Different Immigration Horse to Beat

[Texsox]

Should we also be concerned about all the Doctors and other professionals that immigrate? We seem to be worried about immigrants taking the worst jobs in America, perhaps we should spend as much time and worry about immigrants taking the best jobs?

 

Instead of figuring out how to get our nation's children to pick fruit and mow lawns, why don't we start worrying about why we can't rear enough Doctors?

 

It has to all tie in, doesn't it?

[southsider2k5]

Joke I was sent this morning...

 

An excellent idea....and not too difficult!

 

1. Dig a moat the length of the Mexican border.

2. Take the dirt and raise the levies in New Orleans.

3. Put the Florida alligators in the moat.

Any other problems you would like me to solve for you today ?

 

Answer to the question up above... Maybe because we are spending so much money on providing for illegal aliens, that we aren't funding college educations enough?

[Texsox]

Joke I was sent this morning...

 

 

 

Answer to the question up above... Maybe because we are spending so much money on providing for illegal aliens, that we aren't funding college educations enough?

 

And why would a legal worker cost less? Haven't you said that once the workers are legal, they will cost more?

 

Getting to cost, it does seem we offer more support for getting a bachelors than a PhD.

[southsider2k5]

More in salary, less in unemployment, social security, welfare, health insurance... etc.

[Texsox]

More in salary, less in unemployment, social security, welfare, health insurance... etc.

 

I agree, and since it will be so good for America, why don't we raise the minimum wage to accomplish it?

 

I wonder at what salary level people pay more in taxes than they receive? With the very wealthiest Americans paying so much, I think it may be a lot higher than we think. With a graduated income tax, at least half the people pay more than their share to cover the bottom half and that hits the average.

[southsider2k5]

I agree, and since it will be so good for America, why don't we raise the minimum wage to accomplish it?

 

I wonder at what salary level people pay more in taxes than they receive? With the very wealthiest Americans paying so much, I think it may be a lot higher than we think. With a graduated income tax, at least half the people pay more than their share to cover the bottom half and that hits the average.

 

There would be no need to change minimum wage if we eliminated the artificial caps on wages, such as illegal immigration.

[Texsox]

There would be no need to change minimum wage if we eliminated the artificial caps on wages, such as illegal immigration.

 

We still agree that illegal immigration has to stop.

And you did say that you were not for ending all immigration. So we agree there.

 

If I understand you, wages for these jobs must raise above the poverty level so the workers would not have to rely on so much government help. I assume that would mean all below poverty level jobs. You believe with illegals out of the job market, wages will rise above poverty level for the millions of people below that level. Would that also apply to companies like WalMart; and would the rise in part time labor as American students are attracted to these manual labor jobs hurt as they would not have benefits?

 

Would the raise in wages happen with legal immigration, or would we have to curtail immigration all together?

 

And getting back on topic, do you see immigrants taking desirable, better paying jobs as a bigger problem than immigrants taking low paying, less desirable jobs?

[southsider2k5]

We still agree that illegal immigration has to stop.

And you did say that you were not for ending all immigration. So we agree there.

 

If I understand you, wages for these jobs must raise above the poverty level so the workers would not have to rely on so much government help. I assume that would mean all below poverty level jobs. You believe with illegals out of the job market, wages will rise above poverty level for the millions of people below that level. Would that also apply to companies like WalMart; and would the rise in part time labor as American students are attracted to these manual labor jobs hurt as they would not have benefits?

 

Would the raise in wages happen with legal immigration, or would we have to curtail immigration all together?

 

And getting back on topic, do you see immigrants taking desirable, better paying jobs as a bigger problem than immigrants taking low paying, less desirable jobs?

 

Depends on what industries and wages we are talking about. In areas where there are unions you won't see much of a change, except for the companies who were using illegal labor. In areas where there is no wage protections, and lots of illegal labor used, you will see much more wage increases.

[Texsox]

Depends on what industries and wages we are talking about. In areas where there are unions you won't see much of a change, except for the companies who were using illegal labor. In areas where there is no wage protections, and lots of illegal labor used, you will see much more wage increases.

 

Works for me as long as American business has access to a qualified, willing, labor pool.

 

No bite on high end immigration? That is more fascinating to me. We fight for bottom jobs and ignore the better ones? Perhaps because these immigrants probably speak English and drive nice cars?

[SleepyWhiteSox]

More in salary, less in unemployment, social security, welfare, health insurance... etc.

 

Are there concrete studies from non-partial groups without agendas stating these claims?

 

I still haven't found anything on my own and am curious to see what's out there to back up those claims.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Works for me as long as American business has access to a qualified, willing, labor pool.

 

No bite on high end immigration? That is more fascinating to me. We fight for bottom jobs and ignore the better ones? Perhaps because these immigrants probably speak English and drive nice cars?

 

We have lost lead we once enjoyed in the world higher education race, and will in short order lose the race itself. After 4th grade, American math/science/technology grades plummet. Other than mayber NSF's Project 2061, nobody is even trying to seriously address the issue.

 

It will get worse over the next couple decades as the foreign doctors and engineers our schools currently train become the basis of new world-class academic institutions in their homelands. Then America will lose even the current job of being the M.D.- and PhD-mill for the rest of the world.

 

So, all in all I guess the folks that are worried that their kids might lose that sweet lettuce-picking job to a Mexican immigrant have the right idea after all. Our schools sure won't be preparing them for much better prospects.

[Texsox]

I hadn't noticed it until I was looking through my health insurance companies web site how my of these Doctors are foreign trained. Up until then I assumed they were educated in American Universities and decided to stay. Most are educated outside the US and immigrate.

 

LMAO at sweet job picking lettuce. Nice Jim.

[Cknolls]

Can someone tell me how the gov't is going to collect taxes from illegals when they do not even know who they are or how much they have been paid?

 

And if these jobs are low-paying like everyone says will this amnesty just increase the number of people who do not pay taxes but receive the benefits of citizenship. Net net these people will not pay any taxes after all deductions and EIC are accounted for right????

Edited June 1, 2006 by Cknolls

[Texsox]

Can someone tell me how the gov't is going to collect taxes from illegals when they do not even know who they are or how much they have been paid?

 

Easy, most use someone else's social security number to get past employer checks, so they are paying income taxes. They also pay taxes when they buy food, etc.

 

The tax avoidance issue is seperate and even more annoying, when you start to look at grandma and grandpa who is getting paid off the books to avoid problems with their social security or pensions. Companies that barter and don't report the income, and individuals that employ nannies, and other household help and don't report it.

 

All the more reasons for a better controlled immigration progam tied to jobs that puts companies out of business who hire people without documentation or who pay people off the books. Even if it's grandpa Joe who fought in WW2 and Korea and whose parents came over on the Mayflower.

 

Anyone in this country making less than the average is getting more than they pay for. The further down from the average, the more the disparity. But anyone working any minimum wage job will never pay as much as they receive.

 

And once again Southsider makes a great argument for higher wages. But he fails to consider the unemplyment rate. How many unemployed professionals will abandon their job search to go pick fruit in Florida and potatoes in Idaho?

[southsider2k5]

Are there concrete studies from non-partial groups without agendas stating these claims?

 

I still haven't found anything on my own and am curious to see what's out there to back up those claims.

 

I haven't seen anything that would say anything else but... What non-partial studies are you looking at, that contradict any of my claims?

 

Think about it. We have a country of just barely under 300 million people, that costs trillions of dollars a year to run and support. If we look at adding approximately 12 million more people, the vast majority of whom are well below median income, most even below poverty level. The exsisting poor population of the United States uses an inordinate amount of social services as compared to what it pays into the system. As I have documented on numerous occasions, the lower 2 quartiles of the US taxpayers pays a negative tax rate, meaning they don't actually pay a net dime into the federal tax system, in fact they actually profit from our progressive tax system. So the poorest people in the country have a negative net cashflow to the federal government BEFORE they EVER use a single social service. Now if we add millions upon millions of MORE people to these very groups, what other conclusions are there to reach? Common sense alone says it will cost way more.

 

Do you have anything to back up what you are saying???

 

Can someone tell me how the gov't is going to collect taxes from illegals when they do not even know who they are or how much they have been paid?

 

And if these jobs are low-paying like everyone says will this amnesty just increase the number of people who do not pay taxes but receive the benefits of citizenship. Net net these people will not pay any taxes after all deductions and EIC are accounted for right????

 

 

A great many of them will be making a profit off their taxes after credits such as EIC are factored into their taxes.

[Texsox]

I haven't seen anything that would say anything else but... What non-partial studies are you looking at, that contradict any of my claims?

 

Think about it. We have a country of just barely under 300 million people, that costs trillions of dollars a year to run and support. If we look at adding approximately 12 million more people, the vast majority of whom are well below median income, most even below poverty level. The exsisting poor population of the United States uses an inordinate amount of social services as compared to what it pays into the system. As I have documented on numerous occasions, the lower 2 quartiles of the US taxpayers pays a negative tax rate, meaning they don't actually pay a net dime into the federal tax system, in fact they actually profit from our progressive tax system. So the poorest people in the country have a negative net cashflow to the federal government BEFORE they EVER use a single social service. Now if we add millions upon millions of MORE people to these very groups, what other conclusions are there to reach? Common sense alone says it will cost way more.

 

Do you have anything to back up what you are saying???

 

We're not adding, they are already here. And if they leave, we'll have to find millions more to take their place. Are you now proposing deporting them?

[southsider2k5]

We're not adding, they are already here. And if they leave, we'll have to find millions more to take their place. Are you now proposing deporting them?

 

You are missing my point.

 

You would be adding them to the system. Right now they do not receive any federal benefits, whereas if legalize they would.

[Cknolls]

I haven't seen anything that would say anything else but... What non-partial studies are you looking at, that contradict any of my claims?

 

Think about it. We have a country of just barely under 300 million people, that costs trillions of dollars a year to run and support. If we look at adding approximately 12 million more people, the vast majority of whom are well below median income, most even below poverty level. The exsisting poor population of the United States uses an inordinate amount of social services as compared to what it pays into the system. As I have documented on numerous occasions, the lower 2 quartiles of the US taxpayers pays a negative tax rate, meaning they don't actually pay a net dime into the federal tax system, in fact they actually profit from our progressive tax system. So the poorest people in the country have a negative net cashflow to the federal government BEFORE they EVER use a single social service. Now if we add millions upon millions of MORE people to these very groups, what other conclusions are there to reach? Common sense alone says it will cost way more.

 

Do you have anything to back up what you are saying???

A great many of them will be making a profit off their taxes after credits such as EIC are factored into their taxes.

 

 

Exactly. That is why this bill is a piece of doo doo. It is pandering at its highest form.

 

Has anyone seen the study done by Robert Rector? What do you think?

[Balta1701]

Exactly. That is why this bill is a piece of doo doo. It is pandering at its highest form.

 

Has anyone seen the study done by Robert Rector? What do you think?

Response from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, including estimates of how much the immigration reform act would cost based on CBO numbers and historical evidence.

[kapkomet]

You are missing my point.

 

Probably on purpose.

[SleepyWhiteSox]

Response from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, including estimates of how much the immigration reform act would cost based on CBO numbers and historical evidence.

 

Close to zero cost instead of the ridiculous 30 billion per year...interesting...and not from a source with an obvious agenda...

[kapkomet]

Close to zero cost instead of the ridiculous 30 billion per year...interesting...and not from a source with an obvious agenda...

 

LMFAO!!!!!!!!!! You have GOT to be kidding.

The CONGRESSIONAL Budget Office has no obvious agenda, none at all.

[SleepyWhiteSox]

LMFAO!!!!!!!!!! You have GOT to be kidding.

The CONGRESSIONAL Budget Office has no obvious agenda, none at all.

 

Oops, perused the site a little more...

 

Well then my point still stands that I really haven't seen anything from a source WITHOUT an agenda...

[Rex Kickass]

Actually the CBO operates independent of Congress and has literally no agenda. It just provides numbers.

[southsider2k5]

Response from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, including estimates of how much the immigration reform act would cost based on CBO numbers and historical evidence.

 

I couldn't get past this paragraph.

 

Furthermore, once the effect of taxes is considered, the CBO data suggest it is likely that the net costs of the legalization provisions will be close to zero, not $30 billion per year. The CBO figure of $6.9 billion cited above does not include the effect of increased tax revenues that legalized workers would pay. Heritage claims its estimate of $30 billion includes the effect of taxes. A full assessment of the budgetary impact of the legalization provisions surely should take the effects on tax revenues into account; immigrants who gain legal status under the bill would pay substantial amounts of taxes and be charged sizeable fees. When the increased revenues are taken into account, much — and perhaps all — of the $6.9 billion a year that CBO projects in eventual benefit costs are offset. The net effect on the budget thus may well be close to a wash.

 

According to the CBO, the bottom quintile of tax payers paid an estimated -5.7% tax rate in 2004, with the second quintile paying a -0.1%. How is adding negative tax payers going to increase revenues?