• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Another side of the illegal argument

Goodpasture

Well-known member
If you build a business model on a violation of the law, you should expect disruption when that law is enforced. Too bad the politicians never pulled their head out of their buts long enough to deal with the issue of guest workers, immigrant workers, and the legality of the aliens in a meaningful manner. Establishing a firm but fair policy is not rocket science. Every nation appears to have been able to address it in one manner or another. Seems our administration is incapable of learning from anyone.....even themselves.
 

Cal

Well-known member
Too bad they don't, or can't, utilize the prison population for some of the hand work being done by illegals....with the exception of daycare.
 

Aztumbleweed

Well-known member
ff
Why do you even bother posting this junk. If all of you liberal goofballs would come spend a couple of weeks where I live you would hopefully get over these assinine ideas you appear to have about these LAWBREAKERS they should be arrested and sent back to where ever they come from.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Goodpasture said:
If you build a business model on a violation of the law, you should expect disruption when that law is enforced. Too bad the politicians never pulled their head out of their buts long enough to deal with the issue of guest workers, immigrant workers, and the legality of the aliens in a meaningful manner. Establishing a firm but fair policy is not rocket science. Every nation appears to have been able to address it in one manner or another. Seems our administration is incapable of learning from anyone.....even themselves.

:agree:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Aztumbleweed said:
ff
Why do you even bother posting this junk. If all of you liberal goofballs would come spend a couple of weeks where I live you would hopefully get over these assinine ideas you appear to have about these LAWBREAKERS they should be arrested and sent back to where ever they come from.

I am for a secure border. It has been disgraceful, hypocritical, for Bush to scream about terrorists from Iraq, all the while thousands of people are coming across our borders, virtually at will.

But what do you suggest Maureen Torrey do about her crops? There aren't enough people in her community to harvest them. She could well lose her farm. If we can't grow enough to feed our own popularion, we'll be dependent on foreigners for our food. I look at that as a security issue, too. There needs to be some sort of immigration reform.
 

Aztumbleweed

Well-known member
When I was a kid we had a geust worker program that seemed to work really well. And I have to agree on the whole border issue. nobody Dems or Rep. want to close the border. All the sudden the border has become a big issue outside of the border states but we have been screaming for years to do something about it. And I feel sorry for Maureen but it has been illegal for a long time to work aliens. If you build your business by breaking the law then you have dug a hole should our government ever start enforcing our laws.
 

Tex

Well-known member
ff said:
Aztumbleweed said:
ff
Why do you even bother posting this junk. If all of you liberal goofballs would come spend a couple of weeks where I live you would hopefully get over these assinine ideas you appear to have about these LAWBREAKERS they should be arrested and sent back to where ever they come from.

I am for a secure border. It has been disgraceful, hypocritical, for Bush to scream about terrorists from Iraq, all the while thousands of people are coming across our borders, virtually at will.

But what do you suggest Maureen Torrey do about her crops? There aren't enough people in her community to harvest them. She could well lose her farm. If we can't grow enough to feed our own popularion, we'll be dependent on foreigners for our food. I look at that as a security issue, too. There needs to be some sort of immigration reform.

I would agree with you, ff.

We really need a policy with Mexico that suggests their economy be shared by their people instead of concentrating it and all the opportunities to the top of the pyramid. The richest man in the world is a Mexican.

If you study the concrete industry in Mexico, you understand how that could happen.

This problem is kind of like saying Americans (with a full employment economy) should be able to buy their own health care.

Maryland tried to force companies (Walmart--one of the richest companies) that underpay their workers and not provide health care to them pay the govt. for the costs it incurs for this under payment. The courts have decided that "isn't fair".

Some deeper thinking needs to happen here.
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
Tex said:
We really need a policy with Mexico that suggests their economy be shared by their people instead of concentrating it and all the opportunities to the top of the pyramid.
We could use that concept in this country.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Goodpasture said:
Tex said:
We really need a policy with Mexico that suggests their economy be shared by their people instead of concentrating it and all the opportunities to the top of the pyramid.
We could use that concept in this country.


What, you don't buy the "compassionate conservatism"?


I think a lot of us are getting the feeling that all there is out there are sound bites and no substance.


I want to know "where's the beef?" All I see them throwing to us is the bread.


Marie Antoinette had the same line.
 

MoGal

Well-known member
I'm sick and tired of these poor, poor millionaire farmers who cannot afford to pay decent wages ............. and how much did this farm get under the agriculture farm bill??

Guess I'm gonna have to go find the link MikeC posted a while back and look this farm up.....

Illegal aliens cost San Diego County (CA) $255 billion in medical, education, subsidized housing, welfare, etc, etc.... and that is only one county in CA......... multiply that by several counties and several states and they cost the taxpayer tremendous amounts......... we might as well pay higher grocer prices and send the illegals home. Let them raise hell in their own country and march for reform in Mexico.

I'm not playing anymore.... I will vote against any of my congressional leaders the next time they come up for reelection if they vote in any amnesty, illegal immigration or anything to benefit illegals in this country. I also send them letters anytime a bill comes up to give illegals benefits. I am sick and tired of it. Send em all home in bodybags if they won't get out willingly.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
MoGal-- I heard that all explained the other day...Its called GW's "Nationalized expenses, Privatized profits" plan....The taxpayers of the US pay all the costs-- the Bush buddy corporate elitists take all the profits... :shock: :( :mad:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Illegal aliens cost San Diego County (CA) $255 billion in medical, education, subsidized housing, welfare, etc, etc.... and that is only one county in CA......... multiply that by several counties and several states and they cost the taxpayer tremendous amounts......... we might as well pay higher grocer prices and send the illegals home. Let them raise hell in their own country and march for reform in Mexico.

That's ridiculous.

From Snopes:

Donald Huddle of Rice University estimated that immigrants (legal and illegal) had cost California $18.1 billion (not $255) from 1970 to 1992. Your numbers are indefensible, but I'd be glad to see you try.


Then Jeff Passel of the Urban Institute revisted Huddle's claims and found that immigrants (legal and illegal) actually benefited the nation to the tune of $29 billion.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/taxes.asp

A later study by the Urban Institute corrected flaws in another report by Huddle and found that instead of the $42.5 billion Huddle claimed immigrants cost the country, they actually proved a surplus of revenues over social costs of at least $25 billion.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
This what the conservative Heritage Foundation had to say about the costs of illegal immigrants and amnesty costs- regarding the Bush/Kennedy Amnesty Bill that GW and Kennedy were trying to ramrod thru before the costs were evalutated and the citizens became aware of the huge cost to them......

June 26, 2007
White House Report Hides the Real Costs of Amnesty and Low Skill Immigration
by Robert E. Rector
WebMemo #1523
Last week, the White House Council of Economic Advisers issued a report entitled "Immigration's Economic Impact" which defended the President's promotion of the Senate's "comprehensive" immigration legislation (S.1348).[1] On June 25, the White House issued a follow-up editorial elaborating on the points made in the CEA report.[2] These publications criticized Heritage Foundation research on the fiscal costs of low skill immigration and amnesty.



The Heritage research criticized by the White House made the following basic points about immigration and its costs:



Individuals without a high school degree impose significant net costs (the extent to which benefits and services received exceed taxes paid) on taxpayers.
The net fiscal cost of families of immigrants who lack a high school degree is not markedly different from the net fiscal cost of families of non-immigrants who lack a high school degree.
Immigrants are disproportionately low skilled; one-third of all immigrants and 50 to 60 percent of illegal immigrants lack a high school degree.
Unlike low and moderate skill immigrants, immigrants with a college education will pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits; therefore. immigration policy should increase the number of high skill immigrants entering the country and sharply decrease the number of low skill, fiscally dependent immigrants.[3]
Heritage research has shown that low skill immigrants (those without a high school degree) receive, on average, three dollars in government benefits and services for each dollar of taxes they pay. This imbalance imposes a net cost of $89 billion per year on U.S. taxpayers. Over a lifetime, the typical low skill immigrant household will cost taxpayers $1.2 million.[4]



Future taxpayer costs will be increased by policies which increase (1) the number of low skill immigrants entering the U.S., (2) the length of low skill immigrants' stays in the U.S., or (3) low skill immigrants' access to government benefits and services. Unfortunately, this is exactly what the Senate immigration bill does:



The bill would triple the flow of low skill chain immigration into the U.S.
By granting amnesty to at least 12 million illegal immigrants, the bill would greatly lengthen their stay in the U.S., particularly during retirement years.
The bill would grant illegal immigrants access to Social Security and Medicare benefits and, over time, to more than 60 different federal welfare programs.
Although the bill does not currently permit Z visa holders to bring spouses and children in from abroad, this would likely be amended at some future point on humanitarian grounds, resulting in another 5 million predominantly low-skill immigrants entering the country.
Heritage research has concluded that the cost of amnesty alone will be $2.6 trillion once the amnesty recipients reach retirement age.

CEA Chairman Edward Lazear charged that the Heritage claims concerning the cost of the Senate immigration bill were flawed because, under the bill, amnesty recipients would be barred from receiving "the vast majority of welfare benefits."[5] Like previous statements by White House spokesmen,[6] this assertion mischaracterizes the Senate bill and also shows a lack of understanding of the Heritage estimates of the bill's costs.

While provisions of the Senate bill would delay illegal immigrants' access to welfare for several years, over time, nearly all amnesty recipients would be offered legal permanent residence and access to more than 60 federal means-tested welfare programs. Specifically, Z visa holders would immediately be given Social Security numbers and would begin earning entitlement to Social Security and Medicare (which are not means-tested welfare programs). Some ten to thirteen years after enactment, amnesty recipients would begin to gain access to a wide variety of means-tested welfare programs, such as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, public housing, and Food Stamps.[7] Children born to illegal and legal immigrants in the U.S. have immediate, lifetime access to all welfare programs.

The White House reassures taxpayers that amnesty recipients and millions of future low skill immigrants will not generate welfare costs because they must "qualify for…government [welfare] transfers only the old fashioned way."[8] The implication is that those who must struggle to earn access to welfare "the old fashioned way" will, in the end, get very little welfare. Contrary to this claim, the average low skill immigrant family actually receives $10,500 per year in means-tested welfare, or about a half million dollars over the course of a lifetime. Amnesty recipients would indeed gain access to welfare "the old fashioned way," and the old fashioned way is extraordinarily expensive.

Some 50 to 60 percent of illegal immigrants who would receive amnesty under S. 1348 lack a high school degree. Another 25 percent have only a high school degree. Based on the example of current immigrants with similar levels of education, these individuals would be a net burden on the taxpayer over the entire course of their lives.


The White House suggests that the retirement costs of amnesty recipients would not impose a significant tax burden on U.S. taxpayers.

The Senate bill would give amnesty recipients access not only to means-tested welfare, but also to government retirement benefits. The Heritage Foundation has estimated that the net fiscal costs of amnesty recipients during retirement would be $2.6 trillion. These particular costs would begin to impact the taxpayer about 30 years after enactment of the Senate legislation. The White House has made no specific refutation of this estimate.

The bulk of the net expenditure would be in the Social Security and Medicare programs; substantial costs would also occur in the means-tested Medicaid program (amnesty recipients would be fully eligible for Medicaid benefits long before they reach retirement). Contrary to any suggestions made by the White House, temporary restrictions on access to means-tested welfare by amnesty recipients is irrelevant to the estimated $2.6 trillion cost of amnesty.

The White House does point out that amnesty recipients will have paid Social Security taxes prior to retirement and thereby might be seen as having "earned" all the government benefits they would receive.[10] But, as noted above, the Social Security taxes paid by amnesty recipients would be modest. Even during working years, most amnesty recipients would be a drain on the taxpayer, and during retirement their fiscal cost would be dramatic.


The Chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers dismissed Heritage research on the negative fiscal impact of poorly educated immigrants as "relevant only to a very small part of the population" and therefore of little importance in assessing the Senate immigration bill.[15] In reality, a large and disproportionate share of current immigrants in the U.S. is poorly educated. One-third of all current immigrants lack a high school degree, compared to nine percent of native-born Americans. The families of immigrants without a high school degree now comprise 5 percent of the U.S. population. As noted, among the ten million adult illegal immigrants who would receive amnesty and citizenship under the Senate's immigration bill, some 50 to 60 percent lack a high school degree and many have only a high school degree.

The White House has suggested that while low skill immigrants may impose some initial taxpayer costs, these costs are "recovered quickly" by the net taxes paid by the immigrants' children.[17] This is not true. Low skill immigrants impose very heavy costs on U.S. taxpayers. As noted, on average, each low skill immigrant household receives three dollars in benefits for each one dollar of taxes paid; over a lifetime, each household costs the taxpayer more than $1 million.

The White House asserts that the "children of immigrant parents are 12 percent more likely to obtain a college degree than other natives."[19] It neglects to note that the relevant group, the children of low skill immigrant parents, have below-average educational attainment. For example, the children of Hispanic dropout parents are three times more likely to drop out of high school and 75 percent less likely to have a college degree than the general population.

Conclusion

In its defense of the Senate immigration bill, the White House employs statistics about the fiscal contributions of college-educated immigrants, but the taxes paid by college-educated immigrants are almost completely irrelevant to a fiscal analysis of S. 1348. The main fiscal impact of S. 1348 will occur through two mechanisms: (1) the grant of amnesty, with accompanying access to Social Security, Medicare and welfare benefits, to 12 million illegal immigrants who are overwhelmingly low skilled; and (2) a dramatic increase in chain immigration, which will also be predominantly low skilled.

In this context, talking about the taxes paid by college-educated immigrants is a red herring and merely serves to obscure the obvious fiscal consequences of the legislation.

The bottom line is that high school dropouts are extremely expensive to U.S. taxpayers. It does not matter whether the dropout comes from Ohio, Tennessee, or Mexico. It does matter that the Senate immigration bill would increase the future flow of poorly educated immigrants into the U.S. and grant amnesty and access to government benefits to millions of poorly educated illegal aliens already here. Such legislation would inevitably impose huge costs on U.S. taxpayers.


Robert Rector is Senior Research Fellow in Domestic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
full article:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/wm1523.cfm
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Another thing to consider; Every state in the country, and many larger municipalities and counties have some sort of incentive program to lure business into their area - usually in the form of tax credits and sometimes even in raw land. They do this because they realize the economic benefits the payroll of those businesses give them. Economists will tell you the dollar will bounce 6 times, which means for every $100 you inject into the economy, you get $600 of good out of it as the worker spends the $100 at the grocer, who then spends that $100 at the gas station, who in turn spends $100 at the restaurant, etc.....

Illegals send much of their eanings back to their home country. In 2005, $17 BILLION was sent to Mexico alone. $2.5 BILLION went to El Salvadore. That's about a $120 BILLION hit to our economies from those two country's citizens here because instead of bouncing around here - it's GONE.
 

MoGal

Well-known member
http://www.rense.com/general77/adgr.htm - you can read the whole article there, I'm just pulling out the costs of illegals....

When illegal alien criminals commit horrendous murders that demand lawful detention and trial, they finally go to prison. Result? Illegal alien convicts make up 29 percent of our prison population at $1.6 billion annually. Folks, that's over 500,000 illegal alien prisoners!
That means at least 500,000 Americans suffered rapes, killings, drug deaths, drunken driving deaths, theft and worse from the illegals.
------------------

this one is by www.newswithviews.com written by Pat owens on 06/2003..........A recent report from the U.S. Committee for Refugees officially recognized 12 million people who fled their countries worldwide by the end of 2002 and were resettled. Since 1992, over three quarters (77%) of the U.N. recognized refugees were resettled permanently in the United States. (Source: UNHCR Refugees Vol. 4, Num 129 January 2003). In the past year about 50% of today's UNHCR refugees are from Muslim countries, not including Palestinians who are counted on the books of another UN refugee agency UNRWA (United Nation Relief Works Agency).

Keep in mind, the Refugee Resettlement programs are unfunded Federal Mandate, thereby causing all states to use their taxpayer's monies to support these programs. There is a real possibility that the refugee industry would end abruptly if the tremendous costs were the responsibility of its champions rather than the U.S. taxpayer.

--------------------------------------

I don't have a link for this one, but its entitled Social Security for immigrants by R. Cort Kirkwood and I don't know if Bush signed the totalization act....

The Cost
Even worse, the federal General Accountability Office (GAO) found that the Social Security Administration calculated the wisdom of signing a totalization agreement with Mexico, figuratively speaking, on the back of an envelope. American officials were clueless about and never seriously evaluated the Mexican social security system to determine how it functions or even whether it was solvent.

GAO estimated that totalization would cost $78 million its first year and $650 million annually by 2050, but CIS warned that GAO’s estimates were flawed because the agency used the figures from Canada’s totalization agreement with the United States to forecast the cost of an agreement with Mexico. Problem is, most Canadians are not here illegally, and 10 percent of Canada’s population does not live here.

Reported CIS, “The SSA did not take into account the millions of unauthorized Mexican workers currently in the United States who could gain legal status through an amnesty. Not only they but their families — who may never have lived in the United States — could be eligible to receive U.S. Social Security benefits after the worker returned to Mexico. Nor did SSA factor in the possibility that the promise of Social Security benefits would lure even more Mexicans to enter the United States illegally.” Those Mexicans, of course, would smuggle in their families.

No wonder so many congressmen and senators oppose totalization, and no wonder the Social Security Administration refused to release the agreement for three years until a senior-citizens group forced it to do so using the Freedom of Information Act. This last fact should tell Americans everything they need to know.

If Bush signs the totalization agreement with Mexico and his amnesty or guest-worker plans go through, illegal aliens would claim as much as they can through work done illegally but suddenly “legalized,” then pack their families across the border to latch on to the taxpayers’ teat. Others would jump the border to feed at the trough. But that’s exactly what the political elites want.

-----------------

http://www.newswithviews.com/Wooldridge/frosty293.htm

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION BANKRUPTING AMERICA
By Frosty Wooldridge
September 10, 2007
NewsWithViews.com



"Everything is free in America!"

Really? Two billion unfortunates in third-world nations hunger for a chance to migrate to America.

While in-migration in small numbers may be sensible for specific reasons, bringing countless third-world people to the U.S. with no strategic plan or goals proves foolish and dangerous. Sufficient reasons exist for first-world nations to enforce their immigration laws: to protect jobs and citizens.

Few Americans comprehend the various impacts and financial costs of illegal migration into the United States. Like a cancer, it enters the body while proliferating until, at some point, it compromises, then destroys the integrity of surrounding tissue. Illegal "migration" encroaches on legal American taxpayers who work honestly within their system.

The costly overhead, the "fringe-benefits" – tend to sneak up on us.

At first, communities and individual taxpayers don't notice it. But soon, it grows beyond normalcy – toward malignancy.

With more than 20 million illegal aliens working and living in the United States today, that malignancy spreads out of control in every state where a sizable population of aliens congregates.

According to the well-respected U.S. Center for Immigration Studies (www.cis.org), incarcerated convicted illegal aliens make up 29 percent of federal, state and local prisons at a cost of more than $1.6 billion annually. This number doubles when the costs for apprehension, the justice system, public defenders, interpreters, prosecutors and the courts add to the total.


Gig Conaughton, reporter for the North County Times, Escondido, California, wrote a piece exposing the horrific costs of illegal aliens in one county.

Conaughton wrote, "A county-commissioned study estimated that illegal immigrants directly cost the county of San Diego and taxpayers $101 million last year, and indirectly cost an additional $155 million in unpaid medical care. Public school costs and a myriad of social-services increase the actual costs, but are not included in the count."

Illegal alien "migrants" cost the county roughly $75 million in criminal justice costs, such as jailing, prosecuting and public defender efforts – and $26 million in health, social and other costs. Experts said the estimates proved very conservative. Please remember, our laws only require that we provide emergency medical services.

Conaughton wrote, "Spokesman Horn, who pushed hard for the study to be done, said Friday that he planned to use the report to lobby the federal government, through Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Solana Beach, for help. He also said he thought the $255 million figure was too low – in part because he thought it underestimated the illegal immigrant population – and did not take education costs into account."

Bilbray champions enforcement of existing immigration laws.

"Bilbray, who campaigned for the study along with Horn when both were running for election in 2006, issued a written statement saying he was eager to work with Horn to get federal reimbursement," Conaughton wrote. 'When it comes to illegal immigration,' Bilbray said in his statement, 'the federal government is the biggest deadbeat dad in America.'"

Net costs to provide services to illegals increased 500 percent in 7 years.

"In 2001, county supervisors released a study compiled by researchers for the United States-Mexico Border Counties Coalition that said San Diego County spent more than $50.3 million in 1999 on criminal justice and medical care for illegal immigrants," Conaughton wrote.

"I'm not even asking that question," Horn said. "I spend taxpayer money for taxpayer services. That's my charge. My issue with the federal and state government is that they're asking me to spend my LOCAL taxpayer money on people who don't even belong here – and are here unlawfully."

The San Diego report exposed shocking costs to taxpayers in one county. With California hosting more than five million illegal aliens and their kids and grand-kids, a 2005 report showed "migrants" cost state taxpayers more than $10.2 billion annually – for primary, secondary and tertiary services. That's money that could reduce the $38 billion state debt!

Like California, Colorado citizen-taxpayers pay gigantic costs.

In my state of Colorado, our finances struggle under the load of more than 500,000 illegals at a cost of $1 billion annually (Source: www.cairco.org) for primary, secondary and tertiary services. Some sources estimate triple that cost!

These precious dollars pay for K-12 education, emergency medical costs, optional medical costs, the additional burden on the justice system and the public defender, and incarceration of convicted criminal aliens. Other costs covered include uninsured illegals in vehicular accidents, school breakfast and lunch programs as well as things like housing assistance.

Under the radar, most Americans don't realize half of illegal aliens work off the books and pay no taxes. The 2005 Bear Stearns Report showed a related loss of $301 billion in uncollected IRS income taxes annually, for the 2003 base year.

To make it worse, migrants yearly send more than $60 billion in cash remittances back to home countries— thus bleeding the U.S. treasury. These illegal aliens forget to report their job-wages when applying for "free" services.

BIG "business;" children and grand-children born here to illegal aliens.

"Instant citizens" create another drain on taxpayers' earnings. The average delivery costs $5,000 to $7,000 – depending on location. The pre-natal and postnatal care adds another $5,000. Is this 'birthing' a big item? Various experts tell us the number of such births in 2006 was somewhere between 400,000 and 1,200,000 babies.

The direct and indirect costs are thus somewhere between 4.4 BIL and 13.2 BIL U.S. dollars – per year – and that doesn't include the subsequent $3.5 BIL to $10.5 BIL – per year – for education. The real kicker occurs when each child gains free access to K-12 education and free breakfast and lunch program for 13 years of schooling. The cost of one year of school averages $7,000.00 – and the feeding programs, born by American taxpayers, soar into the billions of dollars.

How many children of illegal aliens attend U.S. schools?

The "official numbers" grossly understate the reality.

If we tabulate 20-28 million illegal aliens here now – plus their 4-9 million kids and grand-kids – and two-thirds of those kids attend schools – we pay to educate some 4-9 million kids. Factor-in birth costs, prenatal care, postnatal care, medical costs for children with birth-defects and other "complications," special needs kids, schooling and lunch programs – and we're talking big bucks. Do the math!

The U.S. continues as the only first-world nation to endorse the old-paradigm – granting full citizenship and benefits to each child "Born in the USA ." France and Britain and all of the other first-world nations nullified that benefit many years ago, as counterproductive.

California Rep. Dan Lungren introduced HR 1940 to stop birthright citizenship.

He said, "It's a debate worth having, considering an estimated 400,000 to 1,200,000 babies are born in the United States every year to illegal immigrant parents. Those babies receive automatic U.S. citizenship – at great cost to U.S. citizen-taxpayers. If citizenship is to have true meaning, foreign-nationals with no allegiance to the United States should not be able to lay claim to it on behalf of their offspring."


Hidden Costs; not discussed in polite company

As the financial costs grow, few speak about job losses and wages depressed for America's working poor. "Unemployment" proves a touchy subject, so the official numbers continue being grossly understated. In truth, 14-18 million U.S. citizen-taxpayers endure unemployment. They head to the unemployment lines, soup kitchens, homelessness and food stamps. Their family members suffer endlessly, but the "progressive" media maintains "silent assertion."

Do not forget the middle class! They suffer job losses in roofing, dry-walling, construction, cab driving, landscaping, house painting, paving and restaurant work – just to name a few. We must also remember that each of these "breadwinners" usually features a spouse-partner, a few kids, and aging parents.

No one escapes the ravages of illegal migration.

Ask yourself this question. With more than 20 million "migrants" doing THIS MUCH DAMAGE, what happens to American workers and communities tomorrow, and the next day – when we add another 10 or 20 or 30 million more illegal aliens into our country?

If you are not enraged, you are part of the problem.

--------------


I started googling illegal immigration costs this summer and its astronomical what American taxpayers pay and then for the "poor" farmers say they can't get their crops in w/o them is just utter sheer nonsense.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Looks like Ms Feinstein is going to try and slip another amnesty bill in behind our backs.....This one requires they apply for citizenship- another attempt by the Dems to get more Dem voters.....

October 31, 2007
AgJOBS Immigration Bill Is Stealth Amnesty

by James Jay Carafano, Ph.D. and Diem Nguyen
WebMemo #1685
The debate over immigration amnesty could soon return to the Senate floor. According to press reports, Senator Diane Feinstein (D–CA) plans to attach the proposed Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits, and Security Act of 2007 (AgJOBS) to the Farm Bill Extension Act of 2007. The AgJOBS bill is all too similar to the comprehensive immigration reform bill that was rejected in Congress last spring, which would have granted amnesty to millions of people who are unlawfully present in the United States. Amnesty would worsen the immigration problem in America, encouraging more illegal border crossings and undermining the credibility of American immigration laws. Congress should reform and expand programs for visiting agricultural workers rather than use farm bill legislation to pass stealth amnesty.

Amnesty Returns

The AgJOBS proposal is a remnant of the failed comprehensive immigration bill, to which it was originally attached. Since that effort failed, AgJOBS advocates have been looking for an alternative vehicle for their bill.

AgJOBS shares the following flaws with the marred comprehensive reform legislation. The bill grants amnesty to agricultural workers who are currently unlawfully present in the United States. According to estimates, approximately 1.5 million workers would be granted "legalization," as well as an additional 1.8 million family members.

In addition, the bill requires immigrant workers to apply for citizenship. Failure to apply for citizenship would result in their deportation. Forcing such choices is itself objectionable. It also makes no sense: Currently, many migrant workers choose to keep permanent residence in their home country; this requirement would not allow such flexibility.

The bill alsomandates that workers cannot be fired without "just cause."This vague standard would likely result in employers being bogged down in litigation.

A Better Way

The agricultural sector in the United States does require seasonal workers, but amnesty is not the answer. Real, sensible immigration reform would help employers hire the workers they need by doing the following:

Not granting amnesty to illegal workers.
Simplifying and expanding existing H2-A programs in a manner that meets the labor demands of the marketplace and respects the rights of individual employees.


Conclusion

Attaching AgJOBS to the farm bill is another attempt at stealth amnesty and would create more problems than it would solve. Congress should reject such approaches and instead concentrate on real reform of existing visa programs, creating credible legal alternatives to illegal border crossing and unlawful presence.

James Jay Carafano, Ph.D., is Assistant Director of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies and Senior Research Fellow in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Diem Nguyen is Research Assistant in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
 

Cal

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Looks like Ms Feinstein is going to try and slip another amnesty bill in behind our backs.....This one requires they apply for citizenship- another attempt by the Dems to get more Dem voters.....
Geuss if they're aborted domestically they have to be replaced foreignly.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Once more the public has beat back another amnesty bill-- but these idiots- both Dem and Repub that are sold out to provide the corporate world and elitists cheap slave labor are not going to quit....

I received this e-mail this morning:



From: Anne Manetas, Deputy Director, NumbersUSA
Date: 06NOV07 9:30 a.m.


Your Calls Worked: AgJOBS Amnesty Will Not Be Offered to Farm Bill

CONGRATULATIONS!

AgJOBS AMNESTY AMENDMENT WILL NOT BE OFFERED TO FARM BILL

Our Capitol Hill team learned late last night that Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) has agreed not to offer her revised AgJOBS amendment to the Farm Bill Extension Act of 2007 as she had originally intended. As a reminder, this is the AgJOBS amnesty to reward an estimated 1.5 million illegal aliens with amnesty (plus their spouses and children which could push the total to three million or more).

Sen. Feinstein said the recent death of DREAM amnesty and the defeat of the Senate amnesty bill in June, combined with the politics on the farm bill made her believe she didn't have the support to pass AgJOBS.

She is quoted on today's Congress Daily as saying:

"A broad bipartisan coalition of members bel ieve AgJobs is a necessary solution to the crisis being faced by the agricultural industry," Feinstein said.

"But in this session, unfortunately, you need more than broad support -- you need the right time and opportunity to line up as well."

"So when we took a clear-eyed assessment of the politics of the farm bill and the defeat of the DREAM Act (which would have allowed college-bound illegal immigrants to earn green cards) and comprehensive immigration reform, it became clear that our support could not sustain these competing forces," Feinstein said......

This is a tremendous victory for all of you who oppose amnesty and illegal immigration. Your calls and faxes this week were a major factor in convincing Sen. Feinstein to pull the amnesty. And, as Sen. Feinstein indicated, your success in defeating the DREAM amnesty and the Senate "comprehensive" amnesty bill in June have helped create a situation in which Se n . Feinstein and other Senators are finding it is just too difficult to push through their favorite amnesty.

THREAT STILL LOOMS

Unfortunately, we are not out of the woods. Our Capitol Hill team is hearing that Sen. Feinstein may have worked a deal in which she will be able to bring up the AgJOBS amnesty as a stand-alone bill in exchange for not offering the amendment to the Farm Bill. Congress is expected to be in session for at least two weeks next month. That means we may face the threat of a stand-alone AgJOBS amnesty for at least another month. We will keep you updated to any potential threat.
 
Top