Possible compromise on immigration reform takes shape

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Possible compromise on immigration reform takes shape

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

    In response to NO MO O's comment:

     

    Illegals are excluded from the vast majority of entitlement programs. RIGHTTTTTTTTTT !

     

    Without a very big wall and land mines.. the bleeding of the American taxpayer will only GROW.

    We will be rewarding them for breaking our laws.

    What a shame for all the people who went through the process correctly, sometimes taking years? Where is their equity?

    When did this country become the worlds human trash can ?

    Name any country in history that did not protect it's borders against invaders (The French are... well... French)

     



    Prove that illegals have full access to government entitlements.  No mindless rants.  Actual proof.

     

    And we are a nation of immigrants.  Contrary to your nativist prejudice, we take the best people from other lands.  It takes considerable courage to come here and considerable skill to survive and persevere.  I bet you are from immigrant stock yourself.  See your self as the descendant of "human trash"?

     



    Maybe this introduction from a recent study will change your mind?

     

    • n 2009 (based on data collected in 2010), 57 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal and illegal) with children (under 18) used at least one welfare program, compared to 39 percent for native households with children.

    • Immigrant households’ use of welfare tends to be much higher than natives for food assistance programs and Medicaid. Their use of cash and housing programs tends to be similar to native households. 

    • A large share of the welfare used by immigrant households with children is received on behalf of their U.S.-born children, who are American citizens. But even households with children comprised entirely of immigrants (no U.S.-born children) still had a welfare use rate of 56 percent in 2009. 

    • Immigrant households with children used welfare programs at consistently higher rates than natives, even before the current recession. In 2001, 50 percent of all immigrant households with children used at least one welfare program, compared to 32 percent for natives. 

    • Households with children with the highest welfare use rates are those headed by immigrants from the Dominican Republic (82 percent), Mexico and Guatemala (75 percent), and Ecuador (70 percent). Those with the lowest use rates are from the United Kingdom (7 percent), India (19 percent), Canada (23 percent), and Korea (25 percent). 

    • The states where immigrant households with children have the highest welfare use rates are Arizona (62 percent); Texas, California, and New York (61 percent); Pennsylvania (59 percent); Minnesota and Oregon (56 percent); and Colorado (55 percent). 

    • We estimate that 52 percent of households with children headed by legal immigrants used at least one welfare program in 2009, compared to 71 percent for illegal immigrant households with children. Illegal immigrants generally receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children.

    • Illegal immigrant households with children primarily use food assistance and Medicaid, making almost no use of cash or housing assistance. In contrast, legal immigrant households tend to have relatively high use rates for every type of program. 

    • High welfare use by immigrant-headed households with children is partly explained by the low education level of many immigrants. Of households headed by an immigrant who has not graduated high school, 80 percent access the welfare system, compared to 25 percent for those headed by an immigrant who has at least a bachelor’s degree. 

    • An unwillingness to work is not the reason immigrant welfare use is high. The vast majority (95 percent) of immigrant households with children had at least one worker in 2009. But their low education levels mean that more than half of these working immigrant households with children still accessed the welfare system during 2009. 

    • If we exclude the primary refugee-sending countries, the share of immigrant households with children using at least one welfare program is still 57 percent.

    • Welfare use tends to be high for both new arrivals and established residents. In 2009, 60 percent of households with children headed by an immigrant who arrived in 2000 or later used at least one welfare program; for households headed by immigrants who arrived before 2000 it was 55 percent. 

    • For all households (those with and without children), the use rates were 37 percent for households headed by immigrants and 22 percent for those headed by natives. 

    • Although most new legal immigrants are barred from using some welfare for the first five years, this provision has only a modest impact on household use rates because most immigrants have been in the United States for longer than five years; the ban only applies to some programs; some states provide welfare to new immigrants with their own money; by becoming citizens immigrants become eligible for all welfare programs; and perhaps most importantly, the U.S.-born children of immigrants (including those born to illegal immigrants) are automatically awarded American citizenship and are therefore eligible for all welfare programs at birth.

    • The eight major welfare programs examined in this report are SSI (Supplemental Security Income for low income elderly and disabled), TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families), WIC (Women, Infants, and Children food program), free/reduced school lunch, food stamps (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), Medicaid (health insurance for those with low incomes), public housing, and rent subsidies.

    The entire study here:http://cis.org/immigrant-welfare-use-2011

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Possible compromise on immigration reform takes shape

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

    $375K per deportation that's most likely overstated



    Actually it's most likely understated by an awful lot. You just don't know the costs, nor the immigration system.

     

    A few large costs:

    1. 2-3 years of imprisonment, while the person is held and exhausts appeal. (45k/yr, as per below) = 90-135,000.

    2. Appointment of attorney to represent person for immigration hearings and appeal of decisions. (~10-20k avg I would estimate)

    3. New facilities to house EIGHT MILLION new inmates. Roughly 2,300,000 people are incarcerated. So we would need to build FOUR TIMES as many facilities as are now maintainedat 78 billion/year, but we'd have to do it from scratch. Let that sink in.

    4. Hiring: Prison guards, doctors, cooks, ICE agents - everyone involved in arresting,moving,housing the illegals. (A typical police offier is about 50k, not counting benefits/overtime).

    5. Buses/trains - something to ship all these people out.

     

    And that's just deportation. There are further costs:

     

    6. Either the cost of completely shutting out new entrants, or a repeat of 1-5 per re-entrant.

    7. If successful, the economic lost sunk cost of all those people hired to herd out the illegals - a job for which there would be zero demand if the effort succeeded, leaving those people wtihout jobs --> Welfar, social services, etc. to get them back on their feet.

    8. Increasing agricultural losses as farmers discover they cannot afford to pay the amount that it would take to attract Americans to do the work previously done by farmers. Lost crops, etc.

    9. Lost sunk cost of expanding our prison capacity by 400%, all resulting buildings being useless if deportation effort succeds.

     

    Anyone who thinks that complete deportation is a viable option is lying or is insane.

     

     

     

    Year of imprisonment: $45,000 or so, depending on where.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/11/chart-one-year-of-prison-costs-more-than-one-year-at-princeton/247629/

    http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/laomenus/sections/crim_justice/6_cj_inmatecost.aspx?catid=3



    Funny how incarcerating citizens is not a problem, but incarcerating and deporting illegal immigrants is a problem.

    That's liberal hypocricy for you.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Possible compromise on immigration reform takes shape

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

    $375K per deportation that's most likely overstated



    Actually it's most likely understated by an awful lot. You just don't know the costs, nor the immigration system.

     

    A few large costs:

    1. 2-3 years of imprisonment, while the person is held and exhausts appeal. (45k/yr, as per below) = 90-135,000.

    2. Appointment of attorney to represent person for immigration hearings and appeal of decisions. (~10-20k avg I would estimate)

    3. New facilities to house EIGHT MILLION new inmates. Roughly 2,300,000 people are incarcerated. So we would need to build FOUR TIMES as many facilities as are now maintainedat 78 billion/year, but we'd have to do it from scratch. Let that sink in.

    4. Hiring: Prison guards, doctors, cooks, ICE agents - everyone involved in arresting,moving,housing the illegals. (A typical police offier is about 50k, not counting benefits/overtime).

    5. Buses/trains - something to ship all these people out.

     

    And that's just deportation. There are further costs:

     

    6. Either the cost of completely shutting out new entrants, or a repeat of 1-5 per re-entrant.

    7. If successful, the economic lost sunk cost of all those people hired to herd out the illegals - a job for which there would be zero demand if the effort succeeded, leaving those people wtihout jobs --> Welfar, social services, etc. to get them back on their feet.

    8. Increasing agricultural losses as farmers discover they cannot afford to pay the amount that it would take to attract Americans to do the work previously done by farmers. Lost crops, etc.

    9. Lost sunk cost of expanding our prison capacity by 400%, all resulting buildings being useless if deportation effort succeds.

     

    Anyone who thinks that complete deportation is a viable option is lying or is insane.

     

     

     

    Year of imprisonment: $45,000 or so, depending on where.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/11/chart-one-year-of-prison-costs-more-than-one-year-at-princeton/247629/

    http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/laomenus/sections/crim_justice/6_cj_inmatecost.aspx?catid=3



    As I went on further to say; even at 10% or 1% of that is too much.  There are too many of them.  If we as a country wanted to get serious about illegals it needed to happen the last time amnesty was awarded.

    Now we could declare marshall law or a state of emergency and just load them on buses and forget all that due process stuff; but that aint going to happen.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Possible compromise on immigration reform takes shape

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:

    And the xenophobic wingnuts reveal themselves yet again.

    From the first line of their post...

    "...57 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal and illegal)..."


    From then on every bullet point is intentionally xenophobic.

    Rather than say these Americans (legal immigrants), they stick with the dog whistle of 'immigrant' rather than citizen or American.

    Rather than seperate the Americans from the illegal aliens, they obfuscate the numbers in order to appease the racist wingnut base.

    Pathetic, in order to get the numbers they wanted they had to lump Americans in with illegal immigrants to try and make their obviously racist, bigoted point.



    xenephobic?  Are you dictionary diviing again?

    Facts have no meaning to you.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Possible compromise on immigration reform takes shape

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:

    And the xenophobic wingnuts reveal themselves yet again.

    From the first line of their post...

    "...57 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal and illegal)..."


    From then on every bullet point is intentionally xenophobic.

    Rather than say these Americans (legal immigrants), they stick with the dog whistle of 'immigrant' rather than citizen or American.

    Rather than seperate the Americans from the illegal aliens, they obfuscate the numbers in order to appease the racist wingnut base.

    Pathetic, in order to get the numbers they wanted they had to lump Americans in with illegal immigrants to try and make their obviously racist, bigoted point.



    I think it just points out that we have an immigration problem.  

    In the prior immigration model late 1800's-early 1900's legal immigrants came here to earn a better way of life; not to get on welfare rolls, because there weren't welfare rolls; just private/religious charity. 

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Possible compromise on immigration reform takes shape

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    Skeeter hates numbers. There's, like, too many of them.



    WDYWN: "I don't care what the study says! I'm right because I want to be!"

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Possible compromise on immigration reform takes shape

    In response to Newtster's comment:

     

     

    -- A "tough but fair" path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants already living in the United States, but only after bolstering the nation's border security;

    -- Overhauling the country's legal immigration system, including attaching green cards to advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering, or math from U.S. universities;

    -- Establishing an employment verification system that holds employers accountable for hiring undocumented workers;

    -- Creating a guest-worker program for positions that Americans are either unable or unwilling to fill.

     

     

     

    This is fine except the first item.

     

    Our political leaders need to show respect for US citizenship. If anyone can come here illegally and then be given amnesty, then what good is citizenship?

     

    So for the 11 million that are here illegally, let them apply for guest worker status or go back where they came from and apply for legal citizenship. 

     

    There does not have to be some kind of expensive mass deportation. That is an absurd suggestion given by extremists that reject a rational solution. The first step to getting illegals to self-deport is to go after employers of illegals. These criminals need to be given jail time and serious fines. Responsibility should be at a personal level just like it is for financial filings of public companies. Ford gets caught hirining illegals, some executive is going to jail.

     

    THat will dry up the market for scab illegals to take jobs. WIll food cost more? Maybe so. Better to have a legal resident get a job at a decent wage then to employ illegals as slaves so we can get food a little cheaper. 



    This is why I don't trust the politicians to do the right thing here.  Citizens, i.e. those of us born or assimilated here, are simply the tools that pay for this.

    Why is this such a big deal to politicians?  votes.  The republicans ought ot consider that the perfect hispanic candidate, G. Bush, spoke very good spanish, spoke to spanish wspeaking groups often,supported amnesty, wanted to open the border between mexico completely, In fact announced the desire to open the border at the White House with Vincente Fox, on September 10, 2001 (does that date ring a bell?) and he only recieved 40% of the hispanic vote.

    This is a complete capitulation to the demcrats on the issue of votes.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Possible compromise on immigration reform takes shape

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    On the other hand, it's refreshing to hear Sen. McCain acknowledge the one-and-only reason for the GOP going ahead with this:

    Votes.

    GOP needs more votes.

    Got to give it up for that kind of naked, wrinkly honesty.

     

     

     



    Yes the GOP has discovered that they are on the wrong side of the demographics.

     

    So for the thinking side of the GOP they know its evolve or die.  I think fighting for free enterpise over big government is more important to the future of the country then some social positions that only represent a growing minority.

     



    It's not just a social issue.  Immigration reform is first and foremost an economic issue...one of the most important ones we've got.

     

    Make no mistake.  So-called "free enterprise" is behind this all the way.

     

     

     



    The economic recovery is a huge issue but its not determined by a guest worker program.  I do understand that the guest worker program is something that the GOP has wanted for sometime; as it is especially important to the southern agricultural states and their products importantance to the whole US.

     



    It's not just guest workers, either.  In some ways, our entire economy hinges upon the immigration question.

    What do companies want more than anything?  Consumer Demand for their products and services.  More demand = more profits.  They can't successfully market to people who live in the shadows; they want them out in the open, shopping and spending, living and working.

    The birthrates are down for nearly every demo group in the country, except one.  Entire industries are built upon the next generations and what their tastes will be, where they will live, and who they aspire to be.

    It's foolish to focus on just the narrow sliver of ne'er-do-wells or the hypothetical jobs "lost" (that americans don't want to do anyway...ask them) all while missing the huge opportunities that the rest of the immigrants stand for.

     

     

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Possible compromise on immigration reform takes shape

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to Newtster's comment:

     

     

     

    -- A "tough but fair" path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants already living in the United States, but only after bolstering the nation's border security;

    -- Overhauling the country's legal immigration system, including attaching green cards to advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering, or math from U.S. universities;

    -- Establishing an employment verification system that holds employers accountable for hiring undocumented workers;

    -- Creating a guest-worker program for positions that Americans are either unable or unwilling to fill.

     

     

     

    This is fine except the first item.

     

    Our political leaders need to show respect for US citizenship. If anyone can come here illegally and then be given amnesty, then what good is citizenship?

     

    So for the 11 million that are here illegally, let them apply for guest worker status or go back where they came from and apply for legal citizenship. 

     

    There does not have to be some kind of expensive mass deportation. That is an absurd suggestion given by extremists that reject a rational solution. The first step to getting illegals to self-deport is to go after employers of illegals. These criminals need to be given jail time and serious fines. Responsibility should be at a personal level just like it is for financial filings of public companies. Ford gets caught hirining illegals, some executive is going to jail.

     

    THat will dry up the market for scab illegals to take jobs. WIll food cost more? Maybe so. Better to have a legal resident get a job at a decent wage then to employ illegals as slaves so we can get food a little cheaper. 

     



    This is why I don't trust the politicians to do the right thing here.  Citizens, i.e. those of us born or assimilated here, are simply the tools that pay for this.

     

    Why is this such a big deal to politicians?  votes.  The republicans ought ot consider that the perfect hispanic candidate, G. Bush, spoke very good spanish, spoke to spanish wspeaking groups often,supported amnesty, wanted to open the border between mexico completely, In fact announced the desire to open the border at the White House with Vincente Fox, on September 10, 2001 (does that date ring a bell?) and he only recieved 40% of the hispanic vote.

    This is a complete capitulation to the demcrats on the issue of votes.



    Romney would have won with 40% of the Hispanic vote.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Possible compromise on immigration reform takes shape

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:

     

    And the xenophobic wingnuts reveal themselves yet again.

    From the first line of their post...

    "...57 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal and illegal)..."


    From then on every bullet point is intentionally xenophobic.

    Rather than say these Americans (legal immigrants), they stick with the dog whistle of 'immigrant' rather than citizen or American.

    Rather than seperate the Americans from the illegal aliens, they obfuscate the numbers in order to appease the racist wingnut base.

    Pathetic, in order to get the numbers they wanted they had to lump Americans in with illegal immigrants to try and make their obviously racist, bigoted point.

     



    I think it just points out that we have an immigration problem.  

     

    In the prior immigration model late 1800's-early 1900's legal immigrants came here to earn a better way of life; not to get on welfare rolls, because there weren't welfare rolls; just private/religious charity. 



    And yet, even then we were trying to classify "desirables" and "undesirables" only by mistaking "race" for "nationality".

    That's most of what the current debate boils down to: "we want these, but not those".  The rest is (mostly legit) bureaucratic minutae that nobody wants to pay for.

     

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Possible compromise on immigration reform takes shape

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    On the other hand, it's refreshing to hear Sen. McCain acknowledge the one-and-only reason for the GOP going ahead with this:

    Votes.

    GOP needs more votes.

    Got to give it up for that kind of naked, wrinkly honesty.

     

     

     



    Yes the GOP has discovered that they are on the wrong side of the demographics.

     

    So for the thinking side of the GOP they know its evolve or die.  I think fighting for free enterpise over big government is more important to the future of the country then some social positions that only represent a growing minority.

     



    It's not just a social issue.  Immigration reform is first and foremost an economic issue...one of the most important ones we've got.

     

    Make no mistake.  So-called "free enterprise" is behind this all the way.

     

     

     



    The economic recovery is a huge issue but its not determined by a guest worker program.  I do understand that the guest worker program is something that the GOP has wanted for sometime; as it is especially important to the southern agricultural states and their products importantance to the whole US.

     

     



    It's not just guest workers, either.  In some ways, our entire economy hinges upon the immigration question.

     

    What do companies want more than anything?  Consumer Demand for their products and services.  More demand = more profits.  They can't successfully market to people who live in the shadows; they want them out in the open, shopping and spending, living and working.

    The birthrates are down for nearly every demo group in the country, except one.  Entire industries are built upon the next generations and what their tastes will be, where they will live, and who they aspire to be.

    It's foolish to focus on just the narrow sliver of ne'er-do-wells or the hypothetical jobs "lost" (that americans don't want to do anyway...ask them) all while missing the huge opportunities that the rest of the immigrants stand for.

     

     



    Companies can make more focusing on China's emerging consumer class.

    There was an interesting segment on NPR yesterday concening apple iphones and emerging overseas markets.  Apple likes to sell high end, yet "luxury" in reach for most smart phones that have features that people didn't even know they wanted never mind needed.

    The emerging markets are going to cause apple to stay its course or develop stripped down versions that will annoy or enrage their cult following fans.  This would be akin to the Jaguar rebadged Taurus or the Cadillac Cimaron.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Possible compromise on immigration reform takes shape

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

     

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:

     

    And the xenophobic wingnuts reveal themselves yet again.

    From the first line of their post...

    "...57 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal and illegal)..."


    From then on every bullet point is intentionally xenophobic.

    Rather than say these Americans (legal immigrants), they stick with the dog whistle of 'immigrant' rather than citizen or American.

    Rather than seperate the Americans from the illegal aliens, they obfuscate the numbers in order to appease the racist wingnut base.

    Pathetic, in order to get the numbers they wanted they had to lump Americans in with illegal immigrants to try and make their obviously racist, bigoted point.

     



    I think it just points out that we have an immigration problem.  

     

    In the prior immigration model late 1800's-early 1900's legal immigrants came here to earn a better way of life; not to get on welfare rolls, because there weren't welfare rolls; just private/religious charity. 

     



    And yet, even then we were trying to classify "desirables" and "undesirables" only by mistaking "race" for "nationality".

     

    That's most of what the current debate boils down to: "we want these, but not those".  The rest is (mostly legit) bureaucratic minutae that nobody wants to pay for.

     



    Yes, the Dillingham Report is an intersting document.

    The US was european centric in its immigration policies; which due to strong similarities supported for assimilation and it did develop the US into the melting pot that it was.

    My concern with today's immigrants is that they is that they don't want to assimilate and become one of us, they want to maintain who they are.  A common culture is a stonger nation while a multi-cultural place is more interesting to visit.

    Go ahead call me a natavist.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Possible compromise on immigration reform takes shape

    "The birthrates are down for nearly every demo group in the country, except one.  Entire industries are built upon the next generations and what their tastes will be, where they will live, and who they aspire to be."

    Wow!  How does that jibe with the basic progressive worldview that population increases are destroying Mother Earth,  that people are parasites destroying natural resources,  and that Americans are selfish and greedy to want material things..

    Watch out! If liberals ever find out illegals are contributing to global warming, they will open internment camps quicker than FDR did to the Japanese...but no worries, Al Gore has spoken: immigrants have no carbon footprint.

    Birthrates being down is a problem , now, to be fixed by illegal immigrants?

    Immigrants get the progressive blessing to have 12 kids, to charge up the economy, and "entire industries can be built"... got it.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share