View Full Version : Immigration rant no. 137
hockeybobby
10-20-2010, 09:57 AM
I also second Melonie's point that the Canadian government only acceded to Juana's request when they were shamed into doing so. It is very likely that others in similar situations received no such indulgence.
We are certainly far from perfect up here. We are a work in progress, as is the US, and Australia...all countries really. I think we all have a desire in us to be fair though, and fairness is what this discussion is all about.
Kellydancer
10-20-2010, 10:41 AM
Not wanting to drift off topic, but ... I guess this also applies to illegal immigrants in the USA who via fake ID etc. or via 'anchor babies' wind up being eligible for a cornucopia of social welfare benefits. At any rate ...
In New York, and undoubtedly in many other US states with generous social welfare programs, the 'equivalent cash value' of those social welfare benefits really adds up. For example, medicaid replaces something like $5,000 a year worth of health insurance premiums / copays. Food stamps replaces something like $3,000 a year worth of purchased food. Section 8 housing replaces something like $3,000 a year worth of out-of-pocket rent payments. Low income utilities replaces something like $1,500 a year worth of electricity bills. Heating assistance replaces something like $ 1,500 a year worth of gas/oil bills. So in essence, these state gov'ts are creating a 'moral hazard' situation where a person earning $14,000 a year receives another $14,000 worth of 'free' benefits from social welfare programs ... but where the same person earning $25,000 a year ( via more hours worked, more job responsibility assumed, more education etc. ) loses eligibility for those social welfare programs and must pony up full price for health insurance premiums / co-pays. food, rent, electricity and oil/gas.
The end result would be that putting forth the effort to achieve an $11,000 a year pay increase for themselves actually REDUCES that person's standard of living by $3,000 per year !!! This 'moral hazard' situation has been documented to cause low income workers to refuse overtime, to refuse promotions, to outright quit their jobs etc. in order to insure that their officially reported income levels do not exceed the state social welfare program benefit eligibility threshold. Also, this very same 'moral hazard' situation also motivates many 'officially' low income workers to seek 'under the table' work ... from exotic dancing to construction to drug sales ... a situation which provides the 'best of both worlds' i.e. social welfare benefit coverage plus tens ot thousands of dollars per year in 'walking around' money !
Where immigrants ( both legal and illegal ) are concerned, this 'moral hazard' now creates an entirely different paradigm than that which existed historically for earlier 'waves' of US immigrants. Unless today's immigrants are able to find jobs that ( officially ) pay $40,000+ a year, their de-facto standard of living will not be significantly better than if they were ( officially ) earning $15,000 a year with full eligibility for social welfare benefits. Thus in real world terms, virtually every low skill immigrant ( both legal and illegal ) creates a significant tax burden on other higher skill level higher earning Americans which reduces their standard of living, which limits the future options for their children etc. THIS is the reason that virtually every other western gov't sets criteria for legal immigration that attempts to insure that immigrants possess the skills necessary to, at the very least, 'pay their own way'. However, since LBJ's 1965 immigration law changes, the US has been following a policy i.e. 'anchor babies' that ensures that a large percentage of legal immigrants are low skill level blood relatives of that 'anchor baby'.
It is no coincidence that Arizona and some other states are now attempting to pass state laws that require the parents of all new babies to present proof of citizenship / legal residence before hospitals in that state will issue a US birth certificate ( which renders the baby a US citizen). In the absence of such documentation of the parents' status, the hospital can only issue a certificate of live birth ( which does not confer US citizenship status to the baby ). See . Also, the widespread birth certificate fraud in Puerto Rico is now about to render all past US birth certificates issued by Puerto Rican authorities void, with 'replacement' birth certificates now requiring solid proof of citizenship. See . However, in New York and certain other states, state social welfare agencies don't bother to thoroughly investigate such 'trivial details' as actually being a US citizen before signing up new social welfare recipients !
~
I live in Illinois, which is a very generous welfare state. I can't remember how much the average person makes on welfare but know it's more than if they worked a minimum wage job and everything is paid for, from free cell phones, housing, food, medical. They were even trying to push free internet and cable tv! If one is on welfare there is no incentive to work so many don't. Technically they are supposed to work when the child is 2, but of course many keep making babies so they don't have to. Not just this but Illinois has free healthcare for PARENTS, even illegal ones! Of course us childless don't get breaks on anything and we have to pay more and more for the welfare families.
This is a sore topic here in Illinois. I know very liberal people who support welfare but hate the system here. I am tired of seeing welfare families buying things I can't afford. Oh and not many people know this but welfare families get a gift certificate from the store of their choice once a month to do as they please! Pretty nice, huh? I knew someone getting a Target $20 gift certificate and they used it to buy CDs. Make me feel good (sarcasm).
Melonie
10-20-2010, 12:56 PM
I think we all have a desire in us to be fair though, and fairness is what this discussion is all about.
Bobby we're in complete agreement in regard to 'fairness'. Like Canada, I would consider it 'fair' if US policy was changed to ...
- actively deport illegal immigrants as soon as they are discovered the way that Canada does
- rule that like the children born to illegal immigrants in Canada, children born to illegal immigrants in the USA are NOT automatically deemed to be citizens
- rule that like Canada only citizens and legal permanent residents are eligible to receive social welfare benefits
- like Canada establish a strict immigration policy where new immigrants are only approved if A. there is a need for them under the current state of the economy, B. the would-be legal immigrants have sufficient skills and / or assets to avoid being a 'burden' on citizen taxpayers, C. that the would-be legal immigrant will not be displacing an existing worker who is a citizen or permanent legal resident, etc.
- limit pending 'refugee' status immigration to the same 6 month maximum time span as Canada does ( i.e. force the state dep't to make a ruling within 6 months, and if the state dep't determines that the 'refugee' based application is not genuine, deport them immediately afterwards ).
for better or worse, present US immigration policy in these areas is nothing like Canada's.
Again I have no problem with Canada's existing immigration policies - and frankly I hope that the USA takes a lesson from Canada. My only real complaint is that there are a large number of people who view Canada's immigration policies as being far more 'liberal' than is actually the case, and who also view America's immigration policies as far less 'liberal' than is actually the case.
jack0177057
10-20-2010, 01:42 PM
We are certainly far from perfect up here. We are a work in progress, as is the US, and Australia...all countries really. I think we all have a desire in us to be fair though, and fairness is what this discussion is all about.
I agree, but "fair" for whom? The US anti-immigration argument is that Mexico (as an example) needs to solve its own problems at home and it is not "fair" for the US to have to assume the burden of feeding and clothing poor people from around the globe, that those people bring with them a lot of cultural and social baggage and that they consume a lot of public resources. There is a lot of fear from poor white people that the Mexicans (as an example) will move into their neighborhood and turn it into a ghetto (clips from the movie "Colors" play in their heads). The upper middle-class does not have this issue, because the immigrants only show up at those neighborhoods to mow lawns, clean and cook, and promptly depart after these services have been performed.
The US bleeding-heart liberals say we are the wealthiest nation in the world, and have a history of exploiting weaker countries for our profit, so it is "fair" and morally imperative that we open up opportunities to everyone. (Not to mention that we are all immigrants that came here seeking refuge and new opportunities and that the statute of liberty has a plaque that says "Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free".)
I take a third approach - the selfish approach. Cheap labor is required to keep US manufacturing and production facilities (and tax revenues) here in the US (as opposed to relocating to China, Mexico and India) and to provide the middle class with a higher standard of living. I personally rely on cheap labor for maid services, gardening services, construction services, home improvements and repairs, etc. Whenever I need anything that can be done with cheap labor - I know where to find it. I want a legalization process that legalizes this cheap labor. I don't want immigrants that will come to join the "welfare class" - that will game the system by staying at home making babies. I want strong healthy immigrants that will work hard and EARN their citizenship with sweat, blood and tears - the way all former immigrants did it. I want them under close watch and if they cause any problems, they should be deported.
This country was built on the backs of immigrants, what's wrong with continuing that tradition? Both of my parents were immigrants. My mother and grandmother were seamstresses for many years. My father was a construction worker for many years with mostly Italian immigrants in NYC. Back then, the American people were a little wiser, and happy to have a cheap workforce - getting a "green card" was easy.
flickad
10-20-2010, 06:25 PM
We are certainly far from perfect up here. We are a work in progress, as is the US, and Australia...all countries really. I think we all have a desire in us to be fair though, and fairness is what this discussion is all about.
I'm all for fairness and showing some compassion when we can. But, the thing is, we do live in the real world and these things have to be paid for. Since they do cost, some sort of limitation must generally be set. And limiting state-sponsored social programs to citizens (or applying a means test, or both) are probably the most sensible and least unfair limitations applicable.
I can't imagine that any of our health care systems would be sustainable were they to extend to any and all visitors to the country. Over-reaching is likely to mean that subsidised care just won't be there for citizens who may desperately need it in the future. Just as we can't extend other aspects of our social safety nets to everyone with no eligibility requirements if we want them to be there tomorrow, we can't stretch our universal health care system to breaking point. That may seem unfair, but it is ultimately less unfair than bankrupting the system and making the next generation of taxpayers go without the health benefits we've received in return for our own taxes.
flickad
10-20-2010, 06:34 PM
Bobby we're in complete agreement in regard to 'fairness'. Like Canada, I would consider it 'fair' if US policy was changed to ...
- actively deport illegal immigrants as soon as they are discovered the way that Canada does
- rule that like the children born to illegal immigrants in Canada, children born to illegal immigrants in the USA are NOT automatically deemed to be citizens
- rule that like Canada only citizens and legal permanent residents are eligible to receive social welfare benefits
- like Canada establish a strict immigration policy where new immigrants are only approved if A. there is a need for them under the current state of the economy, B. the would-be legal immigrants have sufficient skills and / or assets to avoid being a 'burden' on citizen taxpayers, C. that the would-be legal immigrant will not be displacing an existing worker who is a citizen or permanent legal resident, etc.
- limit pending 'refugee' status immigration to the same 6 month maximum time span as Canada does ( i.e. force the state dep't to make a ruling within 6 months, and if the state dep't determines that the 'refugee' based application is not genuine, deport them immediately afterwards ).
for better or worse, present US immigration policy in these areas is nothing like Canada's.
Again I have no problem with Canada's existing immigration policies - and frankly I hope that the USA takes a lesson from Canada. My only real complaint is that there are a large number of people who view Canada's immigration policies as being far more 'liberal' than is actually the case, and who also view America's immigration policies as far less 'liberal' than is actually the case.
Every country with strong social welfare programs applies these limitations or very similar ones. It simply is necessary to keep those systems in place. Without these or other similarly effective limiting measures, those programs simply would not be affordable.
Exercising the amount of compassion that we might like to with respect to non-citizens is ultimately going to come at the cost of extending benefits like health care to citizens (and thus showing them some compassion). Most, if not all, countries really have had to take their pick on that one.
In the distant past, when more open immigration policies have applied in places like the US, the UK, Canada and Australia, those social programs were not there and thus immigrants did not have to be paid for in the same way. They came (my own grandparents among them) and were forced to sink or swim. Letting a lot more people immigrate to any given country can only realistically happen when the infrastructure (including the labour market as well as things like housing, public transport, adequate policing and roads) for them is there and if they are excluded from those programs (or at least excluded for a number of years until such time as they have contributed enough in tax to make their inclusion affordable). Again, it's a case of taking your pick.
Kellydancer
10-20-2010, 08:05 PM
I'm all for fairness and showing some compassion when we can. But, the thing is, we do live in the real world and these things have to be paid for. Since they do cost, some sort of limitation must generally be set. And limiting state-sponsored social programs to citizens (or applying a means test, or both) are probably the most sensible and least unfair limitations applicable.
I can't imagine that any of our health care systems would be sustainable were they to extend to any and all visitors to the country. Over-reaching is likely to mean that subsidised care just won't be there for citizens who may desperately need it in the future. Just as we can't extend other aspects of our social safety nets to everyone with no eligibility requirements if we want them to be there tomorrow, we can't stretch our universal health care system to breaking point. That may seem unfair, but it is ultimately less unfair than bankrupting the system and making the next generation of taxpayers go without the health benefits we've received in return for our own taxes.
This is already happening in my state. It's going broke and part of it is because of the healthcare system and safety nets. How my state does it is parents no matter their immigration status can get free healthcare but us childless aren't eligible. Because of this there is a lot of resentment and I expect the national healthcare to carry even more resentment.
princessjas
10-21-2010, 07:07 AM
I agree, but "fair" for whom? The US anti-immigration argument is that Mexico (as an example) needs to solve its own problems at home and it is not "fair" for the US to have to assume the burden of feeding and clothing poor people from around the globe, that those people bring with them a lot of cultural and social baggage and that they consume a lot of public resources. There is a lot of fear from poor white people that the Mexicans (as an example) will move into their neighborhood and turn it into a ghetto (clips from the movie "Colors" play in their heads). The upper middle-class does not have this issue, because the immigrants only show up at those neighborhoods to mow lawns, clean and cook, and promptly depart after these services have been performed.
The US bleeding-heart liberals say we are the wealthiest nation in the world, and have a history of exploiting weaker countries for our profit, so it is "fair" and morally imperative that we open up opportunities to everyone. (Not to mention that we are all immigrants that came here seeking refuge and new opportunities and that the statute of liberty has a plaque that says "Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free".)
I take a third approach - the selfish approach. Cheap labor is required to keep US manufacturing and production facilities (and tax revenues) here in the US (as opposed to relocating to China, Mexico and India) and to provide the middle class with a higher standard of living. I personally rely on cheap labor for maid services, gardening services, construction services, home improvements and repairs, etc. Whenever I need anything that can be done with cheap labor - I know where to find it. I want a legalization process that legalizes this cheap labor. I don't want immigrants that will come to join the "welfare class" - that will game the system by staying at home making babies. I want strong healthy immigrants that will work hard and EARN their citizenship with sweat, blood and tears - the way all former immigrants did it. I want them under close watch and if they cause any problems, they should be deported.
This country was built on the backs of immigrants, what's wrong with continuing that tradition? Both of my parents were immigrants. My mother and grandmother were seamstresses for many years. My father was a construction worker for many years with mostly Italian immigrants in NYC. Back then, the American people were a little wiser, and happy to have a cheap workforce - getting a "green card" was easy.
Not true! I'm a bleeding heart liberal, as you would call it but still believe that immigrants should have to work for their right to be here. Our ancestors had to, the founders of our country worked harder than anyone, and I freakin work or am in school. Being under close watch though?? Is this just for people who are screened and deemed to be possibly problematic or for everyone? Cause that seems damn unfair tbh.
This being said I'm Irish, Black and American Indian. My Great Grandparents still spoke with a lilt, my Grandparents were born in Ireland. Irish were horribly persecuted back then.
There were coal camps here when my dad was a boy, and the Irish and the blacks had there own seperate camps (please don't bitch for me using black, mom is almost half, and my bestie haaaated the term African American, so I never know how to not offend.) We weren't even allowed in "white" diners or bars and couldn't drink out of "white" fountains. I hear about this periodically and it blows my freakin mind. Even after the irish were accepted around here, my g-pa wouldn't eat at the "normal" cafeteria, cause none of his friends could. How awful is that shit?
Yeah, dunno why we are "bleeding heart liberals". You'd have to be a fucking monster not to be one, imho. Being selfish can be ok to an extent, there is a point where you just have to go, ok, I'm an awful human, who cares nothing for anyone other than myself, who would run over a baby laying in the street if it meant I didn't have to exert the energy to move the steering wheel, who would step on a kitten to avoid extending the energy that it takes to skip a step and miss it, that is imho where all the conservatives are.
Melonie
10-21-2010, 01:33 PM
curiouser and curiouser ...
(snip)"In a stunning development that could potentially send the nation into a Constitutional crisis, an astute attorney who is well-versed in Constitutional law states that the ruling against the State of Arizona by Judge Susan Bolton concerning its new immigration law is illegal. The attorney in question submitted her assertion in a special article in the Canada Free Press. Her argument states in part, “Does anyone read the U.S. Constitution these days? American lawyers don’t read it. Federal Judge Susan R. Bolton apparently has never read it. Same goes for our illustrious Attorney General Eric Holder.
But this lawyer has read it and she is going to show you something in Our Constitution which is as plain as the nose on your face.
The U.S. Constitution Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 clearly states – “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction.”
In other words, the Judge in the Arizona case has absolutely no Constitutional jurisdiction over the matter upon which she ruled. As the Constitution makes abundantly clear, only the U.S. Supreme Court can issue rulings that involve a state. This means that neither Judge Bolton nor the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, to which the case is being appealed, have any legal standing whatsoever to rule on the issue. Thus, U.S. Attorney-General Eric Holder filed the federal government’s lawsuit against the state of Arizona in a court that has no authority to hear the case.
In a related development, another explosive discovery was made by those who actually take the Constitution seriously. The Constitution specifically allows an individual state to wage war against a neighboring country in the event of an invasion, should there be a dangerous delay or inaction on the part of the federal government.
From Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, we find these words – “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”
No one who is actually familiar with the crisis at the southern border can deny that Arizona is endangered by the relentless assault of lawless Mexican invaders who ignore our laws, inundate our schools and medical facilities with unpaid bills, and even endanger the very lives of citizens with criminal drug cartels that engage in kidnapping, murder, human trafficking, and other mayhem, including aiming missile and grenade launchers directly at U.S. border cities from just across the Mexican border. This is every bit as much of an invasion as the nation of Iran sending in a fleet of warships to the Port of Charleston.
The Constitution that forms the basis of the rule of law in this country says that Arizona has legal right to protect itself in the case of inaction or delay on the part of the federal government, including waging war in its self-defense.
This, when coupled with the clear Constitutional mandate that only the Supreme Court hear cases involving the states, should be ample legal basis for attorneys representing Arizona to go after the federal government with a vengeance."(snip)
from
PS thanks to the Canada Free Press for actually publishing this report !
jack0177057
10-21-2010, 04:53 PM
The U.S. Constitution Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 clearly states – “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction.”
"Original" jurisdiction does not mean the same as exclusive original jurisdiction. Very often, the parties have several options regarding where to file a suit - and more than one court will have original jurisdiction. (The plaintiff tries to file in the the most advantageous court - this is referred to as "forum shopping".) The terms "exclusive jurisdiction" must appear in the applicable law to indicate exclusive jurisdiction.
Also, every criminal case involves the State as a party; for example, in Texas, every criminal case prosecuted in state courts is styled: State of Texas v. [criminal's name]... Under that lawyer's interpretation, all state criminal prosecutions would have to be filed in the US Supreme Court.
The Constitution specifically allows an individual state to wage war against a neighboring country in the event of an invasion, should there be a dangerous delay or inaction on the part of the federal government.
From Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, we find these words – “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”
I don't think Arizona wants to go to war with Mexico. Wanting (i) to enforce federal immigration laws and (ii) to deter illegal Mexican immigrants from residing in Arizona - is not the same thing as wanting war with Mexico. If Arizona wanted to invade Mexico to (a) annex the country or (b) liberate the country from the cartels, most Mexicans would probably support that. But, I don't think Arizona has any interest in doing that.
Melonie
10-22-2010, 03:28 AM
^^^ agreed ! My point simply was that the battle between the state of Arizona and the federal gov't over the appropriate real world amount of border / immigration enforcement is FAR from over.
rickdugan
10-25-2010, 06:03 AM
Arguing this is a zero-sum game because, in the end, this is as much an emotional issue as a logical one.
First, even if the half-baked resource drain stats were completely accurate, a subject of much debate btw, they are not measured against the economic contributions (sales and indirect property taxes, lower cost of goods and services, higher real estate prices due to increased housing demand, etc.), so nobody really knows what the net drain or contribution from immigration really is.
Second, those who claim that it is an issue of legaility are invariably full of shit as they are equally unsupportive of a broad-based legal option. Now some of those half baked resource drain theories are used as a justification for this position, but I strongly suspect that, for many of them, it is as much a cultural and emotional issue as a logical one.
This saga has played out through the history of our country and will continue to play out long after we are dead. For generations, immigrants have been a source of fresh blood for our country, doing work that established citizens did not want to do and adding to the country's culture. And like today, these immigrants were not welcomed by a chunk of the established population.
From the Irish and Italian immigrants near the turn of the 20th century to the boatloads of Eastern European immigrants during WWII to the Latinos of today, this saga plays out and over.
Now I am all in favor of policies that restrict illegals and their offspring from receiving welfare and other taxpayer benefits, at least until a number of years has passed. Heck, most of the illegal immigrants I know do not qualify for, or collect, these benefits in any event.
But even if you remove each stumbling block from the path, immigration opponents will find other justifications for opposing it. It simply always has been the case and always will be.
flickad
10-25-2010, 06:27 AM
^^
You have a point in that it's impossible to truly know whether or not immigrants stretch social welfare programs to breaking point because we don't also know the exact quantum of their contributions to the economy. I have read that Arizona's new immigration law has negatively affected the local economy, which does give some indication. However, illegal immigrants can't use social welfare systems in any event, so again it's hard to tell. Perhaps the solution is to restrict these benefits to immigrants who've contributed tax for a certain number of years, with an emergency exception (eg medical emergencies and perhaps some sort of nutrition and housing program when people are truly indigent).
I personally have nothing against immigration in and of itself and believe that it can carry many benefits, particularly in an era of declining birthrates. But I also think that we need to exercise common sense in terms of available infrastructure, the limits of our existing resources and the character of those we let in.
Kellydancer
10-27-2010, 02:47 PM
just started reading this thread and got to this point.
I'm Slavic. I wasn't born here. I moved here legally with my parents when I was 9 and then a few years later became a US citizen. I'm also a stripper and there are days when I make more than 80% of the girls around me. There's also another dancer at my club that moved to the US legally from Turkey, is now a US citizen, and is one of the top hustlers in my club. This girl works harder than anyone I know and makes 3-4 times more than anyone else in the club.
Should me and her get fired for "taking" the stripping jobs from girls that were born in the US (some of which can't hustle to save their life)?
That's fucked up way of thinking.
Should any foreigner that moves to the US and becomes a citizen and then becomes incredibly wealthy in US be fired from whatever job he has on account of him not being born here?
I don't think so.
Yes, you have a valid reason to be pissed at the illegal dancers in that club, but why are you mad at the legal ones?
I think you are more mad at yourself, whether it's for getting fired, not being able to compete with the other dancers, etc.
Bitter much?
I suspect they feel like I do, that's it's the illegal Slavic girls that are the problem. One of the clubs I used to dance at had many of these girls and the problem was most of them were sex slaves. There was a big article about this in the paper with men trafficking women to use as sex slaves. These women were coming into the clubs and offering more than most of the other girls and making more because of this. This is a major problem with many strip clubs.
I have no problem with people coming here legally. Even though these women are victims and I feel sorry for them they are ruining it for other girls. I do not think all immigrants are illegal, nor do I think all Slavic girls are illegal. Personally when I worked a club and there was a girl who didn't speak English I often wondered whether she was legal or whether she was a sex slave.
Elusive21
10-27-2010, 03:02 PM
I understand what you are saying. I am also not in favor of illegal girls dancing in clubs. It's not right for many reasons.
In Jay12's case, she said that only two girls were illegal. The rest of them were legal and I am defending those dancers.
I also think that if we are going to be pissed at illegal dancers, we should also be pissed at their pimps and trafficers (these girls are after all victims that are threatened and most likely beaten if they don't make a certain amount) and especially pissed at the managers that hire these girls, knowing that they are illegally and will most likely be extras girls. sex trafficking sucks >:( and so do the people that encourage it and let it happen.
Also, I believe that there are just as many American dancers that have pimps and offer extras in clubs, if not more. Perhaps if those girls were fired (along with the illegal dancers) then maybe that would improve working conditions for the rest of dancers - but we all know that's never going to happen :(
Melonie
10-27-2010, 03:22 PM
From the Irish and Italian immigrants near the turn of the 20th century to the boatloads of Eastern European immigrants during WWII to the Latinos of today, this saga plays out and over.
uhhh ... wrong. At the turn of the century and during WW2 social welfare benefits were practically non-existant. Today they are widespread, and rather generous in certain states.
illegal immigrants can't use social welfare systems in any event
uhhh ... also wrong. Where an American born 'anchor baby' is involved, the (formerly, now quasi) illegal immigrant parent(s) are eligible for a cornucopia of social welfare benefits in the name of the 'anchor baby'.
Kellydancer
10-27-2010, 04:40 PM
uhhh ... wrong. At the turn of the century and during WW2 social welfare benefits were practically non-existant. Today they are widespread, and rather generous in certain states.
uhhh ... also wrong. Where an American born 'anchor baby' is involved, the (formerly, now quasi) illegal immigrant parent(s) are eligible for a cornucopia of social welfare benefits in the name of the 'anchor baby'.
The immigrants from the past (and I like to think most today) came to make a better life. They learned English, worked hard and their kids were Americans. Now in the case of illegals this isn't always true. They come here illegally, many take OUR tax money then don't bother learning English. The welfare programs here don't require them to learn English, instead all case workers must be bilingual! It's ridiculous. In Illinois most welfare programs don't even require proof of immigration status. In Illinois illegals and their parents can get free healthcare but childless citizens (like me) aren't eligible. Screw every single illegal on welfare. I think every single one of them should be deported.
Kellydancer
10-27-2010, 04:43 PM
I understand what you are saying. I am also not in favor of illegal girls dancing in clubs. It's not right for many reasons.
In Jay12's case, she said that only two girls were illegal. The rest of them were legal and I am defending those dancers.
I also think that if we are going to be pissed at illegal dancers, we should also be pissed at their pimps and trafficers (these girls are after all victims that are threatened and most likely beaten if they don't make a certain amount) and especially pissed at the managers that hire these girls, knowing that they are illegally and will most likely be extras girls. sex trafficking sucks >:( and so do the people that encourage it and let it happen.
Also, I believe that there are just as many American dancers that have pimps and offer extras in clubs, if not more. Perhaps if those girls were fired (along with the illegal dancers) then maybe that would improve working conditions for the rest of dancers - but we all know that's never going to happen :(
I'm against any women who's being pimped and hate extras girls no matter their immigration status.
Elusive21
10-27-2010, 06:23 PM
^^ kelly i completely agree with you on that.
btw the last 2 paragraphs in my last post was just me talking about how i feel in general. i hope it didn't come across as me bitching about something you wrote previously.
Kellydancer
10-27-2010, 07:35 PM
It didn't come across as that, so no worry. I sound anti immgration at times but I'm not. I have no issues with people who come here legally to make a better life. My problem are the ones who come to take advantage. Luckily I think this is a small percentage. I am kind of torn what to do with these women who came here illegally as sex slaves because they were forced to come here.
eagle2
10-27-2010, 08:16 PM
I think in most cases, sex slaves are tricked into coming here, rather than being forced. I've heard cases of women being told they would be working at some other type of job, and when they get here, they are forced into working in the sex industry.
Kellydancer
10-27-2010, 08:20 PM
That's possible too (I've heard variations of that), but it's just so sad and what do we do with them then? If they are sent back some of them maybe killed, but if we let them stay that opens other issues. I feel sorry for these women.
jack0177057
11-11-2010, 12:18 PM
uhhh ... wrong. At the turn of the century and during WW2 social welfare benefits were practically non-existant. Today they are widespread, and rather generous in certain states.
That can be addressed by severely limiting the benefits received by immigrants for a certain number of years. They should only come here to work, not to live off public assistance. We should give them basic medical care and education for their children, but no welfare (this restriction should be effective for at least 5 years).
Most of the illegal immigrants that come here, do so to build us homes, libraries, parks, office buildings, slave away in farms, serve us food in restaurants, etc. If they get occasionally sick from the back-breaking labor they do for us, I'm not too bitter about our taxes paying for their medical care. They don't abuse the system, they only go to the free county hospitals when necessary, because of fear of "getting caught".
Frankly, I'm more upset by the dead weight in this country. Those "true Citizens" that game the welfare system and contribute absolutely nothing to society - the welfare kings and queens that have squandered away the opportunities of being born in the US and rely entirely on public assistance.
I grew up a poor inner-city kid, but I lifted myself up and make more money as an adult than 70% of the US population. A lot of the poverty in this country is self-inflicted by squandering away golden opportunities that we are too blind to see or too lazy to pursue, but that people in other nations would literally risk life and limb to enjoy.
When you consider how much resources we are spending on the deadweight in this country, I think a better investment is investing some of these resources on the immigrants that come here to work and build us things. I don't mean this in a racist way -- but New Orleans is a good example. It was rebuilt by illegal immigrants, I'm sure many of them got injured or sick and had to rely on publicly-funded medical services, but this can hardly be objectionable. They were breaking their backs and risking their lives to rebuild the city. After New Orleans was rebuilt, the deadweight (gangbangers and other criminals) wanted to return home and kick-out the productive illegal immigrants that rebuilt the city.
Kellydancer
11-11-2010, 01:07 PM
That can be addressed by severely limiting the benefits received by immigrants for a certain number of years. They should only come here to work, not to live off public assistance. We should give them basic medical care and education for their children, but no welfare (this restriction should be effective for at least 5 years).
Most of the illegal immigrants that come here, do so to build us homes, libraries, parks, office buildings, slave away in farms, serve us food in restaurants, etc. If they get occasionally sick from the back-breaking labor they do for us, I'm not too bitter about our taxes paying for their medical care. They don't abuse the system, they only go to the free county hospitals when necessary, because of fear of "getting caught".
Frankly, I'm more upset by the dead weight in this country. Those "true Citizens" that game the welfare system and contribute absolutely nothing to society - the welfare kings and queens that have squandered away the opportunities of being born in the US and rely entirely on public assistance.
I grew up a poor inner-city kid, but I lifted myself up and make more money as an adult than 70% of the US population. A lot of the poverty in this country is self-inflicted by squandering away golden opportunities that we are too blind to see or too lazy to pursue, but that people in other nations would literally risk life and limb to enjoy.
When you consider how much resources we are spending on the deadweight in this country, I think a better investment is investing some of these resources on the immigrants that come here to work and build us things. I don't mean this in a racist way -- but New Orleans is a good example. It was rebuilt by illegal immigrants, I'm sure many of them got injured or sick and had to rely on publicly-funded medical services, but this can hardly be objectionable. They were breaking their backs and risking their lives to rebuild the city. After New Orleans was rebuilt, the deadweight (gangbangers and other criminals) wanted to return home and kick-out the productive illegal immigrants that rebuilt the city.
Agreed. I am more sickened by the welfare kings and queens myself and there are more of them than immigrants (legal and illegal on welfare). I don't support immigrants coming here to freeload (and some do) but support them coming for a better life and working hard.
The welfare citizens is another story though. That is the biggest issue I have with the system. There are many people like this who live off the system. I've seen these people, even worked a social program and saw these freeloaders having baby after baby. On another board I said I was against people having kids without being married while on assistance I was called "anti feminist", a "hard right Republican", etc. One person even had the audacity to attack me because "cable tv is a need for entertainment". Um, no cable tv is NOT a need on welfare. Welfare should be a safety net to help people get ahead, not an excuse to have baby after baby we pay for.
jack0177057
11-11-2010, 03:44 PM
^ Agreed. If we really fixed welfare, then it wouldn't be an incentive to come to the US. The ONLY incentive should be to come here to WORK.
Growing up in a poor neighborhood, I saw how messed up some people's priorities were. A lot of welfare people had lots of expensive clothes and "bling", but made no investment in things like education or training.
About 8 or 9 years ago, I worked in an office building that had a WIC office (food stamps). I saw women driving brand new SUVs going into that office to collect food stamps - something is wrong with that picture.
You really can't blame the welfare recipients, though (unless there is fraud involved). It is the system that is messed up and provides distorted incentives. All they do is follow the cheese like mice (which we all do to some extent). If I could make more money by staying at home making babies, instead of working, I would, too. (Its crazy to work, if you can make more money by not working.)....
And before I'm called a "hard-right republican" - The only thing more absurd than the welfare system for the poor in this country, is the welfare we give to the rich. I've worked in government so I've seen this first hand -- government stealing land from the poor to give it to rich developers... plus subsidizing some of their development cost (of private development) with taxpayer money. What about using taxpayer money to subsidize medical research at public universities, and then letting the researchers (whose work was paid with taxpayer money) flee the university and take their billion-dollar inventions to big pharmaceutical companies, who make HUGE profits off the taxpayer-funded research by producing pharmaceutical products priced so high that most people (without insurance) can't afford them.
Oh, but this is the wrong type of rant... Back to immigration...
Kellydancer
11-11-2010, 03:52 PM
Jack, agree with you. I worked for a government agency (transportation) and the amount of money we waste on many items is beyond ridiculous. The former CEO of my former employer committed suicide when it came out how he was milking the system. Of course this same company always asks for more money because they are poor, then they spend money having a lobster dinner for the bigwigs. It's an all around corrupt system.
I've known quite a few people on welfare and it's almost an incentive not to work because they were making more on welfare than they would on a minimum wage. Personally I think if one gets welfare they should work. I'd have no problems helping out people like this, but the ones who don't want to work? No way. I had a friend who frauded the system and I reported her. She later thanked me for doing this.
Melonie
11-11-2010, 04:41 PM
^^^ circling back on topic, it's bad enough when US citizens are provided with a social welfare benefit package that makes it more attractive to collect benefits than to work. It is worse when illegal immigrants are given access to the same social welfare benefit package thanks to an 'anchor baby' or the incompetence of state social services officials only asking to see a utility bill or driver's license as proof of residence. And it is worse still when those illegal immigrants collect those social welfare benefits, while at the same time pocketing unreported cash income from 'illegal' employment.
jack0177057
11-11-2010, 05:34 PM
^ I would agree with you... if immigrants were coming here to live off of our welfare system.
But, my impression is that they are coming here coming here to work, not for welfare. All the immigrants that I see are working in labor-intensive occupations - maids, gardeners, waiters, contractors, fast-food cooks, etc. I see them working hard, so they earn my respect. (I've hired them for construction, remodeling, decking, yard work, etc., -- they have generally been reliable and very affordable... I have faced more problems hiring citizens than hiring immigrants.) I don't see them lounging about doing nothing. (Maybe I don't get the full picture because they don't live in my neighborhood - they only come to work here.)
Despite my criticism of the US welfare system, the truth of the matter is that the US is harsh by comparison to other developed countries - just look at our health care system and the cost of a US college education! In more left-leaning European countries, the social programs are a LOT more generous, so if the immigrants want handouts and freebies, there are better options than the US. -- Spain, for example, is attracting a lot of South American and African immigrants because of their generous social programs and generous immigration policies... Not to mention the French, it is just ridiculous how pampered they are by their social programs. They're both beautiful countries with a very relaxed and care-free attitude.
If I was looking for generous social programs - Spain or France would be my choice. If I was looking to bust my ass working hard, so that one day I may lift myself up by my own bootstraps - it would be the US.
Kellydancer
11-11-2010, 05:44 PM
I have relatives in France and they tell me they are getting a lot of immigrants coming in just for welfare. Not just that but most are Muslim and trying to enforce their views.
I think MOST immigrants are hard workers but the reality is some do come for the freebies. I think all immigrants coming for the freebies should be deported.
KS_Stevia
11-12-2010, 09:25 PM
Spain doesn't have a generous immigration program.
jack0177057
11-13-2010, 12:18 AM
^ Currently, it is easy to immigrate into Spain. They have an open-border immigration policy. That may be changing in the near future, though.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_21/b4035066.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/9074463.stm
KS_Stevia
11-13-2010, 03:12 PM
Its not easy to find work there.
jester214
11-13-2010, 03:50 PM
Its not easy to find work there.
It's not easy to find work anywhere right now...
Elvia
11-13-2010, 05:39 PM
^^^ circling back on topic, it's bad enough when US citizens are provided with a social welfare benefit package that makes it more attractive to collect benefits than to work...
I agree that's unfortunate, but I don't think we can blame welfare or the people on it. Who can survive off of minimum wage and no benefits? I really don't know how people with children handle it when they fall on hard times. Who could possibly afford daycare and all the other necessities working an entry level job that pays minimum wage or just above?
We live in a country that refuses to address the issues that the lower class is facing. I remember hearing two stories recently about some single mothers who were in trouble for child neglect. One lost her children when she left them home alone and they played with matches and burned down the house. They both died in the blaze. Before the details emerged in this case I, like most people, was outraged at the woman. But then it turned out that her babysitter had not shown up, and when she had tried to call out she was told she would be fired if she didn't come in. She was living hand to mouth and said she didn't know how she could continue to support her kids if she lost her job. Another woman had her child taken away because he was morbidly obese due to an eating disorder (he was 13 or 14 if I remember correctly). It was argued that she wasn't adequately monitoring her child's eating. But it turns out the woman was working 3 jobs to get by. How is someone supposed to be adequately monitoring their child when they have to work 3 jobs to survive? We put low income people in an impossible situation, and then blame then when it inevitably goes wrong. No wonder people would rather be on welfare, they don't have much of a choice. it's virtually impossible for a low income single parent to provide for their child and make sure they're receiving adequate care at the same time.
I know this isn't exactly addressing the point you were making, Melonie. I guess I'm just rambling a bit now.
Melonie
11-13-2010, 09:24 PM
Who can survive off of minimum wage and no benefits?
ummm, several million Chinese, Indians, Vietnamese, Africans, illegal immigrants in America who don't have 'anchor babies' or fake ID's etc.
The obvious point here is that the American social welfare system has established a 'minimum acceptable standard of living' that is far in excess of the standard of living available to unskilled workers in most other parts of the world. The costs of maintaining that 'minimum acceptable standard of living' are also far more expensive than the value of the unskilled labor ... even with the US minimum wage. That very same 'minimum acceptable standard of living' is also a powerful magnet for illegal immigrants who know that producing an 'anchor baby' will qualify them !
As to the single mom anecdotes, arguably THE major reason that there are so many low skill single moms is the eligibility rules for social welfare benefits !!! The problem of unsupervised children would be far lower if the children's father were allowed to be in the household without causing a loss of social welfare benefit eligibility ! However, this point is off topic.
We live in a country that refuses to address the issues that the lower class is facing
The counterpoint is that the American 'lower class' ( as you put it ) refuse to address the issues they are facing ! Instead they feel entitled to a 'minimum acceptable standard of living' which must be paid for by others and they consistently vote for politicians who will continue to provide it at the expense of others ! But staying on the thread's topic, unskilled illegal immigrants know what their 'real world' standard of living is like, which is one major reason they leave their home country and come to the USA !
jack0177057
11-15-2010, 09:13 AM
How is someone supposed to be adequately monitoring their child when they have to work 3 jobs to survive? We put low income people in an impossible situation, and then blame then when it inevitably goes wrong. No wonder people would rather be on welfare, they don't have much of a choice. it's virtually impossible for a low income single parent to provide for their child and make sure they're receiving adequate care at the same time.
Like I said before, despite our criticisms of the US welfare system creating a welfare-dependent class, the US is probably the harshest country for poor people than any of the developed countries. Those who are really trying hard, and cannot make it, should consider immigrating to Europe (e.g., France or Spain).
I remember a few years ago I was visiting Oxfordshire, England. In a very beautiful/picturesques area of town, along a meandering canal, was a punt boat rental place. There, I met a black guy who immigrated to England from Jamaica, Queens (NYC). In case you don't know - Jamaica, Queens is ghetto country - dangerous, drug and crime-infested, blighted and ugly, extremely poor and extremely depressing. Since I grew up in Manhattan (NYC), we got to talking. This guy was poor in Jamaica, Queens and he was poor in Oxfordshire, England, but his life had improved 100-fold. He was happy, lived in a picturesque/beautiful little town with educated and decent people around him and had a fun job. Back in the US, he would be living in the slums under the worst and harshest US conditions. He said the move was the best decision of his life, and that people who chose to stay in Jamaica, Queens (instead of finding a better place like him) were crazy.
I think in our arrogance as US citizens, we assume that nothing can be better than the US. That is total BS. Many people (especially poor) would improve their lot by immigrating somewhere else - like Europe.
cherryblossomsinspring
11-15-2010, 10:17 AM
I take a third approach - the selfish approach. Cheap labor is required to keep US manufacturing and production facilities (and tax revenues) here in the US (as opposed to relocating to China, Mexico and India) and to provide the middle class with a higher standard of living. I personally rely on cheap labor for maid services, gardening services, construction services, home improvements and repairs, etc. Whenever I need anything that can be done with cheap labor - I know where to find it. I want a legalization process that legalizes this cheap labor. I don't want immigrants that will come to join the "welfare class" - that will game the system by staying at home making babies. I want strong healthy immigrants that will work hard and EARN their citizenship with sweat, blood and tears - the way all former immigrants did it. I want them under close watch and if they cause any problems, they should be deported.
This country was built on the backs of immigrants, what's wrong with continuing that tradition? Both of my parents were immigrants. My mother and grandmother were seamstresses for many years. My father was a construction worker for many years with mostly Italian immigrants in NYC. Back then, the American people were a little wiser, and happy to have a cheap workforce - getting a "green card" was easy.
I agree with the selfish approach, but in this approach you will not be selfish at all because you will pay in the end like we all currently do.
See while we're out there hiring the strong guy that doesn't speak English standing outside of Home Depot or some paint store and give him 4-8 and hr to mow the law and paint the house etc. We are thinking well he's giving back into society even if this is all tax free money that he will never report. His wife with the 2-6 kids is sitting at the welfare office talking to the social worker on how she has no husband and that he left her wan went back to Mexico or whatever other country. He comes home with his tax free money and she comes home with a check and some foodstamps and they laugh and enjoy the benefits of being an American without being an America. All the benefits and no real set backs. Just don't get caught driving that unlicensed un registered car and make sure to pick up another stolen ssn from "the park". Btw go to Blockbuster and rent as many movies as you can because you're not going to turn them in , you're going to sell them on the street . They will not be able to find you because our cousin is going back to mexico next month and his name is on the acct. Hahah suckers! as the saying goes.
Don't think this happens? My ex was from one of these other countries, came here as a vacation and became expired. His brother came after and brought his girlfriend and had the baby here. She got all kinds of help and yes they were expired. They also had all kinds of ways of screwing the system. Did you know that a person can claim children in another country on their taxes and get money back?
My ex did it all the time claimed 3 dependents and never sent those kids a damn thing. Always had a tax credit of anywhere from $2000-$5000. I used to get pissed off because I felt like damn I can't do that and wouldn't even know how to get away with something like that. But since they're not in "the system" they can do loads of stuff. Even buying a car. Brother bought a car here made a few payment and then sold it here took the cash and went back home.. Oh wait it was being financed I guess they never got paid. He was out of the country laughing at how easy AMERICA is to scam.
Or a guy moves into a place with no ssn and just uses a letter of recommendation and a passport? Wtf? So I have to pay a higher deposit because someone used my social and racked up a cell phone bill that's not mine and this guy can come in with some glowing review most likely written by a family friend from his country and bam gets an apartment? wtf is that? btw this guy was my roommate once hahaha! So the facts are there.
It's not funny I'm just adding humor to an already obvious feeling of being laughed at. So yeah close the gates!!! Now doctors or anyone that has anything to contribute yes. And also we now have their pedophiles as well. I saw more latin penis between the ages of 13-17 then I even care to admit. Why? Because many are public masturbators. Even had a guy follow me but couldn't speak English and kept yelling fuck mio while I was walking home. I ended up screaming RAAAAAPPPEEEE! as loud as I could and he ran off.
Or the guy who drives slowly playing with his penis while I'm walking home from school. Btw folks these were not bad areas. These were ... I would say middleclass to lower middle class. Guess he needed to get off after his "off the book and under the counter job lawn mowing , painting, etc in the area". How lucky for me that someone gave him a job here.:)
Ohh wait there's more saw a guy hit a woman bicycle riding for exercise of course. She didn't even see the overly pilled , broken down gardener truck come at her. He hit her and slowly drove away and then took off on the freeway. Everyone was stunned. But he doesn't have insurance and doesn't want to get deported so he had to take off. Wonder who will pay that insane hospital bill and rehabilitation she will need to get back on her feet. Does she have kids? Who will feed them? hmmm ... Maybe she will not be able to ride a bike again. Ohh well atleast he got his gardening job completed and most likely many future job offers after sitting in the hot sun outside Home Depot.
~Just saying:)
BTW my mother is certified in 4 trades, painting,plastering,cabinet making, plumbing etc. She worked male dominated fields because she felt the money was better than doing the skirt and tights in the office and having to deal with being hit on. She has been out there with those guys at the paint stores looking for work and would even help teach them English and learned quite a bit of Spanish. Mom is a tough cookie that way a true Mrs. Fix it. But she would be passed over for a job in a heart beat for a guy that didn't even know what he was doing. She had mad skills but didn't get the jobs. I mean this was a woman who could lift sheet rock with the best of them. At a mere 5"2 130lb muscular frame. She even worked for the electrician's union. She wanted the best for her girls after she kicked pops to the curb for being a loser. So she talked with these guys and knew how they played the system all too well. They said that's why they come here. It's so easy and they can send money back and build mansions in their country with the cash they make here. And not even pay a dime in tax money.
Has anyone looked at name brand items like Sony etc. See commercials for products that show only Caucasin ,Asian and sometimes African American faces but when you call it's someone in INDIA? Try buying something and dealing with an American person and then when it's falling apart and you have to call back , it's all Indian representatives. Why do you think they do that? Because they want to use the American to sell the product and use the lesser paying Indian rep to fix the problem . Now if you called to buy and spoke with an Indian rep first who may have acted differently since customs are different between countries you would most likely not buy. But once they have you're money they just patch you over to anyone since they don't feel customer service is the same.
Try calling 24hr fit about your membership and you'll get someone in India. Call to cancel and you'll get someone right here in the good old USA. Smart Business Strategy.
Companies are smart and know where to place cheap labor.
Didn't mean to mix immigration and outsourcing but it's slightly similar in jobs being given to people other than the US citizens that need them. Especially when the buyers are in the US.
jack0177057
11-15-2010, 10:42 AM
^ Illegal aliens can apply for US welfare? I didn't know that - that is wrong!
Your concerns can be addressed with a system which includes:
(1) A guest worker visa for cheap-labor immigrant adults in good health. This keeps track of them and forces them to pay taxes. They are only allowed to bring the rest of their family once they establish sufficient income to support them. (If they are caught bringing their family before approval, they are all deported and can never participate in the program, again.)
(2) NO BENEFITS for guest workers and their families, other than basic health care if they get sick (like county clinic services). This is funded by the taxes that guest workers pay and also by a surtax on the industries that benefit from cheap labor.
(3) If the guest worker (and his family) have been model immigrants for 5 years - e.g., never committed a crime and never tried to obtain welfare or other social services, then they can petition for permanent immigrant status. (And, after a few more years of "probation," they can become US citizens.)
(4) Since the guest worker program gives everyone a fair opportunity to become naturalized citizen, the consequences for not complying with the law (or engaging in a criminal or fraudulent act), will be a lot harsher than the current law. It will include things like forfeiture of property, incarceration, permanent ban from participation in the guest worker program, or other future programs, etc.
Melonie
11-15-2010, 10:49 AM
Illegal aliens can apply for US welfare? I didn't know that - that is wrong!
This is what 'sanctuary cities' are all about ... if a 'poor' person walks into the local social welfare office and presents a local electric bill, this is usually all that is typically required for benefit eligibility ( with gov't officials in that city not being allowed to ask citizenship / legal resident questions ). In many places, voter registration doesn't require any more proof than a local electric bill plus a SNAP ( food stamp ) card. You didn't really think that all of the hoopla over the new Arizona citizenship check law was just based on high minded principles ?
And where 'anchor babies' are concerned, i.e. US born children of illegal aliens, the fact that the 'anchor baby' automatically receives US citizenship provides a de-facto means for the illegal alien parents to reside in the USA for the next 18 years ( along with collecting social welfare benefits in the 'anchor baby's name ).
PS I would buy into your proposed guest worker program, as long as it doesn't unfairly discriminate in favor of Mexicans !
Kellydancer
11-15-2010, 11:45 AM
Yes illegals can get welfare, and it's through their anchor babies. I saw this often helping a friend get welfare. Did you know in fact certain states (Illinois is one) are so lax they don't even investigate whether one is legal or not. In fact the medical in Illinois is for children and their parents "regardless of immigration status". Not just that but the social services agencies here only hire bilingual case workers because the majority now on welfare in Illinois are non English speaking (aka Spanish speaking).
Melonie
11-15-2010, 01:57 PM
^^^ and to top things off, today the California Supreme Court ruled that illegal aliens residing in California are 'entitled' to the same $20,000 per year taxpayer funded college tuition subsidy ( i.e. in-state tuition cost around $9k per year versus out of state $29k per year for UC Berkeley ) as any other California residents, while CITIZENS of the 49 other states get to pay the full shot $29k per year !!!
certain states (Illinois is one) are so lax they don't even investigate whether one is legal or not ! In fact the medical in Illinois is for children and their parents "regardless of immigration status".
Illinois is certainly not alone in this regard !
ArmySGT.
11-15-2010, 02:03 PM
We live in a country that refuses to address the issues that the lower class is facing. I remember hearing two stories recently about some single mothers who were in trouble for child neglect. One lost her children when she left them home alone and they played with matches and burned down the house. They both died in the blaze.
They took her DEAD children away? :O
Kellydancer
11-15-2010, 02:07 PM
^^^ and to top things off, today the California Supreme Court ruled that illegal aliens residing in California are 'entitled' to the same $20,000 per year taxpayer funded college tuition subsidy ( i.e. in-state tuition cost around $9k per year versus out of state $29k per year for UC Berkeley ) as any other California residents, while CITIZENS of the 49 other states get to pay the full shot $29k per year !!!
Illinois is certainly not alone in this regard !
I've heard California is the worst when it comes to welfare and illegals. Friends of mine who live in California tell me it's easy for illegals to get welfare in California, even easier than Illinois, which is easy.
ArmySGT.
11-15-2010, 02:09 PM
I think in our arrogance as US citizens, we assume that nothing can be better than the US. That is total BS. Many people (especially poor) would improve their lot by immigrating somewhere else - like Europe.
My counter to that .......... What was wrong with small town USA?
NYC is probably the most expensive place to live.
What about Peoria, Illinois? Cheyenne, Wyoming? Portales, New Mexico? Provo, Utah?
Not sexy enough, and the Welfare benefits were better else where. That is what.
Full Stop.
ArmySGT.
11-15-2010, 02:16 PM
Spain doesn't have a generous immigration program.
Exept for full Amnesty under the Zapatero government. Not that Spain wasn't fully Racist and going no where in 2003 when I let my NATO assignment.
For Spain and Spaniards. There is no "latin" america. Those are not "Spanish".
Those at best are called "Indios" AKA Indians.
Spain has an Immigration problem, whether that is immigrants from Central or South America over staying; or Africans from all African Nations coming across the Straits of Gibraltar in boats or to the Gran Canarias in boats.
Kellydancer
11-15-2010, 02:29 PM
Exept for full Amnesty under the Zapatero government. Not that Spain wasn't fully Racist and going no where in 2003 when I let my NATO assignment.
For Spain and Spaniards. There is no "latin" america. Those are not "Spanish".
Those at best are called "Indios" AKA Indians.
Spain has an Immigration problem, whether that is immigrants from Central or South America over staying; or Africans from all African Nations coming across the Straits of Gibraltar in boats or to the Gran Canarias in boats.
I've heard Spanish people resent those from other Spanish speaking countries as not being Spanish. I used to be involved in a Spanish organization (as in from Spain) and they used to get annoyed when others would call Mexicans Spanish because "Mexicans are mixed race", or something like that.
Elvia
11-15-2010, 02:45 PM
They took her DEAD children away? :O
Is this a joke or did you really not understand that? If it's the latter, let me break it down for you. 2 stories. In one the children burned to death. In the other, a teenage child was taken away for being morbidly obese due to an eating disorder.
Elvia
11-15-2010, 02:49 PM
I think in our arrogance as US citizens, we assume that nothing can be better than the US. That is total BS. Many people (especially poor) would improve their lot by immigrating somewhere else - like Europe.
It's incredibly difficult to immigrate to Europe unless you do so through marriage. It's extremely difficult to even get a wrok/residency permit. My family used to work all over Western Europe. Those doors all but closed to Americans when the EU formed. It's not realistic to suggest poor people just pack up and move to Spain or France.
ArmySGT.
11-15-2010, 02:51 PM
I've heard Spanish people resent those from other Spanish speaking countries as not being Spanish. I used to be involved in a Spanish organization (as in from Spain) and they used to get annoyed when others would call Mexicans Spanish because "Mexicans are mixed race", or something like that.The Language is not even refered to a "Spanish' it is called" Castellano" as in "Castillian" or from Castilla. This is resented in other Provinces of Spain with their own languages and Customs most notably the Basque.
Elvia
11-15-2010, 02:51 PM
My counter to that .......... What was wrong with small town USA?
NYC is probably the most expensive place to live.
What about Peoria, Illinois? Cheyenne, Wyoming? Portales, New Mexico? Provo, Utah?
Not sexy enough, and the Welfare benefits were better else where. That is what.
Full Stop.
Small towns were great places to live back when there was an abundance of quality factory jobs. But with all those factories closing down and going overseas, not so much anymore.