth do they get welfare when they have no social security number or government information of any kind, being non-citizens? That was my initial question. Your answer was 'anchor babies' and as you've just explained yourself, anchor babies do nothing to make their parents legal citizens so how do they get welfare?What are you talking about? I said the parents aren't legal....they are in fact illegal.:|
LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Yes i know the parents are illegal, and if they're illegal how on earth do they get welfare when they have no social security number or government information of any kind, being non-citizens? That was my initial question. Your answer was 'anchor babies' and as you've just explained yourself, anchor babies do nothing to make their parents legal citizens so how do they get welfare? Because the child...is legal.What are you talking about? I said the parents aren't legal....they are in fact illegal.:|
Ninja-Hippo
Here's an exerpt dealing with Nevada...
A relatively new federal program that allows illegal immigrants to use their American-born anchor babies to collect welfare for the entire family has expanded nationwide and nearly doubled in a western state that already spends hundreds of millions of dollars to provide undocumented residents with public services.
Topics: Illegal Immigration, anchor babies,TANF, welfare for illegals, U.S. taxpayers, illegal immigration costs, Nevada
LJS, this view of the 14th Amendment (with case law) about anchor babies might interest you. Link
Your ideas/opinions don't actually serve as proof though. Uh....economically if you cost more than you add...it's bad for the economy.[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
I've given plenty of reasons. Fairly good ones to. Just fewer numbers. One thing is clear though, you haven't established that anything more than the fact that illegals place a drain on the I'll get back to you later. Have to go to work. Hopefully this thread is still up tonight. Found the CIS study, and it only makes mention of the government taxes to benefits issue, which is undoubtedly a problem, but does not nessecitate that illegals are in point of fact bad for the economy.
LJS9502_basic
Your opinions certainly do not serve as proofs, neither do your figures for this specific point as they do NOT indicate that illegals cost more than put in as a whole. Your study refers only to a certain segment. It's as simple as that.
I found this sentence particularly interesting....I want an amendment to this amendment by the way... The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law at taxpayer expense.LJS, this view of the 14th Amendment (with case law) about anchor babies might interest you. Link
topsemag55
Your ideas/opinions don't actually serve as proof though. Uh....economically if you cost more than you add...it's bad for the economy.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
I've given plenty of reasons. Fairly good ones to. Just fewer numbers. One thing is clear though, you haven't established that anything more than the fact that illegals place a drain on the I'll get back to you later. Have to go to work. Hopefully this thread is still up tonight. Found the CIS study, and it only makes mention of the government taxes to benefits issue, which is undoubtedly a problem, but does not nessecitate that illegals are in point of fact bad for the economy.
coolbeans90
Your opinions certainly do not serve as proofs, neither do your figures for this specific point as they do NOT indicate that illegals cost more than put in as a whole. Your study refers only to a certain segment. It's as simple as that.
Well I posted facts....and you have not. Feel free to provide some...[QUOTE="coolbeans90"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Your ideas/opinions don't actually serve as proof though. Uh....economically if you cost more than you add...it's bad for the economy.
LJS9502_basic
Your opinions certainly do not serve as proofs, neither do your figures for this specific point as they do NOT indicate that illegals cost more than put in as a whole. Your study refers only to a certain segment. It's as simple as that.
Well I posted facts....and you have not. Feel free to provide some...You did not post paticularly relevant nor any conclusive facts... therefore they do not make an impact on the argument. I don't know if you consider the fact that illegal immigrants are paid less than native born Americans to be a fact, or if you want a link. But it is a fact.
[QUOTE="topsemag55"]I found this sentence particularly interesting....I want an amendment to this amendment by the way... The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law at taxpayer expense.LJS, this view of the 14th Amendment (with case law) about anchor babies might interest you. Link
LJS9502_basic
You feel then that the 14th needs strengthening, or just more explanation?
Well I posted facts....and you have not. Feel free to provide some...[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
Your opinions certainly do not serve as proofs, neither do your figures for this specific point as they do NOT indicate that illegals cost more than put in as a whole. Your study refers only to a certain segment. It's as simple as that.
coolbeans90
You did not post paticularly relevant nor any conclusive facts... therefore they do not make an impact on the argument. I don't know if you consider the fact that illegal immigrants are paid less than native born Americans to be a fact, or if you want a link. But it is a fact.
Of course I did. I posted the total cost to the economy considering the benefits and deficits of illegal immigration. It's a deficit.....[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Well I posted facts....and you have not. Feel free to provide some...Ninja-HippoI think the facts are questionable to say the least. Like we've discussed, it just doesn't seem likely at all that that number of supposedly illegal immigrants are on welfare. There is no way to gain welfare as an illegal immigrant besides very well executed identity theft. That would be a fairly huge number of people who are incredibly effective at forgery. Well because you don't understand it....doesn't mean it isn't so.
New statistics from the Department of Public Social Services reveal that illegal aliens and their families in Los Angeles County collected over $37 million in welfare and food stamp allocations in November 2007 – up $3 million dollars from September, announced Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich.
Twenty five percent of the all welfare and food stamps benefits is going directly to the children of illegal aliens. Illegals collected over $20 million in welfare assistance for November 2007 and over $16 million in monthly food stamp allocations for a projected annual cost of $444 million.
"This new information shows an alarming increase in the devastating impact Illegal immigration continues to have on Los Angeles County taxpayers," said Antonovich. "With $220 million for public safety $400 million for healthcare, and $444 million in welfare allocations, the total cost for illegal immigrants to County taxpayers far exceeds $1 billion a year – not including the millions of dollars for education."
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Well I posted facts....and you have not. Feel free to provide some...LJS9502_basic
You did not post paticularly relevant nor any conclusive facts... therefore they do not make an impact on the argument. I don't know if you consider the fact that illegal immigrants are paid less than native born Americans to be a fact, or if you want a link. But it is a fact.
Of course I did. I posted the total cost to the economy considering the benefits and deficits of illegal immigration. It's a deficit.....That specific study claimed it was with regards to the economy, but only studied the tax/benefits area of the economy. It is incorrect to assume that it accounts for the entire economy. It was not a total, ergo does not help your point.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Well I posted facts....and you have not. Feel free to provide some...Ninja-HippoI think the facts are questionable to say the least. Like we've discussed, it just doesn't seem likely at all that that number of supposedly illegal immigrants are on welfare. There is no way to gain welfare as an illegal immigrant besides very well executed identity theft. That would be a fairly huge number of people who are incredibly effective at forgery.
Because babies are automatically given Social Security numbers.:?
I think the facts are questionable to say the least. Like we've discussed, it just doesn't seem likely at all that that number of supposedly illegal immigrants are on welfare. There is no way to gain welfare as an illegal immigrant besides very well executed identity theft. That would be a fairly huge number of people who are incredibly effective at forgery.[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Well I posted facts....and you have not. Feel free to provide some...topsemag55
Because babies are automatically given Social Security numbers.:?
Indeed but a baby cannot apply for welfare can it? The parents would have to expose themselves as illegal immigrants in making a welfare application.
... People desperate enough will always come ot the United States.. But they wouldn't do so in such great numbers if businesses weren't willing to hire them illegally.. The businesses should be the ones punished, not the illegals whoa re often times risking their lives and are desperate.. This isn't to suggest that they should or should not be deported, but we wouldn't have this "supposed" problem if it weren't for businesses willing to brekat he law.. That being said I think entirelly too much is focused on this imo, there are far bigger fishes to fry that cost the nationf ar more money then illegals imo.
[QUOTE="topsemag55"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] I think the facts are questionable to say the least. Like we've discussed, it just doesn't seem likely at all that that number of supposedly illegal immigrants are on welfare. There is no way to gain welfare as an illegal immigrant besides very well executed identity theft. That would be a fairly huge number of people who are incredibly effective at forgery. Ninja-Hippo
Because babies are automatically given Social Security numbers.:?
Indeed but a baby cannot apply for welfare can it? The parents would have to expose themselves as illegal immigrants in making a welfare application.And as I've explained at least twice to you....the parents are NOT deported because the baby is legal. That is the concept I was referring to before dude...... People desperate enough will always come ot the United States.. But they wouldn't do so in such great numbers if businesses weren't willing to hire them illegally.. The businesses should be the ones not punished, not the illegals whoa re often times risking their lives and are desperate.. This isn't to suggest that they should or should not be deported, but we wouldn't have this "supposed" problem if it weren't for businesses willing to brekat he law.. That being said I think entirelly too much is focused on this imo, there are far bigger fishes to fry that cost the nationf ar more money then illegals imo.sSubZerOoI totally agree the businesses should be targeted as well....
I think the facts are questionable to say the least. Like we've discussed, it just doesn't seem likely at all that that number of supposedly illegal immigrants are on welfare. There is no way to gain welfare as an illegal immigrant besides very well executed identity theft. That would be a fairly huge number of people who are incredibly effective at forgery. Well because you don't understand it....doesn't mean it isn't so.[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Well I posted facts....and you have not. Feel free to provide some...LJS9502_basic
New statistics from the Department of Public Social Services reveal that illegal aliens and their families in Los Angeles County collected over $37 million in welfare and food stamp allocations in November 2007 – up $3 million dollars from September, announced Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich.
Twenty five percent of the all welfare and food stamps benefits is going directly to the children of illegal aliens. Illegals collected over $20 million in welfare assistance for November 2007 and over $16 million in monthly food stamp allocations for a projected annual cost of $444 million.
"This new information shows an alarming increase in the devastating impact Illegal immigration continues to have on Los Angeles County taxpayers," said Antonovich. "With $220 million for public safety $400 million for healthcare, and $444 million in welfare allocations, the total cost for illegal immigrants to County taxpayers far exceeds $1 billion a year – not including the millions of dollars for education."
I do understand it perfectly well, i'm merely asking questions. >_> My query is whether these people are actually still ILLEGAL are once were illegal immigrants but have since gained citizenship but are still referred to as illegal in these statistics as that is where they have been derived. I just don't see how any state could give welfare to someone who isn't even a legal citizen.Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment