A
Anonymous
Guest
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21491778/
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.
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.
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.
We could use that concept in this country.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.
Goodpasture said:We could use that concept in this country.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.
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.
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
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.
Geuss if they're aborted domestically they have to be replaced foreignly.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.....
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.