whembly wrote:
Heh...

I'm eagerly waiting for the media to vet him as vigorously as they did for Obama.

Did you see that disasterous WSJ article? It haz begun.

 dæl wrote:
Why is that WSJ article making a big thing about quoting him that the government "holds a monopoly on violence". Its not like that is a fringe view that he is the first person to express, its literally the first thing you learn if you take a class in politics.

 whembly wrote:
'Cuz... he's from that icky party.

 motyak wrote:
Ugh this guy really does sound like a nut. I feel sorry for his electorate if he wins.

 sebster wrote:

 dæl wrote:
Why is that WSJ article making a big thing about quoting him that the government "holds a monopoly on violence". Its not like that is a fringe view that he is the first person to express, its literally the first thing you learn if you take a class in politics.

It's like focusing on the assumption of utilitarianism in economics, it's just something you acknowledge and then move on to things that matter and can be sensibly debated. But when someone keeps going back to that point, and making out like it's something that needs to be challenged, or pretending there's some kind of unstated, unknown alternative, well then it's a pretty good indication that they might be something of a nut.

 dæl wrote:
Ah, I see. It hadn't even occurred to me that he might be arguing against the state's monopoly on legitimate violence. Guess I lack the hearing range for libertarian dog whistle politics...

 whembly wrote:

This really isn't strictly a Republican issue vs Democrat issue...

It's the Big Business operatives (crony capitalism) wanting large influx of cheap labor to drive down wages for everyone AND many Democratic operatives playing the long game in the hopes that amnesty does pass in order to increase the Democratic voting bloc.

 whembly wrote:

But, all of what I stated really shouldn't matter. Above all else, what matters should be the rule of law. Objectively look at this situation and tell me with a straight face that this isn't an issue that needs to be addressed.

 sebster wrote:
It's just that I strongly suspect his particular view on ethics is going to revolve a lot around saying 'freedom' a lot, which is actually not very useful at all.

 motyak wrote:
Jeeeeesus they were not at all kind with regards to the photo they gave him.

 dogma wrote:
I suspect "Jesus" would be more prevalent.

 dogma wrote:
Someone wasn't prepared.

 sebster wrote:

Internal polling by Cantor had him up by 34 with a week to run. I think everyone is a bit surprised by this, let alone the margin. The polling numbers were out by 45 points.

 sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
'Cuz... he's from that icky party.

Umm, WSJ. Not exactly a liberal bastion. This is the right wing machine looking to sink a threat from their own side.

Not that the article is actually all that unfair. He said those things, and they're given in proper context. It sounds bad likely because it is bad.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Since I am attach to USCIS I cannot give out certain info

That is awfully convenient; secret info will change your mind about public policy!

 Jihadin wrote:
Like I said. We need to seal the border.

 Jihadin wrote:
Like I said. We need to seal the border.
Notional thought here

Unseal we have like 150K crossing the southern border a yeat
Sealing the border we knock it down to 20K
We have funds for the admin, logistical, operational, and up keeping the facilities to handle the 100K
Over time as we plug the holes to knock the 20K to 10K we are removing the "bad apples"
The policies I stated before which document the illegal aliens are now on track and in process of naturalization. So additional fee's they pay and plus we can now tax them BECAUSE FACE IT WE ARE NOT DEPORTING THEM SO MIGHT AS WELL MAKE THEM AMERICANS being in their current status they are a drain on the funds

Curious if anyone can figure what I posted up minus the documents I cannot mention

Five years down the road we have a better handle on the Illegal Immigration issue

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Either way, it the problem of illegal immigration is to be solved border control needs tightened. Otherwise we're just spending money on a catch and release system. We know this, and people gaming the system know this - just look at MS13.
And if you want to get rid of the people already here illegally then it is quite simple;

- have ICE attend rallies of illegal immigrants demanding a change in the law and detain those who have no lawful right to be here

- no public assistance of any kind for illegal immigrants

- improve SS so that illegal immigrants cannot fraudulently use social security numbers

- harsher penalties for employers who use the services of illegal immigrants e.g. $10K fine for each illegal immigrant employed, and jail time for serial offenders
- specific focus on industries where illegal immigrants are likely to work under the table
- offer assistance to illegal immigrants who wish to return to their country of origin
Remove the financial incentives for people to come here and I would imagine that a great deal of the problems caused by illegal immigration will solve itself.

 d-usa wrote:
So you are pro-police state now? Are you also okay with the police detaining everybody at an open-carry rally until they made sure that nobody there is a convicted felon? The minute the government acts tough enough to do this stuff the same folks bitching about illegal immigrants are going to bitch about the police state.

 d-usa wrote:
I'm mixed on that. Because a lot of them are paying into the system.

 d-usa wrote:
Realistically, doing that would probably just end up hurting social security more than it would benefit it.

 d-usa wrote:
[copy+paste whatever arguments the conservatives make about raising minimum wage]

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Just for the lulz

 d-usa wrote:
So you are pro-police state now? Are you also okay with the police detaining everybody at an open-carry rally until they made sure that nobody there is a convicted felon? The minute the government acts tough enough to do this stuff the same folks bitching about illegal immigrants are going to bitch about the police state.

That is a beautiful strawman that you have erected. Here is the difference - illegal immigrants demanding more rights pretty frequently carry signs/admit to being in the country unlawfully knowing that almost nothing gets done. If someone was at an open carry rally and boasted of being a felon in possession of a weapon I would have no problems with that person being arrested for breaking the law.

 d-usa wrote:
I'm mixed on that. Because a lot of them are paying into the system.

Paying into the system under SSN that they have no rights to use, and they take more than they pay in. No matter how you cut it they have no right to SSN. That is for US citizens.

 d-usa wrote:
Realistically, doing that would probably just end up hurting social security more than it would benefit it.

How?

 d-usa wrote:
[copy+paste whatever arguments the conservatives make about raising minimum wage]

Except for the fact that reducing the population of illegal immigrants will remove a market force that actually depresses wages in that industry.
What does you glib comment have to do with (a) punishing employers breaking the law, (b) offering assistance for the repatriation of illegal immigrants, (c) focusing efforts on clamping down on illegal aliens employed under the table?

 d-usa wrote:
Then your post should say "deport people at rallies that admit to being there illegally". The way it was written there was no way to determine who there was legal and who was not. So police would have had to investigate every single person there.

 d-usa wrote:
Both those posts overlap a little bit, mainly because of the highlighted item.

How many illegal immigrants are retired on SS or receive SSD? The number is pretty small and insignificant as far as I know. It is pretty easy to pay into the Social Security fund with a fake SS#. It's pretty damn hard to take that money back out. So removing illegal immigrants from the group paying in actually hurts the pot because they contribute more than they take.

I have seen a couple studies that show that illegal immigrants pay more in taxes and Social Security fees than they take. Less so with illegals that get paid under the table without a SS#, but even they still pay local taxes.

A study released by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) estimates that illegal immigration now costs federal and local taxpayers $113 billion a year. The report, The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on U.S. Taxpayers, is the most comprehensive analysis of how much the estimated 13 million illegal aliens and their U.S.-born children cost the federal, state and local governments
The cost estimates are based on an extensive analysis of federal, state and local spending data. The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on U.S. Taxpayers examines dozens of government programs that are available to illegal aliens and their U.S.-born children, both legally and fraudulently. The report provides detailed analysis of the impact of illegal immigration on education, health care, law enforcement and justice, public assistance, and other government programs.

The report also accounts for taxes paid by illegal aliens about $13 billion a year, resulting in a net cost to taxpayers of about $100 billion. However, the study notes that government at all levels would likely have realized significantly greater revenues if jobs held by illegal aliens had been filled by legal U.S. residents instead.
Federal spending on illegal aliens amounts to $29 billion, finds Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on U.S. Taxpayers. The lion’s share of the costs of illegal immigration is borne by state and local taxpayers an estimated $84.2 billion. In 18 states, expenditures on illegal aliens exceeded the size of those states’ budget deficits in FY 2009.

Among the key findings of The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on U.S. Taxpayers:

The $113 billion in outlays for services and benefits to illegal aliens and their families represents an average cost to native-headed households of $1,117 a year. Because the burdens of illegal immigration are not evenly distributed, the costs are much higher in states with large illegal alien populations.
Education for the children of illegal aliens represents the single largest public expenditure at an annual cost of $52 billion. Nearly all of that cost is absorbed by state and local governments.
The federal government recoups about one-third of its share of the costs of illegal immigration in the form of taxes collected. States, which bear a much greater share of the costs, recoup a mere 5 percent of their expenditures from taxes paid by illegal aliens.
Granting amnesty to illegal aliens, as President Obama and others propose, would not significantly increase tax revenues generated by current illegal aliens. However, over time, amnesty would dramatically increase public costs as newly-legalized aliens become eligible for all means-tested government programs.
Arizona’s annual cost of illegal immigration is $2.5 billion.
“The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on U.S. Taxpayers provides a definitive response to the question of whether illegal aliens are a net benefit or a net drain on government coffers,” stated Dan Stein president of FAIR. “The report examines virtually every federal, state and local government program to determine the impact of illegal immigration on the bottom line. That bottom line $113 billion a year, and growing makes our nation’s failure to control illegal immigration one of the largest preventable burdens borne by American taxpayers.”

“If political leaders in Washington and state capitals want to understand why the American public is demanding enforcement of our immigration laws, The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on U.S. Taxpayers, provides 113 billion good reasons,” Stein concluded.

In hosting America's largest population of illegal immigrants, California bears a huge cost to provide basic human services for this fast growing, low-income segment of its population. A new study from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) examines the costs of education, health care and incarceration of illegal aliens, and concludes that the costs to Californians is $10.5 billion per year.

Among the key finding of the report are that the state's already struggling K-12 education system spends approximately $7.7 billion a year to school the children of illegal aliens who now constitute 15 percent of the student body. Another $1.4 billion of the taxpayers' money goes toward providing health care to illegal aliens and their families, the same amount that is spent incarcerating illegal aliens criminals.

"California's addiction to 'cheap' illegal alien labor is bankrupting the state and posing enormous burdens on the state's shrinking middle class tax base," stated Dan Stein, President of FAIR. "Most Californians, who have seen their taxes increase while public services deteriorate, already know the impact that mass illegal immigration is having on their communities, but even they may be shocked when they learn just how much of a drain illegal immigration has become."

The Costs of Illegal Immigration to Californians focuses on three specific program areas because those were the costs examined by researchers from the Urban Institute in 1994. Looking at the costs of education, health care and incarceration for illegal aliens in 1994, the Urban Institute estimated that California was subsidizing illegal immigrants to the tune of about $1.1 billion. The enormous rise in the costs of illegal immigrants over the intervening ten years is due to the rapid growth in illegal residents. It is reasonable to expect those costs to continue to soar if action is not taken to turn the tide.

"Nineteen ninety-four was the same year that California voters rebelled and overwhelmingly passed Proposition 187, which sought to limit liability for mass illegal immigration. Since then, state and local governments have blatantly ignored the wishes of the voters and continued to shell out publicly financed benefits on illegal aliens," said Stein. "Predictably, the costs of illegal immigration have grown geometrically, while the state has spiraled into a fiscal crisis that has brought it near bankruptcy.

"Nothing could more starkly illustrate the very high costs of ‘cheap labor' than California's current situation," continued Stein. "A small number of powerful interests in the state reap the benefits, while the average native-born family in California gets handed a nearly $1,200 a year bill."

The Federation for American Immigration Reform is a nonprofit, public-interest, membership organization advocating immigration policy reforms that would tighten border security and prevent illegal immigration, while reducing legal immigration levels from about 1.1 million persons per year to 300,000 per year.

Illegal immigration costs the taxpayers of California — which has the highest number of illegal aliens nationwide — $10.5 billion a year for education, health care and incarceration, according to a study released yesterday.

A key finding of the report by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) said the state’s already struggling kindergarten-through-12th-grade education system spends $7.7 billion a year on children of illegal aliens, who constitute 15 percent of the student body.

The report also said the incarceration of convicted illegal aliens in state prisons and jails and uncompensated medical outlays for health care provided to illegal aliens each amounted to about $1.4 billion annually. The incarceration costs did not include judicial expenditures or the monetary costs of the crimes committed by illegal aliens that led to their incarceration.

“California’s addiction to ‘cheap’ illegal-alien labor is bankrupting the state and posing enormous burdens on the state’s shrinking middle-class tax base,” said FAIR President Dan Stein.

“Most Californians, who have seen their taxes increase while public services deteriorate, already know the impact that mass illegal immigration is having on their communities, but even they may be shocked when they learn just how much of a drain illegal immigration has become,” he said.

California is estimated to be home to nearly 3 million illegal aliens.

Mr. Stein noted that state and local taxes paid by the unauthorized immigrant population go toward offsetting these costs, but do not match expenses. The total of such payments was estimated in the report to be about $1.6 billion per year.

He also said the total cost of illegal immigration to the state’s taxpayers would be considerably higher if other cost areas, such as special English instruction, school meal programs or welfare benefits for American workers displaced by illegal-alien workers were added into the equation.

Gerardo Gonzalez, director of the National Latino Research Center at California State at San Marcos, which compiles data on Hispanics, was critical of FAIR’s report yesterday. He said FAIR’s estimates did not measure some of the contributions that illegal aliens make to the state’s economy.

“Beyond taxes, these workers’ production and spending contribute to California’s economy, especially the agricultural sector,” he said, adding that both legal and illegal aliens are the “backbone” of the state’s $28 billion-a-year agricultural industry.

In August, a similar study by the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, said U.S. households headed by illegal aliens used $26.3 billion in government services during 2002, but paid $16 billion in taxes, an annual cost to taxpayers of $10 billion.

The FAIR report focused on three specific program areas because those were the costs examined by researchers from the Urban Institute in 1994, Mr. Stein said. Looking at the costs of education, health care and incarceration for illegal aliens in 1994, the Urban Institute estimated that California was subsidizing illegal immigrants at about $1.1 billion a year.

Mr. Stein said an enormous rise in the costs of illegal immigrants in 10 years is because of the rapid growth of the illegal population. He said it is reasonable to expect those costs to continue to soar if action is not taken to turn the tide.

“1994 was the same year that California voters rebelled and overwhelmingly passed Proposition 187, which sought to limit liability for mass illegal immigration,” he said. “Since then, state and local governments have blatantly ignored the wishes of the voters and continued to shell out publicly financed benefits on illegal aliens.

“Predictably, the costs of illegal immigration have grown geometrically, while the state has spiraled into a fiscal crisis that has brought it near bankruptcy,” he said.
Mr. Stein said that the state must adopt measures to systematically collect information on illegal-alien use of taxpayer-funded services and on where they are employed, and that policies need to be pursued to hold employers financially accountable.

Executive Summary
DHS
This study is one of the first to estimate the total impact of illegal immigration on the federal budget. Most previous studies have focused on the state and local level and have examined only costs or tax payments, but not both. Based on Census Bureau data, this study finds that, when all taxes paid (direct and indirect) and all costs are considered, illegal households created a net fiscal deficit at the federal level of more than $10 billion in 2002. We also estimate that, if there was an amnesty for illegal aliens, the net fiscal deficit would grow to nearly $29 billion.

Among the findings:

Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household.
Among the largest costs are Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion).
With nearly two-thirds of illegal aliens lacking a high school degree, 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 heavy use of most social services.
On average, the costs that illegal households impose on federal coffers are less than half that of other households, but their tax payments are only one-fourth that of other households.
Many of the costs associated with illegals are due to their American-born children, who are awarded U.S. citizenship at birth. Thus, greater efforts at barring illegals from federal programs will not reduce costs because their citizen children can continue to access them.
If illegal aliens were given amnesty and began to pay taxes and use services like households headed by legal immigrants with the same education levels, the estimated annual net fiscal deficit would increase from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for a total net cost of $29 billion.
Costs increase dramatically because unskilled immigrants with legal status -- what most illegal aliens would become -- can access government programs, but still tend to make very modest tax payments.
Although legalization would increase average tax payments by 77 percent, average costs would rise by 118 percent.
The fact that legal immigrants with few years of schooling are a large fiscal drain does not mean that legal immigrants overall are a net drain -- many legal immigrants are highly skilled.
The vast majority of illegals hold jobs. Thus the fiscal deficit they create for the federal government is not the result of an unwillingness to work.
The results of this study are consistent with a 1997 study by the National Research Council, which also found that immigrants' education level is a key determinant of their fiscal impact.

 d-usa wrote:

(a) employers will simply pass the cost of the fine to the consumer, same with a raised minimum wage.
(b) that one shouldn't have been lumped into the mix, sorry about that. I actually agree with helping people that want to get back.
(c) Hiring legal people and paying them taxes will raise prices on everything as the employer will simply pass the cost down to the consumer.

One of the big arguments against minimum wage increases is "it will make anything more expensive". Removing illegal immigrants will make everything more expensive as well.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:


If your argument is that prices go up so that US workers get a fair wage for work done then I agree - workers should receive a fair wage in an industry where the wages have been artificially depressed.

 d-usa wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:


If your argument is that prices go up so that US workers get a fair wage for work done then I agree - workers should receive a fair wage in an industry where the wages have been artificially depressed.

Now we enter the other thread where we argue for 20 pages about what a fair wage is before it gets locked

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

I'll agree to a very minor point that my language could have been a little bit more precise. Many pro-amnesty rallies have people openly admitting their unlawful status, it was of those that I spoke. .

 dogma wrote:
The poll you're referencing had only 400 respondents when the standard is 1000; anything below that threshold is generally thrown out as unrepresentative.

My suspicion is that many people refused to respond to polling due to an inherent bias against "the establishment".

A good article.

 whembly wrote:
True... but the writer missed the point. Brat is upset by the fact that Christians these days are too "morally weak" to stand firm in the face of Hitlerian evil and urged them to be more resolute against a "New Hitler". This writer is trying to frame Brat as some sort of pro-Nazi Hitler rehabilitation.