Removing the Fourteenth Amendment

[bmags]

frankly, if we are speaking economics, it doesn't bode well for anti-immigration.

[EvilMonkey]

Thats what you believe, I respectfully disagree. I believe that if the govt stopped wasting money on the war on drugs, stopped wasting money on trying to enforce an imaginary border to keep out people seeking freedom, the US economy would rebound rapidly.

How many homeless people can YOU feed and shelter until you suffer yourself? There is always a point where you can't take any more.

 

You also seem to think that all these new people will only get back what they pay in, and that is just wrong. With the ponzi scheme that it is, they never pay in enough to cover themselves, nobody does.

[Balta1701]

You also seem to think that all these new people will only get back what they pay in, and that is just wrong. With the ponzi scheme that it is, they never pay in enough to cover themselves, nobody does.

But paying for enforcement continues to be free.

[NorthSideSox72]

frankly, if we are speaking economics, it doesn't bode well for anti-immigration.

It doesn't bode well for anti-immigration, if by anti-immigration you mean seriously reducing legal immigration. And no one here is suggesting that, so, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

 

Economics of course doesn't bode well for the other extreme either of course, which is what I was saying earlier.

 

Using economics as the prime reasoning, you want your country to grow, and immigration can certainly help with that, if executed properly.

 

[Controlled Chaos]

If you remove the rule, they cant break it anymore.

 

So not only am I against changing the 14th amendment, Im for making it so that everyone can become an American citizen who wants to.

 

Remove all quotas, remove all unnecessary restrictions, let freedom ring.

 

When you open up the Immigration debate, you have to remember that there are people in the United States who strongly oppose the idea of restricting who can enter into our country. It would be amazing if the people of the United States could turn this on its head, and make it so that we allow everyone in the world a chance to have the freedom that so many of us take for granted.

 

Freedom for all, not just for those of us who got here first.

What do you consider unnecessary?

[Soxbadger]

How many homeless people can YOU feed and shelter until you suffer yourself? There is always a point where you can't take any more.

 

Well depends on how you define suffer. Helping 1 person even for 1 cent is suffering, thats money I could have used. There is always a breaking point, but I wont just sit here without factual evidence and argue that we are close to that point. Maybe one day in the future there would be a legitimate scarcity crisis and we would have to evaluate our decisions.

 

But right now the US is one of the least densely populated countries.

 

You also seem to think that all these new people will only get back what they pay in, and that is just wrong. With the ponzi scheme that it is, they never pay in enough to cover themselves, nobody does.

 

I actually dont think that at all. I think that you need more people to join the system so that they can pay for the current people who are being paid out.

 

The first rule to a pyramid scheme is that you never want to be on the bottom of the pyramid. How do you prevent yourself from being on the bottom?

 

Make sure that people join after you. If you truly believe that this is nothing but a pyramid scam (Ponzi originally wasnt a scam artist, he actually found a legitimate way to make money off of stamps, eventually he just got lazy) then youd want more people to join at the bottom.

 

What do you consider unnecessary?

 

I dont think there should be any restriction except for you cant be a wanted criminal and maybe rules with regard to convicted felons of certain crimes.

 

So most restrictions I would consider unnecessary, but would be open to ideas on what may be some necessary restrictions.

[southsider2k5]

Why is that funny?

 

The amnesty act was passed in 1986. The deficit didnt occur because of the amnesty act. Im not sure if these numbers are right but im to lazy to use FRASER (Federal archive for economic research).

 

 

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-debt-o...ited-states.htm

 

1980 $711.9

1981 $789.4

1982 $924.6

1983 $1,137.3

1984 $1,307.0

1985 $1,507.3

1986 $1,740.6

1987 $1,889.8

1988 $2,051.6

1989 $2,190.7

 

Strange that after the amnesty act, the debt actually grows at a slower pace. Almost as if the amnesty had no impact on the US debt...

 

Seems to support the idea that allowing more legal immigrants wont all of a sudden bankrupt America because: " immigrants are jobs, immigrants are consumers. There is no reason to believe that immigrants will be nothing but a net loss, almost all economic capitalist theory would suggest the opposite, immigrants should be a net gain."

 

There is reason to believe that immigrants will be a net loss, it is very simple finance. Immigrants tend to be in the lowest quintile of earners. That group actually has a negative income taxe rate, and uses the lions share of federal, state, and local services. So they are literally getting paid by the income taxes, and they are they are still receiving most of the social services in this country. It is black and white. The impact only gets worse as this group ages.

 

Think about it, if we are talking about 20 million illegals right now, and say only half of them make it to the age to collect social security. The minimum payment a month for SS is something like $500 a month. Take that times 10 million people, and you get an extra five billion dollars a month coming out of just social security. That is an extra $60 billion a year in future obligations, which aren't being anywhere near fully funded. And that is just one program. We haven't gotten into mandatory health care, not to mention the myriad of programs for the working poor.

 

In other words, low earning immigrants are a clear loss of funds to the government today, and in the future. There is no question about it.

 

[Balta1701]

In other words, low earning immigrants are a clear loss of funds to the government today, and in the future. There is no question about it.

Since money spent arresting them doesn't count.

[southsider2k5]

Since money spent arresting them doesn't count.

 

Do you think even if we went the deporting route, it would cost anywhere near what a lifetime of social services would cost?

[Balta1701]

Do you think even if we went the deporting route, it would cost anywhere near what a lifetime of social services would cost?

I think the number for arresting and deporting them is in the trillions (I explained the logic behind that a page or two ago), and you haven't given a single actual number this entire thread despite repeated prodding from me or Rex. So yes.

 

Either way, it's expensive, and it's a cost that only exists because we continue to pretend that the jobs will magically vanish if we arrest all the people who want to work there.

[southsider2k5]

I think the number for arresting and deporting them is in the trillions (I explained the logic behind that a page or two ago), and you haven't given a single actual number this entire thread despite repeated prodding from me or Rex. So yes.

 

Either way, it's expensive, and it's a cost that only exists because we continue to pretend that the jobs will magically vanish if we arrest all the people who want to work there.

 

There is plenty of information there you chose to ignore. There is even a basic breakdown of social security a few posts back. There are very basic facts about the tax code and where people fall into it. There is also the fact that we don't have to arrest and deport everyone like you keep pretending.

[Balta1701]

There is plenty of information there you chose to ignore. There is even a basic breakdown of social security a few posts back. There are very basic facts about the tax code and where people fall into it. There is also the fact that we don't have to arrest and deport everyone like you keep pretending.

And you get to pretend that when you open up jobs by sending people away...no one comes back in to take that spot.

 

Basically, you get to pretend that there is no such thing as supply and demand. In that case...hooray, deportation is free!

[southsider2k5]

And you get to pretend that when you open up jobs by sending people away...no one comes back in to take that spot.

 

Basically, you get to pretend that there is no such thing as supply and demand. In that case...hooray, deportation is free!

 

Do I get to pretend we have an official unemployment rate of nearly 10%, and that people could actually use those jobs in this country?

 

As has been said before, you don't have to have the Democrats best dream of round ups and detentions to stop illegal immigration.

[Balta1701]

Do I get to pretend we have an official unemployment rate of nearly 10%, and that people could actually use those jobs in this country?

 

As has been said before, you don't have to have the Democrats best dream of round ups and detentions to stop illegal immigration.

Ah there's the rub...the ideal Republican workforce...live on $6 an hour, no health benefits, everyone is daily/temporary help, and seasonal migrations based on the growing season.

 

Sure I have a house in Florida that I can't sell because the mortgage is worth 27% more than the house, but hey, standing outside a home depot in California sounds like a stellar idea.

 

You are right though, you don't have to have roundups and detentions to stop illegal immigration. You just have to stop pretending you can stop it and come up with a legal means.

[southsider2k5]

Ah there's the rub...the ideal Republican workforce...live on $6 an hour, no health benefits, everyone is daily/temporary help, and seasonal migrations based on the growing season.

 

Sure I have a house in Florida that I can't sell because the mortgage is worth 27% more than the house, but hey, standing outside a home depot in California sounds like a stellar idea.

 

You are right though, you don't have to have roundups and detentions to stop illegal immigration. You just have to stop pretending you can stop it and come up with a legal means.

 

The reason that wages are depressed? Illegal immigration allowing people to pay undermarket prices for labor.

 

We have to stop pretending that real fines and consequences for illegal immigration and hiring wouldn't fix the problem. Fine employers $50,000 for each violation. If you are caught in the country illegally, it is a felony, and you become ineligible for citizenship. Those two things alone would fix a lot of the problems, along with my program for actually hiring foreign workers in their country of origin through the embassies, and then making the judgments based on conditions on the ground there, and what we actually need here.

[Soxbadger]

There is reason to believe that immigrants will be a net loss, it is very simple finance. Immigrants tend to be in the lowest quintile of earners. That group actually has a negative income taxe rate, and uses the lions share of federal, state, and local services. So they are literally getting paid by the income taxes, and they are they are still receiving most of the social services in this country. It is black and white. The impact only gets worse as this group ages.

 

Think about it, if we are talking about 20 million illegals right now, and say only half of them make it to the age to collect social security. The minimum payment a month for SS is something like $500 a month. Take that times 10 million people, and you get an extra five billion dollars a month coming out of just social security. That is an extra $60 billion a year in future obligations, which aren't being anywhere near fully funded. And that is just one program. We haven't gotten into mandatory health care, not to mention the myriad of programs for the working poor.

 

In other words, low earning immigrants are a clear loss of funds to the government today, and in the future. There is no question about it.

 

Id like to see some numbers to support this. For the sake of argument Im willing to concede that many immigrants may be in the lower levels of income.

 

I disagree that it will have the results you claim unless provided with proof. Furthermore, I do not believe that economic wealth should be a factor in deciding whether or not some one is deserving of freedom.

 

If my family is rich, should I get to make rules that force poor people to leave? According to you they are a negative to me, so why cant we just change the law to remove anyone who isnt in the top 10% of earners? Wouldnt that make my life easier?

 

Not to mention Ive consistently stated that immigrants should not get benefits unless they pay in. This would solve all of the problems you suggest are going to be created. If none of the 20million immigrants are eligible for social security, how will they collect it?

 

I have yet to see one argument made about how it will cost the US more money to legalize immigrants, when compared to how much it costs to enforce immigration.

 

If the legal immigrant is getting no benefits, having to pay taxes and the US govt is spending less money, that should create more revenue for the US.

 

Lowering expenses while increasing revenue is simple finances.

 

I guess I just dont fear poor people and how much of a drain they will be on me or my family. But if we are getting to make rules because people are poor, Id like to make them against US citizens as well. Maybe we should weigh votes based on your income level. The higher the income, the more weight your vote has. That way we can really show all those poor people.

 

It would be nice to finally get rid of all those people who earn less then me.

 

(I hope you can sense the sarcasm.)

[Soxbadger]

Illegal immigration allowing people to pay undermarket prices for labor.

 

I always thought the market was dictated by supply and demand, not govt interference.

 

There should be no such thing as undermarket prices, because the market dictates what the prices are.

 

If I as an employer can only pay $5 an hour, losing illegal immigrants wont make more jobs, it will just mean 1 less person is employed. I cant just pay a guy $8+ if I dont have the money.

 

The problem is that you have a govt interfering with the most fundamental ideas of capitalism, supply and demand.

 

As long as you allow the govt to mess with the economy this way, you are going to have problems. The best solution is to take govt controls (as best as we can) out of the equation, and let the market truly be free.

 

This is called small govt.

 

What you want is big govt.

 

I dont really like big govt.

Edited August 13, 2010 by Soxbadger

[Balta1701]

For some actual numbers, I'm going to turn to the Social Security trustees report. What they calculate in terms of immigration numbers is...when you increase the number of legal immigrants, even if they are lower income folks, the fact that you're decreasing the ratio of retirees to total workers wins out substantially. The lower life expectancy (and life expectancy at age 65) of immigrants also kicks in there.

 

 

Their numbers for legal immigration was 1-1.1 million for the last decade or so, with a drop over the last year or two because of the collapse. Bringing the working population into the legal fold significantly helps the ratio of workers to retirees.

[Balta1701]

Oh, and furthermore, in 2006, Senator Ensign, in a proposal I'm sure he'd now hate if it was made by the Obama administration, put forth a proposal for immigration reform whereby the amount that a formerly undocumented immigrant could collect from OASDI was a function of how long they worked in this country after becoming legalized, with it taking 30-40 years to earn full benefits.

 

That remains a thorny issue because you don't get a lot of 70 year old illegal immigrants who have a lot of retirement savings, but there's zero reason why that issue can't be worked out to a limited cost with some sort of agreement once we accept the fact that what we're doing now isn't free.

[Jenksismyhero]

Id like to see some numbers to support this. For the sake of argument Im willing to concede that many immigrants may be in the lower levels of income.

 

I disagree that it will have the results you claim unless provided with proof. Furthermore, I do not believe that economic wealth should be a factor in deciding whether or not some one is deserving of freedom.

 

If my family is rich, should I get to make rules that force poor people to leave? According to you they are a negative to me, so why cant we just change the law to remove anyone who isnt in the top 10% of earners? Wouldnt that make my life easier?

 

Not to mention Ive consistently stated that immigrants should not get benefits unless they pay in. This would solve all of the problems you suggest are going to be created. If none of the 20million immigrants are eligible for social security, how will they collect it?

 

I have yet to see one argument made about how it will cost the US more money to legalize immigrants, when compared to how much it costs to enforce immigration.

 

If the legal immigrant is getting no benefits, having to pay taxes and the US govt is spending less money, that should create more revenue for the US.

 

Lowering expenses while increasing revenue is simple finances.

 

I guess I just dont fear poor people and how much of a drain they will be on me or my family. But if we are getting to make rules because people are poor, Id like to make them against US citizens as well. Maybe we should weigh votes based on your income level. The higher the income, the more weight your vote has. That way we can really show all those poor people.

 

It would be nice to finally get rid of all those people who earn less then me.

 

(I hope you can sense the sarcasm.)

 

Google "cost of illegal immigration" and you have figures around 100 billion A YEAR.

 

Really I think you guys are just ignoring common sense here. Let's take the uber minimum and say it costs 10 billion a year. That's 10 BILLION f***ING DOLLARS a year. Arizona alone supposedly spent 2 BILLION DOLLARS on illegals. What a SHOCK they'd want to change the law to prevent illegals from coming in and to deal with those they find. And Balta, your point on the spending of bordal control is a good one, but you assume people want to maintain that level of spending continuously into the future. As SSK said, put some MEANINGFUL penalties on employers (i.e., business crippling penalties), and some MEANINGFUL penalties on illegals that are caught and I think you'd see a dramatic change. Would illegal immigration continue? Sure. But not anywhere near the rate it would otherwise. Look at the response Arizona's law got. Illegals wanted out of the state as quickly as possible.

 

Soxbadger, I respect your view on freedom, but in reality, there's tough choices to be made. When we have 10-15% of people in this country on unemployment, and even more on government assisted living, 10 billion isn't pocket change.

Edited August 13, 2010 by Jenksismybitch

[Soxbadger]

My argument is to get rid of illegal immigration (allow for legal immigration).

 

So that number supports my argument. By not allowing legal immigration, you have 100 billion a year of costs.

 

If we were to get rid of illegal immigration, youd have 100 billion a year of savings.

 

I wont even look to prove your numbers, because your numbers just supported my argument.

 

Thanks!

[NorthSideSox72]

For some actual numbers, I'm going to turn to the Social Security trustees report. What they calculate in terms of immigration numbers is...when you increase the number of legal immigrants, even if they are lower income folks, the fact that you're decreasing the ratio of retirees to total workers wins out substantially. The lower life expectancy (and life expectancy at age 65) of immigrants also kicks in there.

 

 

Their numbers for legal immigration was 1-1.1 million for the last decade or so, with a drop over the last year or two because of the collapse. Bringing the working population into the legal fold significantly helps the ratio of workers to retirees.

LEGAL immigrants. Ones that actually pay into the system.

 

And Soc Sec isn't the big cost I'm worried about anyway - its taxed regressively, and benefited along the input curve, so that's not where they worry is. At least not for me.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

My argument is to get rid of illegal immigration (allow for legal immigration).

 

So that number supports my argument. By not allowing legal immigration, you have 100 billion a year of costs.

 

If we were to get rid of illegal immigration, youd have 100 billion a year of savings.

 

I wont even look to prove your numbers, because your numbers just supported my argument.

 

Thanks!

 

Lol, obviously there would be no illegal immigration problem if everyone became a citizen tomorrow. But that's not reality.

[Soxbadger]

So because its not reality, we shouldnt strive to make it reality?

 

Why not start the process of moving towards a goal of eliminating illegal immigration?

 

You dont end illegal immigration by having bigger fences, or making it a felony, or whatever punishment you want to give it.

 

You end illegal immigration by making legal immigration so easy that it would be stupid to immigrate illegally.

 

Sure some people would still do it, but the vast majority would legally immigrate, which would be the first step to solving the problem.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Lol, obviously there would be no illegal immigration problem if everyone became a citizen tomorrow. But that's not reality.

Then we'd have other problems.