Log in

View Full Version : Immigration rant no. 137



Pages : 1 [2] 3 4 5

Kitten Foster
10-17-2010, 11:21 PM
a lot of the time the identities that they steal are that of children and babies as it usually takes longer for someone to catch on to these and gives them time to sell them to fellow illegal immigrants and the cycle continues.

KaylaM
10-17-2010, 11:40 PM
a lot of the time the identities that they steal are that of children and babies as it usually takes longer for someone to catch on to these and gives them time to sell them to fellow illegal immigrants and the cycle continues.

Babies? Oh so they stopped using dead people's identities? Interesting.

Thats not too smart using babies... >:(

KaylaM
10-17-2010, 11:42 PM
they steal identities in order to do it. it's very common here in arizona. we have a very high identity theft rate here.

Well said.

and unfortunately this is very easy to do

Kitten Foster
10-17-2010, 11:45 PM
Babies? Oh so they stopped using dead people's identities? Interesting.

Thats not too smart using babies... >:(


lol i'm sure they are still using dead people's identities too but yeah identity theft of children and babies is definitely on the rise here.


if we tighten up our border and cut off all their freebies and welfare it could curb a lot of this poor behavior.

flickad
10-18-2010, 04:31 AM
To the OP: I see what you mean. While this isn't technically illegal, it does look a lot like circumventing the purpose of the immigration laws, much like tax loophole schemes. It is of course perfectly understandable that these parents want US citizenship for their children, much as it presents no mystery that people will avoid paying tax if they can. But these legal-but-dodgy sorts of evasions do seem like they put an extra burden on the rest of us for no good reason (since they don't involve the sort of special circumstances that would normally warrant an exemption from the laws that bind everyone else).

flickad
10-18-2010, 04:47 AM
Isn't there something to be said though for wanting to protect your bottom line? Giving your country and the people in it the best they can possibly get? Even if that means keeping others out?

There's a balance of considerations at play here, I think. When the infrastructure and economic health is there, there's not a lot of rational justification for keeping out immigrants with clean criminal histories, no infectious diseases and who are generally of fit and proper character. But when the infrastructure of your own country isn't able to support all its citizens, it doesn't make a lot of sense to open the borders to more people. Immigration policy at any relevant time should reflect the given circumstances. Sometimes it is appropriate to tighten controls on it so as to best serve the people who already live in the country (who are always going to be - and should be - the government's first priority), and sometimes we are in a position to be more giving in terms of our resources and, in that case, it might be appropriate to raise immigration quotas.

With respect to Australia, where I live, the infrastructure to support a huge influx of people is not currently available. In Melbourne we have a rental shortage and our roads and public transport are stretched beyond capacity. The economy here has survived the GFC quite well, but is not so robust as to support jobs for a large number of new applicants. Growth is slow. Given these factors, it would fly in the face of common sense to have a high immigration quota right now. The resources for that just aren't there. At a later time, when and if infrastructure is sufficiently improved, that may change.

This doesn't mean that illegal immigrants are evil and should be demonised (or incarcerated for years on end, which as well as being disproportionate, would cost far more than letting them stay in the country, even with years of welfare payments), but it does mean that each country needs to be sensible and take care of its existing citizens in determining what their immigration policy needs to be at any given point.

KS_Stevia
10-18-2010, 04:59 AM
Yes, thats fine actually. The difference really is that your Grandmother had a support system there on hand. She didn't need to take from the Government coffers because ostensibly your Family provided. Being aged likely some Govt health care was still used that someones tax dollars provided for.
.

Umm, yes. Our tax dollars. My parents and mine and my other family members here. It all goes into the pot and we've more than paid our share. We started paying taxes the second we got here. Sales tax, vehicle tax, property tax, income tax. It all goes into the pot. At least the government still provides for the elderly and children, just like all other civilized countries. Where I come from, elderly ladies are begging in the streets or standing on frozen sidewalks trying to sell bootleg cigarettes so they can eat. I don't know how much she got from social security because it was long ago. But I'm happier living in a country that WILL take care of elderly who cannot work, rather than throwing them onto the streets. What would have happened if we all died in an accident after she got here, once she had at least some type of non-permanant residency established? Make her starve and live in the streets without any assistance?

Want to make Texas a better place? Make all the lazy fucks living on Section 9 housing smoking weed all day and selling drugs out of their free housing go to work. >:(

KS_Stevia
10-18-2010, 05:08 AM
. When he did start a Family, his children were forbidden to speak Portuguese in front of guests. He was so damn proud that they could speak English he wanted his guests to know it. They also had to take turns reading the news paper out loud in English. Both to help him and because he was just as proud they could read. He wanted his descendants to be Americans not another dumb Portagee fisherman.
.



I think in KS Stevia's case that seems right. I know of a case where this couple came here after they retired from USSR before the country split up and managed to get social security here though they never paid in. I'd like to know how they did it but they did and it makes me livid, especially if social security goes broke as predicted.

my one guy friend (the one I call Flakey) is more anti illegal immigration than me. What I don't mention is his parents are immigrants from Italy! They worked hard, came here legally and learned English. My friend barely speaks Italian and served in the navy.


So being American is about forgetting your ties and foreign language skills? Knowing a second or third language actually creates more marketable job opportunities in this global culture. Although the case for ArmySGT is different, in that it was generations ago...for Flakey, shame on him for being proud not to know Italian. I've just been doing some work with the Italian Trade Commission. All of those guys are US born Italians, or immigrants from a young ago who kept their language. Now they are doing great helping American exports into Italy and quality Italian imports into the US...also US/Italy foreign relations work.

US is a melting pot, one can assimilate and keep their roots, traditions, and language strong.

Re: being "livid" because the retired couple got social security. SS abuse occurs every single day. What else was the couple going to live on? Are you aware of the incomes in the former Soviet Union, they weren't shit. People didn't make enough money to save.

Also, how did a retired couple managed to come here from USSR without any skills or family or any support? Me thinks you don't know the entire story. Coming from a community of soviet refuges, I know all the tricks and back door ways of entry. And believe me, either they had some family, familial support, OR they needed the money so they didn't starve on the streets.

Lots of presumptiousness here by people who have lived very comfortable lives as american citizens. And no I am not against immigration control, just trying to wrap my head around some of your insensitivities.

jester214
10-18-2010, 07:21 AM
Trying to say the US has no history of imperialism, while ignoring the genocide practiced on Native Americans in order to take their land, is a pretty useless argument. Trying to say we should throw open our borders to every starving, uneducated, desperate person wanting US citizenship, because the USA has a checkered history of exploitation from 150 years ago, is an equally invalid approach.

I don't think anyone said the US had no history of imperialism, and I while personally don't consider everything that was done to Native Americans to always have been for imperialist reasons, some scholars disagree.

The fact still stand though that that we had little imperialist action in Africa and only a slight amount in South America. Considering those are the places that most of our immigrants come from, the argument that our "imperialist behavior" caused us to have the immigration problems with have today makes little if any sense. Which was the point that was made.

tempest666
10-18-2010, 08:44 AM
I didnt expect this this thread to mushroom overnight.

camille27
10-18-2010, 09:12 AM
it is an absurd argument when people use this "my great grand parents came here from italy and they did it legally" rationale. it is an extremely rare thing for an immigrant to not do SOMETHING illegal, whether it be bribing someone, changing a birthdate on a document to increase the odds of getting a visa, lying about something on an application, whatever.

it is VERY difficult to get into the united states. the likelihood for entry decreases with age, skin darkness, socioeconomic status, education level...so again, there are far too many people who are ranting and raving about doing shit the "legal" way when they don't know the obstructions in place that make the legal way nearly impossible for so many people.

and if you really don't see the bigotry inherent to "arizona is starting to look like mexico", then i don't know what to tell you. if you do not want to live in close proximity to mexicans, perhaps you should not live so close to the mexican border.

Kellydancer
10-18-2010, 10:56 AM
So being American is about forgetting your ties and foreign language skills? Knowing a second or third language actually creates more marketable job opportunities in this global culture. Although the case for ArmySGT is different, in that it was generations ago...for Flakey, shame on him for being proud not to know Italian. I've just been doing some work with the Italian Trade Commission. All of those guys are US born Italians, or immigrants from a young ago who kept their language. Now they are doing great helping American exports into Italy and quality Italian imports into the US...also US/Italy foreign relations work.

US is a melting pot, one can assimilate and keep their roots, traditions, and language strong.

Re: being "livid" because the retired couple got social security. SS abuse occurs every single day. What else was the couple going to live on? Are you aware of the incomes in the former Soviet Union, they weren't shit. People didn't make enough money to save.

Also, how did a retired couple managed to come here from USSR without any skills or family or any support? Me thinks you don't know the entire story. Coming from a community of soviet refuges, I know all the tricks and back door ways of entry. And believe me, either they had some family, familial support, OR they needed the money so they didn't starve on the streets.

Lots of presumptiousness here by people who have lived very comfortable lives as american citizens. And no I am not against immigration control, just trying to wrap my head around some of your insensitivities.

I think Flakey is wrong in that aspect because I wish I knew the languages my ancestors knew. I can barely speak Polish and know a little of French, though my grandparents were fluent in these languages. Regarding Flakey it's almost like he's ashamed his parents were born in Italy because he often makes a point of talking about his military service or things like that instead of Italian. I've asked him in the past to teach me some Italian culture and language and he was almost annoyed with that.

As for the USSR couple I feel sorry for them but if they came here without any support then it's not fair we pay for them. I realize it was rough there but it's rough here too (especially now) and we can't support people who never paid in. Btw when I say that I mean anyone who abuses the welfare system, whether immigrants or citizens. I know that many other countries do limit older people from coming because they'll never be able to pay into the system and they can't be supported. If someone comes and is taken care of by family members that is completely different.

Kellydancer
10-18-2010, 10:58 AM
Btw, everyone who doesn't see the problem with illegal immigration watch this video: . This was a video from CBS News.

Melonie
10-18-2010, 11:34 AM
A kid born in an Arizona hospital is just as American as any other kid born in the US no matter who their parents are or where they are from, i don't see what the debate is.

How do I say this tactfully ... this isn't what the original constitution says, and it's not what the 14th amendment says either. Basically, in the absence of an official congressional determination or a relevant US supreme court ruling, it is what the US federal gov't has allowed to evolve since the 1965 LBJ signing of the 'Immigration and Nationalization Act'.

Historically speaking, in the 19th century the USA basically had an open and unrestricted immigration policy ... meaning that anyone from anywhere else in the world could come to America and become a 'legal' permanent resident. The children of those 'legal' permanent residents were automatically granted American citizenship ... arguably on the basis that their parents were legal residents and ( via the naturalization process ) eligible for American citizenship. But in the 1920's the open and unrestricted immigration policy ended ... and with it a distinction was created between temporary visiting foreign nationals and 'legal' immigrants to the USA. Illegal aliens are not 'legal' permanent residents and are not eligible for the naturalization process. Legally speaking, they are foreign nationals who have 'overstayed' their visitor status in violation of US law.

Thus the 'chain' of potential citizenship that automatically existed prior to the enactment of immigration restrictions in the 1920's ( i.e. pre 1924 where everyone who entered the USA was eligible for 'legal' permanent resident status and eventual US citizenship, versus post 1924 'consular control' legislation instituting visa requirements being enacted) was then technically broken in regard to the children of non visa holding 'visiting' foreign nationals born in the USA.



Illegal immigrants are under US jurisdiction. If they get caught breaking any US laws and are convicted, they will go to jail or prison. They do not have diplomatic immunity.

You are attempting to confuse / unconstitutionally expand the basic right of the American gov't to prosecute and punish visiting foreign nationals who commit crimes while in the USA with the American gov't assuming legal 'jurisdiction' over a foreign national as soon as they step on / commit a crime on US soil.

There's a historically based discussion of this issue in depth at which includes some extremely telling commentary by the senators / congressmen who drafted the 14th amendment.

This basic logic of a gov't having 'jurisdiction' over citizens / legal residents but not having 'jurisdiction' over visiting foreign nationals applies in the way I have described it in virtually every country in the world. To clarify the point I'll provide an example ... if the concept of 'jurisdiction' actually worked the way you claim, then gov'ts would have 'jurisdiction' to immediately draft every foreign visitor stepping foot in their country into that country's military. Similarly, if 'jurisdiction' actually worked the way you claim, every foreign visitor stepping foot in their country would have an immediate right to vote in that country's elections as well as an immediate right to collect social welfare benefits.

~

camille27
10-18-2010, 01:45 PM
i still don't see why this is bad. they want their children to have better lives, so they do whatever is necessary.

i am not a mother, but i would walk through hell if it meant my child would have a better chance in the world.

again, this is a terrible forum to use the "they're wasting our tax dollars!" argument.

but immigrants are an easy scapegoat and that's why they bear the brunt of so much hostility. i find it a bit ironic that sex workers, perhaps society's favorite scapegoats, are so up-in-arms over a marginalized group of people. but i suppose if you give people the opportunity to oppress someone else, they take it.




Btw, everyone who doesn't see the problem with illegal immigration watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_ZnX9JRo5M. This was a video from CBS News.

Kellydancer
10-18-2010, 01:48 PM
i still don't see why this is bad. they want their children to have better lives, so they do whatever is necessary.

i am not a mother, but i would walk through hell if it meant my child would have a better chance in the world.

again, this is a terrible forum to use the "they're wasting our tax dollars!" argument.

but immigrants are an easy scapegoat and that's why they bear the brunt of so much hostility. i find it a bit ironic that sex workers, perhaps society's favorite scapegoats, are so up-in-arms over a marginalized group of people. but i suppose if you give people the opportunity to oppress someone else, they take it.

Did you watch that video? They interviewed a woman who got free c-section courtesy of American taxpayers! Yes it is bad. I don't want to pay for someone's free c-section who never paid in. I'd prefer my tax dollars go to people who pay in, not mooches like her.

Melonie
10-18-2010, 01:58 PM
^^^ not to mention the probable 18 to 21 years worth of US taxpayer funded welfare checks, food stamp benefits, subsidized housing benefits, subsidized utility benefits, medicaid benefits, subsidized public education / public college tuition benefits etc. that the US born 'anchor baby' and his now semi-legal resident parent(s) will be eligible to receive under present de-facto US gov't policy.

I have avoided a personal opinion on this topic, but I will offer some comments I have heard in my new 'home' way south of the border. The locals down here consider this de-facto US policy discriminatory because it tends to favor Mexicans who are within 'walking distance' of the US border !!!

However, by the same logic, this de-facto US policy also discriminates against the citizens of every other country besides Canada and Mexico because their ability to illegally enter the USA is far more difficult. Of course Canadians have no motivation to illegally enter the USA since their own country's social welfare benefits are equally generous. But Mexico's social welfare benefit system is nowhere near as generous.

The basic issue boils down to the goals of LEGAL US immigration policy i.e. the US gov't approving legal immigrants who A. are not a public health hazard, B. possess enough basic education / skills such that the probability of them becoming a 'burden' on US taxpayers is reasonably low. The de-facto policy of granting US citizenship to any child born on US soil, and in turn granting that child ( and the now semi-legal parents ) full access to US social welfare benefits, completely bypasses this LEGAL immigration policy.

camille27
10-18-2010, 02:05 PM
yes, i watched it.
i suppose you would rather the doctors let her bleed out on the ground outside of the hospital? or maybe waited for the mother and baby to die from complications? if you cannot see the obvious reason why she was given a free c-section courtesy of u.s. taxpayers, then i don't know what to tell you.

the fact is, your tax dollars go to lots of shit. if you knew about all the things that tax money is used for, you would probably be very unhappy. but you are choosing an easy scapegoat for your hostility.
your tax dollars provide rapists in prison with medical care, wifi internet access, and three meals a day, but a pregnant woman who just crossed a river should be turned away from a hospital? please.


again. compassion. a lovely trait to possess.

Kellydancer
10-18-2010, 02:11 PM
yes, i watched it.
i suppose you would rather the doctors let her bleed out on the ground outside of the hospital? or maybe waited for the mother and baby to die from complications? if you cannot see the obvious reason why she was given a free c-section courtesy of u.s. taxpayers, then i don't know what to tell you.

the fact is, your tax dollars go to lots of shit. if you knew about all the things that tax money is used for, you would probably be very unhappy. but you are choosing an easy scapegoat for your hostility.
your tax dollars provide rapists in prison with medical care, wifi internet access, and three meals a day, but a pregnant woman who just crossed a river should be turned away from a hospital? please.


again. compassion. a lovely trait to possess.

Yes I know taxpayer money is wasted but I don't want HER to take money SHE NEVER PAID INTO. She should have been deported or better yet let her work off her debt from the hospital. I know people who had surgeries they couldn't afford and the hospital went after them for everything. Why not do the same to freeloading mooches like her?

Kellydancer
10-18-2010, 02:13 PM
^^^ not to mention the probable 18 to 21 years worth of US taxpayer funded welfare checks, food stamp benefits, subsidized housing benefits, subsidized utility benefits, medicaid benefits, subsidized public education / public college tuition benefits etc. that the US born 'anchor baby' and his now semi-legal resident parent(s) will be eligible to receive under present de-facto US gov't policy.

I have avoided a personal opinion on this topic, but I will offer some comments I have heard in my new 'home' way south of the border. The locals down here consider this de-facto US policy discriminatory because it tends to favor Mexicans who are within 'walking distance' of the US border !!!

However, by the same logic, this de-facto US policy also discriminates against the citizens of every other country besides Canada and Mexico because their ability to illegally enter the USA is far more difficult. Of course Canadians have no motivation to illegally enter the USA since their own country's social welfare benefits are equally generous. But Mexico's social welfare benefit system is nowhere near as generous.


In fact I've heard (you probably have too) that Mexico is very strict who they allow in and they deport often. I'm sure that we are paying for this mooch and others like her. There's another video I saw on CBS where it interviewed this illegal couple moving from Arizona because "they don't want us here". Of course the family were both unemployed, had 10 kids and didn't speak English. Want to bet we pay for them too?

camille27
10-18-2010, 02:49 PM
again, educating yourself on how someone can obtain citizenship in the united states, and the actual demographic of u.s. citizens who do not pay taxes or who "mooch" off the aid systems in place would be beneficial here. this is the problem with getting your information from fox news. because you start saying nonsensical things like, "well, i HEARD mexico is strict about...."

try not to spread false and inflammatory information. it is VERY easy to enter mexico. i did so earlier this month. you can enter mexico without any documentation of any kind. you might be shit out of luck if you want to leave or get into trouble with the police, but you can definitely cross the border without showing anyone identification. porous borders is part of nafta.

Kellydancer
10-18-2010, 02:54 PM
But the question isn't about how many citizens mooch off the system (I oppose that too), the question is how many ILLEGALS mooch off the system. That's the difference. Btw, I don't watch Fox News at all. I have seen articles that Mexico is very strict on who can mooch off the system and who can become citizens. That illegals are deported to whatever country they came from. I have seen the stats on how many illegals mooch off the system and it's somewhere in the 6 billion dollar range or so. That money would be better off spent on things like educating kids or helping American citizens.

Melonie
10-18-2010, 03:06 PM
i suppose you would rather the doctors let her bleed out on the ground outside of the hospital? or maybe waited for the mother and baby to die from complications? if you cannot see the obvious reason why she was given a free c-section courtesy of u.s. taxpayers, then i don't know what to tell you.

I have no problem with the illegal immigrant mother and her baby receiving the required medical care at US taxpayer expense, out of simple human compassion if nothing else. What I do have a problem with is that, after the US taxpayer funded medical treatment during the birth, there will be another 18-21 years worth of other US taxpayer money that will have to be handed over to the 'anchor baby' and her now quasi-legal parents in the form of ongoing social welfare benefits.

Like it or not, where US taxpayers are concerned, this is arguably a 'zero sum' game. Every US taxpayer dollar that is spent by the gov't to provide subsidies / social welfare benefits for 'anchor babies' and their now quasi-legal parents is a dollar that the citizen / legal immigrant US taxpayer is unable to spend on behalf of their own children !!!

camille27
10-18-2010, 03:22 PM
how many "mooch" off the system? where are you getting your information from? what are the numbers of undocumented immigrants who are "mooching"? because there are very few progressive countries in which a hospital will turn ANYONE away because of their inability to pay, whether it's for a childbirth, a papercut, a heart attack, whatever.

so what are the welfare systems that mexican immigrants are draining? public education? public education has been failing for decades. healthcare? this is provided in any humane society despite one's ability to pay. any stable country you go to, no doctor will let you die because you cannot pay. food subsidies? so people should starve? and then they will end up in the emergency room anyway? show the significant drain that mexican immigrants are placing on society. jobs? that was the goal of nafta! u.s. citizens want cheap everything and then they get shocked when jobs have to go to non-us citizens in order to keep costs low.


so where is the drain on the "system"? your tax dollars are going mostly to build highways and to fund weapon research for present and future wars, not to pregnant mexican women.

even if you kicked every undocumented immigrant out of the united states, the public education system would still be a trainwreck, the healthcare system would still me a mess, government aid would still be ineffective. that is the problem with a scapegoat. you are blaming something that is not the cause for the problem. it is so common during a bad economy to blame an easy target for everything. hitler did this. he was extremely successful at getting rid of his problem. isn't this what the other poster was suggesting? rounding up all of "them", jailing anyone who tried to protect "them", getting "them" out of our country?




But the question isn't about how many citizens mooch off the system (I oppose that too), the question is how many ILLEGALS mooch off the system. That's the difference. Btw, I don't watch Fox News at all. I have seen articles that Mexico is very strict on who can mooch off the system and who can become citizens. That illegals are deported to whatever country they came from. I have seen the stats on how many illegals mooch off the system and it's somewhere in the 6 billion dollar range or so. That money would be better off spent on things like educating kids or helping American citizens.

Kellydancer
10-18-2010, 03:44 PM
I have no problem with the illegal immigrant mother and her baby receiving the required medical care at US taxpayer expense, out of simple human compassion if nothing else. What I do have a problem with is that, after the US taxpayer funded medical treatment during the birth, there will be another 18-21 years worth of other US taxpayer money that will have to be handed over to the 'anchor baby' and her now quasi-legal parents in the form of ongoing social welfare benefits.

Like it or not, where US taxpayers are concerned, this is arguably a 'zero sum' game. Every US taxpayer dollar that is spent by the gov't to provide subsidies / social welfare benefits for 'anchor babies' and their now quasi-legal parents is a dollar that the citizen / legal immigrant US taxpayer is unable to spend on behalf of their own children !!!

This is what I agree with entirely. I am compassionate but there comes a time we can't support everyone who comes here.

Melonie
10-18-2010, 03:53 PM
remember that this appies to only ONE county in the state of CA ...

(snip)"LOS ANGELES COUNTY - Figures from the Department of Public Social Services show that children of illegal aliens in Los Angeles County collected more than $21 million in welfare and more than $22 million in food stamps in March 2009 -- an increase of $1 million from the previous month, according to a news release from Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich.

Annually the cost of illegal immigration to Los Angeles County taxpayers exceeds one billion dollars, which includes $220 million for public safety, $400 million for healthcare, and $500 million in welfare and food stamps allocations, according to the news release.

Twenty-four percent of the county's total allotment of welfare and food stamp benefits goes directly to the children of illegal aliens born in the United States, according to Antonovich's statement.

"Illegal immigration continues to have a devastating impact on Los Angeles County taxpayers," Antonovich said in the statement. "The total cost for illegal immigrants to county taxpayers exceeds $1 billion a year - not including the millions of dollars for education."(snip)

from

I would also point out that also does not include the costs of additional 'stealth' subsidies i.e. reduced electric bills ( paid for by charging higher than necessary electricity prices to other electric customers with 'normal' income levels ), disproportionately high costs to the CA state justice / corrections system that don't appear at the county level, etc.

All in all, the real world results are that legal California citizens / residents and businesses wind up paying higher than otherwise necessary income tax rates, property tax rates, school tax rates, electric rates etc. in order to fund a 'better life' for 'anchor babies' and their now semi-legal parent(s). In the best case this results in a marginally lower standard of living for California citizens / legal residents and their children. In the worst case, this means a much lower standard of living for California citizens and their children as the high taxes and expensive utilities push their (former) employers into relocation, outsourcing or bankruptcy !


Going back to a much earlier post point in this thread about some dancers side-stepping paying appropriate income taxes, it is very easy to be 'compassionate' towards 'anchor babies' and their illegal alien parent(s) when the costs of that 'compassion' are not coming out of your own pocket and when the consequences of that 'compassion' are not reducing your own personal standard of living / reducing future opportunities for your own children.

nelly33
10-18-2010, 04:13 PM
I notice that Kellydancer and others have said that illegal immigrants aren't entitled to the same benefits because they haven't paid into the system. Fair point, but in my mind, that logic says that those who pay the most into the system should get the most back... which means that those who are in lower tax brackets are entitled to lower benefits... I just don't agree with that logic personally.
People seem to be quoting the bottom line for the country; well the bottom line would be best if not only we kicked out those who are illegal immigrants, but those who are unemployed, mentally ill, or old. Those things seem ridiculous, but kicking a child out of the country just because his parents had the bad luck to be born somewhere less fortunate seems just as absurd... at least to me. The bottom line is not always followed in America because to do so would be unconscionable to many people. The bottom line is not always what counts, even in finance, at least in my mind.
Sorry about the unorganized ramble... lots to get down.

Kellydancer
10-18-2010, 04:23 PM
I notice that Kellydancer and others have said that illegal immigrants aren't entitled to the same benefits because they haven't paid into the system. Fair point, but in my mind, that logic says that those who pay the most into the system should get the most back... which means that those who are in lower tax brackets are entitled to lower benefits... I just don't agree with that logic personally.
People seem to be quoting the bottom line for the country; well the bottom line would be best if not only we kicked out those who are illegal immigrants, but those who are unemployed, mentally ill, or old. Those things seem ridiculous, but kicking a child out of the country just because his parents had the bad luck to be born somewhere less fortunate seems just as absurd... at least to me. The bottom line is not always followed in America because to do so would be unconscionable to many people. The bottom line is not always what counts, even in finance, at least in my mind.
Sorry about the unorganized ramble... lots to get down.

The difference is the mentally ill, disabled, elderly and American children likely had someone pay in for them. Even if they didn't they are American citizens. People that came here illegally shouldn't even be here, hence why they are called illegals. I didn't say kick those kids out, just not guarantee them citizenship and tax dollars. I don't know what to do with those kids, but I resent paying for them instead of their parents who should be paying. Their parents shouldn't be here.

Melonie
10-18-2010, 04:34 PM
responding to Nelly ...

Two points ... with the first being that virtually every country except the US excludes visiting foreign nationals from eligibility for ANY benefits. And illegal immigrants ( and arguably their children ) ARE visiting foreign nationals ... at least per a literal interpretation of the 14th amendment and the 1924 'consular control' legal immigrant visa law !

Second point ... which should be of personal importance seeing as how you are from Buffalo NY ... While New York doesn't have anywhere near as many 'anchor baby' social welfare recipients as California, the state of NY nonetheless has a significant number of illegal aliens and 'anchor babies'. This in turn results in NY's tax rates, NY's electric rates etc. being higher than otherwise necessary. As a result, Niagara County has seen the exodus of many industries due at least in part to those high tax rates and high utility rates - and along with that an exodus of highly skilled high earning residents / taxpayers ( Niagara County was actually near the top of the list for population loss over the past 10 years ... and it wasn't the social welfare benefit recipients that were moving out, it was the hard working taxpayers ). This in turn results in fewer Niagara County strip club customers, as well as the remaining customers ( who are paying higher tax rates and higher utility rates ) having less money to spend.


This article was written during the 'boom times' of 3 years ago. Obviously the situation has deteriorated significantly in the meantime.

(snip)With continued population erosion, above-average unemployment and slow economic growth, Buffalo has been included on a list of “America’s Fastest-Dying Cities.”

The list is published by Forbes.com.

Buffalo is the only city in New York state to make the publication’s list. The editors take into account a population loss of nearly 42,000 residents since 2000, an unemployment rate of 5.7 percent compared to 4.3 percent nationally and annualized gross domestic product (GDP) growth of 1.9 percent.

Forbes said: “Buffalo has long been synonymous with city-in-decline. In the early 1900s, Buffalo was one of America’s 10 largest cities, a burgeoning industrial center. It’s been on decline ever since, despite a location that takes advantage of trade with Canada.”(snip)

from


So while other reasons for the decline do exist, in some part you are already paying a personal price for illegal immigrants residing in New York. You just aren't specifically aware of the cause and effect relationship that is indirectly costing some of your 'middle class' taxpaying neighbors their jobs, and indirectly costing you via reduced dancing earnings.

~

nelly33
10-18-2010, 04:46 PM
The difference is the mentally ill, disabled, elderly and American children likely had someone pay in for them. Even if they didn't they are American citizens. People that came here illegally shouldn't even be here, hence why they are called illegals. I didn't say kick those kids out, just not guarantee them citizenship and tax dollars. I don't know what to do with those kids, but I resent paying for them instead of their parents who should be paying. Their parents shouldn't be here.
What about children whose parents gave them up for adoption at birth? Should they be excluded from benefits because they had nobody to pay for them? Where does it end? You resent paying for the children of illegal immigrants... what about those whose parents are addicted to drugs? Their parents are here legally, but they pay even less into the system... those kids deserve more than the children of illegals?
And to Melanie... as a taxpayer in NYS... I am aware of the effect that illegal immigration has on taxes for me. We have some of the highest taxes in the country for many reasons... not all good ones. As I said earlier though, sometimes the extra couple thousand dollars I pay at the end of the year are worth the piece of mind that an innocent child has gotten some of the health care he/she needs.

Melonie
10-18-2010, 04:53 PM
What about children whose parents gave them up for adoption at birth? Should they be excluded from benefits because they had nobody to pay for them? Where does it end? You resent paying for the children of illegal immigrants.

I'm willing to personally compromise ... treat the US born children of illegal immigrants just like children of US citizens given up for adoption. Of course this would mean that the illegal immigrant parents could not receive social welfare benefits in the name of their 'anchor baby' for the next 18-21 years, and that the illegal alien parents would have to leave the USA.

As to the couple of thousand extra dollars per year spent on higher than necessary NY taxes and higher than necessary NY utility bills in order to subsidize illegal aliens and their children, it is your right to choose to spend that money in the interest of your own piece of mind. However, IMHO at least, it is NOT your right to force every other NY business and NY taxpayer to make similar payments involuntarily. It is NOT your right to force NY businesses out of business as a result of those higher taxes and utility bills. It is NOT your right to cost some of your hard working / tax paying neighbors their jobs as a result of those business failures.

As a former NY resident and major NY taxpayer, this sort of thing was a major contributing factor toward my decision to relocate way south of the border ... where ( thanks to much lower tax rates) I was able to provide for my own son's college education and bright future as opposed to that of an 'anchor baby' and their illegal alien family.

Kellydancer
10-18-2010, 04:54 PM
What about children whose parents gave them up for adoption at birth? Should they be excluded from benefits because they had nobody to pay for them? Where does it end? You resent paying for the children of illegal immigrants... what about those whose parents are addicted to drugs? Their parents are here legally, but they pay even less into the system... those kids deserve more than the children of illegals?
And to Melanie... as a taxpayer in NYS... I am aware of the effect that illegal immigration has on taxes for me. We have some of the highest taxes in the country for many reasons... not all good ones. As I said earlier though, sometimes the extra couple thousand dollars I pay at the end of the year are worth the piece of mind that an innocent child has gotten some of the health care he/she needs.

In most of those cases (like the drug addicts) the kids should be taken away. The kids who were placed for adoption would likely be adopted and likely not by someone on welfare. However those are very unlikely scenarios. My point is that I don't want to pay for illegals. They don't belong here and I don't want my money going to them when they shouldn't be here.

KS_Stevia
10-18-2010, 04:57 PM
As for the USSR couple I feel sorry for them but if they came here without any support then it's not fair we pay for them. I realize it was rough there but it's rough here too (especially now) and we can't support people who never paid in. Btw when I say that I mean anyone who abuses the welfare system, whether immigrants or citizens. I know that many other countries do limit older people from coming because they'll never be able to pay into the system and they can't be supported. If someone comes and is taken care of by family members that is completely different.

The first person who ever got social security only paid into it for 3 years. Not sure if you know how ssi works, but plenty of people can get it if they don't pay into it. Disabled people get it too. The spouses and children of an early deceased get a portion of what he/she might have paid into and received.

Its not tit for tat. Read all about Ida May Fuller:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ida_May_Fuller

rickdugan
10-18-2010, 05:39 PM
i still don't see why this is bad. they want their children to have better lives, so they do whatever is necessary.

i am not a mother, but i would walk through hell if it meant my child would have a better chance in the world.

again, this is a terrible forum to use the "they're wasting our tax dollars!" argument.

but immigrants are an easy scapegoat and that's why they bear the brunt of so much hostility. i find it a bit ironic that sex workers, perhaps society's favorite scapegoats, are so up-in-arms over a marginalized group of people. but i suppose if you give people the opportunity to oppress someone else, they take it.

I couldn't agree more with this.

My wife is an immigrant and many of her family members came here the old fashioned way. They do NOT take welfare and work very hard for their meager wages doing jobs that most Americans would not do for anything close to a reasonable wage. A few do have children receiving limited health benefits, but they are a pittance in the grand scheme of things.

And as far as taxes, do they not pay sales taxes like anyone else? Do their landlords not use a part of their rent payments to pay real estate taxes? And many of these people also apply for tax ID numbers and pay income taxes voluntarily, in the hopes that if reform is passed they will be able to apply for naturalization.

The current immigration policy is inhumane and a Latino has almost no chance of getting in. Also, "anchor babies" are really no anchor at all as US immigration officials routinely split up families without regard for family hardship. What I have seen and heard from my extended family is truly saddening.

A lot of the stuff above seems somewhat cliched, but no less true for all of that. The people who carved that message on the statue of liberty would not recognize what we have become.

hockeybobby
10-18-2010, 06:00 PM
If it all just comes down to a buck, do you think there are ways to save a buck that don't involve picking on desperately poor immigrants and their babies? If I'm not mistaken, didn't Trillions just disappear due to Wall Street shenanigans, and an unnecessary war? This is small potatoes. Welcoming immigrants and being generous is what the US is known for. That's a good thing to be known for....as opposed to making war, and corporate welfare. Right?

ETA: btw, every nickle you gift these people gets spent right there in your community. You all benefit indirectly from it in a thousand unseen ways.

princessjas
10-18-2010, 06:11 PM
I'm gonna complain! :P
Damn those those hot Russian girls with their sexy accents enticing all the guys to the champagne room!

I'd be rich if it wasn't for them LOL :P

(this was all back in Vegas..everyone out here seems to be from here) :D

All kidding aside, the two clubs I worked at that had a decent population of Slavic dancers.....ah, gawd, I'm gonna get flamed for saying it, but there wasn't one single one that wasn't a whore. They were fairly hot and often did well, but also did lots of "dates" after the bar closed and weren't shy about bumming condoms which the rest of us rarely had. This was back around 2003 and in NJ, fyi. I'm sure ymmv.

camille27
10-18-2010, 06:11 PM
bobby, every time you post a nice liberal post, it always makes me want to visit canada =)

princessjas
10-18-2010, 06:21 PM
Umm, yes. Our tax dollars. My parents and mine and my other family members here. It all goes into the pot and we've more than paid our share. We started paying taxes the second we got here. Sales tax, vehicle tax, property tax, income tax. It all goes into the pot. At least the government still provides for the elderly and children, just like all other civilized countries. Where I come from, elderly ladies are begging in the streets or standing on frozen sidewalks trying to sell bootleg cigarettes so they can eat. I don't know how much she got from social security because it was long ago. But I'm happier living in a country that WILL take care of elderly who cannot work, rather than throwing them onto the streets. What would have happened if we all died in an accident after she got here, once she had at least some type of non-permanant residency established? Make her starve and live in the streets without any assistance?

Want to make Texas a better place? Make all the lazy fucks living on Section 9 housing smoking weed all day and selling drugs out of their free housing go to work. >:(

*Sticking up for KS Stevia....Yeah, mine too! I pay more than 40k a year....and yanno what, it is fine with me if it supports KS's G'ma or anyone elses. This is a riduculously nasty thread!

jester214
10-18-2010, 06:24 PM
how many "mooch" off the system? where are you getting your information from? what are the numbers of undocumented immigrants who are "mooching"? because there are very few progressive countries in which a hospital will turn ANYONE away because of their inability to pay, whether it's for a childbirth, a papercut, a heart attack, whatever.

so what are the welfare systems that mexican immigrants are draining? public education? public education has been failing for decades. healthcare? this is provided in any humane society despite one's ability to pay. any stable country you go to, no doctor will let you die because you cannot pay. food subsidies? so people should starve? and then they will end up in the emergency room anyway? show the significant drain that mexican immigrants are placing on society. jobs? that was the goal of nafta! u.s. citizens want cheap everything and then they get shocked when jobs have to go to non-us citizens in order to keep costs low.


so where is the drain on the "system"? your tax dollars are going mostly to build highways and to fund weapon research for present and future wars, not to pregnant mexican women.

even if you kicked every undocumented immigrant out of the united states, the public education system would still be a trainwreck, the healthcare system would still me a mess, government aid would still be ineffective. that is the problem with a scapegoat. you are blaming something that is not the cause for the problem. it is so common during a bad economy to blame an easy target for everything. hitler did this. he was extremely successful at getting rid of his problem. isn't this what the other poster was suggesting? rounding up all of "them", jailing anyone who tried to protect "them", getting "them" out of our country?

For someone who talks about the need for people to "educate" themselves I think you are making guesses here.

The impact and cost of illegal immigrants is WELL documented. On that note, my biggest worry is not the ones who are here illegally now (by the way about 600,000 illegal immigrants become legal immigrants every year). My fear is what that number could (and probably will be) in 10 years.

Now I've already stated that I think the current legal immigration route is overly difficult and probably needs to be overhauled. That said, the U.S. let in about 10 Million Legal immigrants in the 90's and is on pace to excede that for this decade. So while the syste may be broken, your "you have no idea how hard it is to get in" line is majorly over dramatic, considering a million people do it every year.

rickdugan
10-18-2010, 06:24 PM
All kidding aside, the two clubs I worked at that had a decent population of Slavic dancers.....ah, gawd, I'm gonna get flamed for saying it, but there wasn't one single one that wasn't a whore. They were fairly hot and often did well, but also did lots of "dates" after the bar closed and weren't shy about bumming condoms which the rest of us rarely had. This was back around 2003 and in NJ, fyi. I'm sure ymmv.

Lol. I am in NYC and the Slavic girls in the clubs are a downright epidemic. If you counted up all of the dancers in Manhattan and all of the other boroughs, you would probably find that 50% of the dancers are Russian or from former Soviet states. In Queens (my normal haunt) it is closer to 80% as many of the clubs there are loaded with Slavic girls.

From my previous post it is obvious that I am pro-immigration, but I have to admit that I am not a fan of the Slavic girls and would like to see less of them in the clubs.

But, with respect to the sex slave stuff that I saw earlier in this thread, IME this is not the case. I have spoken to many of these girls, and none seemed to be working under duress. These girls are often in the states for a limited time to earn money to bring back home and, from what I gathered, nobody was telling them where to work and live. While many live in a certain part of Brooklyn for cultural reasons, other started there and have since moved to Queens, NJ and CT.

Now the stories of "Russians" traveling in buses to the clubs is often true :D, but this is simply due to convenience rather than a forced situation. Most of the girls live in a small area of Brooklyn and it is cheaper, and more convenient, for them to pool resources when traveling to far flung clubs.

jester214
10-18-2010, 06:28 PM
ETA: btw, every nickle you gift these people gets spent right there in your community. You all benefit indirectly from it in a thousand unseen ways.

Sadly Bobby this is not always the case, which is part of my issue.

Often times much of the money these individuals earn gets sent right back to where they came from. The Guatemalan guy who I helped get back to Guatemala sent every cent he didn't need back to his family. That money wasn't staying in the community.

*NOTE: When I say I helped him, I mean I helped him buy a plane ticket

jester214
10-18-2010, 06:30 PM
*Sticking up for KS Stevia....Yeah, mine too! I pay more than 40k a year....and yanno what, it is fine with me if it supports KS's G'ma or anyone elses. This is a riduculously nasty thread!

This is not a nasty thread. Several people said that situations like KS's (and many others) are clearly legitimate.

The fact remains that we could in the future (if we don't do something about it) have 1/4 of our population not paying into the system.

And for the people who say "they spend the money in the community, who cares if they don't pay taxes".

A. Often it gets sent home
B. Thanks for just supporting the Republican Party. Less taxes=money gets spent on other stuff, generating more business.

Funny how people wave that one about...::)

hockeybobby
10-18-2010, 06:31 PM
bobby, every time you post a nice liberal post, it always makes me want to visit canada =)

I am Tourism Canada's secret weapon. They pay me extra for enticing hot chicks northward too. :D

KS_Stevia
10-18-2010, 06:32 PM
This is true of Russian/Slavic strippers for the most part. Not so much in every case. But the girls that are truly the trafficked sex slaves are usually in private "clubs" aka brothels. Its too hard to control the girls in a public club where they aren't monitored around other girls, kind management, and customers who can help them.

Not saying it doesn't happen. Being a russian girl myself, I've met russian strippers all over the country and in clubs on the east coast. All were independent, but my personal experience is limited.

So yeah, sex trafficking happens. And these women aren't just prostitutes, they are SLAVES because they are being forced to work and not receiving any money off of it. Very different than voluntary stripping or prostitution.

Down here, 80% of girls see custies OTC, no matter what their race is. Its not only for sex or dates, its just common for custies to take groups of strippers out and about, on their boats and what not....

jester214
10-18-2010, 06:33 PM
But, with respect to the sex slave stuff that I saw earlier in this thread, IME this is not the case. I have spoken to many of these girls, and none seemed to be working under duress. These girls are often in the states for a limited time to earn money to bring back home and, from what I gathered, nobody was telling them where to work and live. While many live in a certain part of Brooklyn for cultural reasons, other started there and have since moved to Queens, NJ and CT.

Now the stories of "Russians" traveling in buses to the clubs is often true :D, but this is simply due to convenience rather than a forced situation. Most of the girls live in a small area of Brooklyn and it is cheaper, and more convenient, for them to pool resources when traveling to far flung clubs.

Getting off topic to a degree... but I've heard much the opposite. It made me especially wary of slavic sex workers in Western Europe who are apparently commonly under the thumb of some kind of pimp.

Has it made it here to the U.S.? Don't know for sure, but it scares me.

eagle2
10-18-2010, 07:57 PM
I'm willing to personally compromise ... treat the US born children of illegal immigrants just like children of US citizens given up for adoption. Of course this would mean that the illegal immigrant parents could not receive social welfare benefits in the name of their 'anchor baby' for the next 18-21 years, and that the illegal alien parents would have to leave the USA.

As to the couple of thousand extra dollars per year spent on higher than necessary NY taxes and higher than necessary NY utility bills in order to subsidize illegal aliens and their children, it is your right to choose to spend that money in the interest of your own piece of mind. However, IMHO at least, it is NOT your right to force every other NY business and NY taxpayer to make similar payments involuntarily. It is NOT your right to force NY businesses out of business as a result of those higher taxes and utility bills. It is NOT your right to cost some of your hard working / tax paying neighbors their jobs as a result of those business failures.

As a former NY resident and major NY taxpayer, this sort of thing was a major contributing factor toward my decision to relocate way south of the border ... where ( thanks to much lower tax rates) I was able to provide for my own son's college education and bright future as opposed to that of an 'anchor baby' and their illegal alien family.

How do you know you're paying a couple of thousand extra dollars per year to subsidize illegal aliens and their children? According to the following article, the total annual costs to New York for illegal immigrants living in the state in 2006 was about $3.495 billion. That's a lot less than $1,000 per taxpayer.

http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=research_researchb009?&printer_friendly=1

eagle2
10-18-2010, 08:02 PM
Sadly Bobby this is not always the case, which is part of my issue.

Often times much of the money these individuals earn gets sent right back to where they came from. The Guatemalan guy who I helped get back to Guatemala sent every cent he didn't need back to his family. That money wasn't staying in the community.

*NOTE: When I say I helped him, I mean I helped him buy a plane ticket

In Arizona, a lot of businesses are hurting because many immigrants left the state, so most of their customers are gone.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/22/nation/la-na-immigration-phoenix-20100723

tempest666
10-18-2010, 08:14 PM
IDK but I think its messed up that in one case US citizenship is a matter of $$$$. The only difference between them is one lady has the dinero to fork over and the other one doesn't. That's just my opinion.

Kellydancer
10-18-2010, 08:43 PM
The first person who ever got social security only paid into it for 3 years. Not sure if you know how ssi works, but plenty of people can get it if they don't pay into it. Disabled people get it too. The spouses and children of an early deceased get a portion of what he/she might have paid into and received.

Its not tit for tat. Read all about Ida May Fuller:



I have no problem with the disabled or the spouses and kids getting it. My big issue is people who never paid in like the Soviet couple. I know most immigrants aren't a drain, but I'd like to see a system where those who are only coming for the welfare deported. There was even a book being passed around various countries (In Asia I think) called how to get welfare in America (or a related name). When people come to make a better life I welcome them. In fact I worked in ESL and enjoyed meeting immigrants. My issue is strictly a money one and it's across the board. I don't want to pay for American freeloaders either.

Kellydancer
10-18-2010, 08:46 PM
This is not a nasty thread. Several people said that situations like KS's (and many others) are clearly legitimate.

The fact remains that we could in the future (if we don't do something about it) have 1/4 of our population not paying into the system.

And for the people who say "they spend the money in the community, who cares if they don't pay taxes".

A. Often it gets sent home
B. Thanks for just supporting the Republican Party. Less taxes=money gets spent on other stuff, generating more business.

Funny how people wave that one about...::)

I think her case and many others are legit. The case I posted is not and that woman needs to pay for her hospital. If that sounds cruel, I've known people who got hit with medical bills yet we let people like her off the hook. I'm not sure what you mean about the Republican Party since I don't support them. I used to be a Democrat and agree with them on social issues, but not money issues.