The only logical answer to our immigration problem

Immigrants, regardless of whether they're legal or not, still pay taxes. If they qualify for assistance aimed at mitigating the effects of poverty then this relates to the laws that provide assistance to those that are living in poverty and has nothing to do with the immigration of a person to the United States.

"Welfare" programs and "Immigration" are two unrelated issues. No one's inalienable Rights are being violated by laws that authorize taxation and authorize expendatures to mitigate the effects of poverty.

We might argue from a theoretical Constitutional standpoint whether this taxing and spending is constitutional but so far the Supreme Court, which has the delegated authority under the Constitution to make this determination, has ruled that these programs are constitutional. The "rule of law" takes precedent over personal opinion. I can argue in theory that the US government has no enumerated authority to limit immigration but the Supreme Court doesn't agree.

Instead I can point out with validity that limitations to immigration violate free market capitalism and have a huge negative impact on the economy of the United States. That is an undeniable fact. Those that endorse limitations on immigration, which is protectionism, oppose free market capitalism. They are advocating BIG GOVERNMENT which violates conservative "classic liberalism" principles and they are not "conservatives" but instead are predominately racists endorsing anti-caplitialist government policies and laws.

 

How did you reach your conclusion?

Rules of Naturalization must include customs if not specifically enumerated elsewhere.

I agree that the several States of our Union have no basis to care if someone is from out of State or from out of state since 1808.

 

"Undeniable facts" are those that have scientific research done by an unbiased party, not just your opinion with "those are undeniable facts" following your statement. Please provide this data if you wish to assert your opinion as anything more than that.
I don't really see how you could possibly fail to see the correlation between these two issues. UNREGULATED immigration overburdens our welfare system which is meant to be a safety net to our own citizens who (theoretically) have been paying into the system via federal tax withholdings. Illegal immigrants have not contributed to this system and therefore should not be allowed to receive benefits, however, with the overwhelming numbers applying many do collect these funds in various forms. BECAUSE illegals are getting these benefits "for free" it encourages MORE unregulated illegal immigration. Yes, these two problems need to be solved separately because obviously the ARE two issues. But in making reform to one, you MUST consider the impact to the other, or we risk being right back where we are now, unable to support the weight of our own citizens, let alone those of other countries.

 

PLEASE READ

Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, said he regretted voting for the 1986 measure.

“I thought then that taking care of three million people illegally in the country would solve the problem once and for all,” Mr. Grassley said. “I found out, however, if you reward illegality, you get more of it. Today, as everybody has generally agreed, we have 12 million people here illegally.”The 1986 law was a product of more than five years’ work by Senator Alan K. Simpson, Republican of Wyoming, and Representative Romano L. Mazzoli, Democrat of Kentucky. Both left Congress more than a decade ago.


Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota, said: “I was here in Congress in 1986. I heard all the promises of the Simpson-Mazzoli Act. None of them were true, and three million people got amnesty. There was no border security to speak of, no employer sanctions to speak of, and there was no enforcement.”

Citizenship only repeats the problem, it doesn't fix it.

 

Like the poster above me, where are you getting you info from? If you're illegal, you are not paying into SS because you don't have a SS number. If you're getting on welfare due to essentially illegally having children, how did you pay for that? If you're being paid under the table you are NOT paying any taxes at ALL. Its cash. Thats the whole point of being paid in cash, so the employer doesn't have to pay all those taxes. If you're illegal and have a child, that child is eventually going to school, but as an illegal, what taxes are you paying to reimburse the schools? Consumption taxes are a tiny nugget. Its property taxes, income taxes, all those things illegals can't really pay, because they're illegal. Can't have credit without a SS#. Can't really get insurance without credit. How are illegals paying for the hospitals they use, the schools their kids attend, the roads they ride, police, fire, ect?
Whatever they do pay is NOT enough.

And STOP bundling together immigration with ILLEGAL immigration. They are COMPLETELY different topics. I don't have a problem at all with anyone coming over legally and applying through the proper channels. Although, who the govt does and doesn't let in is azz backwards...but thats another topic all together.

 

So, why not solve our illegal problem on a permanent basis through Commerce that is well regulated among the several States of the Union?

 

Any thoughts on this?

 

Sure; I believe supply side economics should be supplying us with better governance at lower cost.

 

In truth overwhelmingly illegal immigrants do furnish a SSN to the employer and FICA/Income taxes are withheld. In many cases this can be a bogus SSN so the "worker" obtains no benefits from the taxation nor can they file an income tax return (i.e. the government gets to keep it all). Many actually have valid SSN's because they entered the country legally and over-stayed their work visas. It is delusional to believe that all illegal immigrants crossed the border illegally as many do come here legally and then merely overstay they work visas. They're issued a Social Security card when they enter the work force legally.

Employers that "pay under the table" are committing a felony and should be held accountable for it. This isn't a problem with the "illegal" immigrant but instead a problem with US citizens violating the law. Of note more Americans are paid "under the table" than "illegal" immigrants and this is a violation of the law by the employer moreso than the employee. If anything the "illegal" immigrant is forced into being "paid under the table" as opposed to wanting to be "paid under the table" but they can't report the employer because it would result in them being deported. If we allow them to immigrate to the US legally then they would report these employers. This is one place where I support enforcement of the law related to employers but that can only happen if we allow fundamentally unrestricted immigration. It is in the best interests of the employee for FICA/Payroll taxes to be paid as this is required for later Social Security benefits.

All employers should be collecting and paying the taxes related to their employees. This is an "employer" problem and not an "employee" problem.

All "renters" fundamentally pay the property taxes of where they live albeit indirectly. To argue that the "illegal" immigrant isn't paying for schools, for example, would also be claiming that US citizens living in apartments aren't paying for schools that are predominately funded with property taxes. Sales taxes, fuel taxes and other "consumption" taxes are paid for by everyone. Illegal immigrants do get drivers licenses in many states (and those states that don't issue them are to blame if they don't have a drivers license) and with a drivers license they can get car insurance. As noted they also have SS cards even if they are bogus in some cases.

None of this really has anything to do with "illegal" vs "legal" immigration and all low income people are low income people regardless of whether they're American citizens or immigrants. All of them contribute to our government through taxation and all of them increase the GDP. As I've noted repeatedly if we just account for the housing required to house 11 million people then how many construction jobs for Americans were created? Something like 4,5 billion man-hours of "American" labor were involved in building the apartments and houses they're living in. How many checkout clerks are employed at local markets just to total up their purchases? How many truck drivers are employed taking the products they consume to the stores where they purchase them? We're talking hundreds of billions of dollars in consumption all of which fuels the US economy. The income alone from the 11 million "illegal" immigrants is somewhere around 100 billion dollars annually (even if only 1/2 of them are working) and that 100 billion dollars creates tens of millions of additional jobs in the United States.

They are "workers" and it's the "workers" of America that actually produce the wealth of America and not the business owners. People seem to forget that simple fact. Business owners profit from the "wealth" created by the workers but it's the workers that actually produce the wealth. Business owners provide the means for the production of wealth but don't actually produce the wealth.

 

Uuum, you do understand that with or without illegals, all those construction jobs, checkout clerks, ect, would be filled anyhow. No one is building homes to house illegal imigrants. You seem to be implying the absurd notion that illegals CREATE work and jobs. No they don't. They take jobs that can already be filled. You are using some real crackpot logic. They only thing they take up is resources we don't have. 1 trip to the ER literally cancels out whatever income they created through whatever job they're doing, since they mostly can walk right out without paying. Can't track them down to collect, since they lie about addresses or phone numbers and you can't hurt their credit because they have none.

I bet you think govt jobs also create income

 

... is a just, reasonable and legal path to citizenship.

 

While I don't disagree that this is a component of it not all immigrants want to become US citizens.

The true solution is to allow immigration for all of those that want to come to the United States for employment and to also offer them a pathway to citizenship if they choose to become citizens.

The 14th Amendment requires "equal protection under the law" for all persons (i.e. citizens and non-citizens) subjected to the authority of the United States government and this applies to immigration as well. Denial of immigration to one person that wants to come here to work while allowing another person to come here to work is a violation of the equal protection clause of the US Constitution. It is discriminatory and discrimination under the law is prohibited by the US Constitution.

Of course "social-conservatives" aren't "Constitutionalists" so this will fall on deaf ears.

 

I'm with you... no one should be forced to become an American citizen. But if people are hiding out here and want to stay... let's help them become citizens.

 

How did that work when we had the lowest unemployment in forty years and had massive federal budget surpluses, at the same time?

 

The private sector, that's what. Govt doesn't create wealth besides printing money, but then, that's diluting wealth, NOT creating it.

 

The point was we had low unemployment and massive federal budget surpluses, even with illegal immigration; should any person believe it may have more to do with public policy decisions since then?

 

The majority corporate entities produce absolutely NOTHING other than profit for the very few, lower and lower income enslavement for average Americans, and they shuffle money from one place to another creating the illusion of wealth creation. America creates profit, distributed amongst fewer and fewer. That's what the corporate private sector does best.

 

Where does the govt get their money to function? Oh yeah, you think printing money is creating it, hehe. Seriously, you believe the stuff you write? Go study economics for a while and get back to us all.

 

Housing units are housing units. The fact is that the "illegal" immigrants require roughly 3-4 million additional housing units which is above the number of housing units that is required if they're not here. While the housing units are not being built specifically for the "illegal" immigrant when a US citizen moves out of an apartment to purchase a new home we have the apartment that must be rented. If we assumed that the average rent was only $400/mo and all "illegal" immigrants lived in apartments then they're paying well over $14 billion in rent and the "landlords" use part of this income to build new apartment buildings every year. Part of that "rent" money is also used to pay property taxes that fund State services such as education and Medicaid.

Jobs at markets and stores depend upon customer spending and if we remove the consumption by "illegal" immigrants then many of those jobs simply disappear. The transportation of goods depends upon consumption and removing the consumption of the goods purchased by "illegal" immigrants requires more truck loads of goods and those trucks that deliver these goods wouldn't exist without this consumption. Not only do the excess truckers lose their job but there would be fewer jobs at Kenworth and Peterbuilt because not as many trucks required to move goods to market.

To think that the American jobs created by the consumption of "illegal" immigrants would exist if they weren't here is simply ignorant. Consumption equals jobs and the "illegal" immigrants are contributing over $100 billion/yr in consumption that creates the jobs required to produce the products and services consumed.

 

The workers for corporations do produce wealth but the wealthy owners of the corporations (i.e. the stockholders) don't. This is the root of the Republican myth that "investors" create jobs because they don't. Its the workers at the corporation that are producing wealth that create more jobs and not the stockholders in the corporation.

 

States can create wealth, merely by existing.

 

Workers create wealth, not government. Government is a consumer and not a producer of wealth. Yes, consumption drives the need for the production of wealth but only workers can create the wealth.

 

How do you account for public sector monopolies such as Hoover Dam and the Fed?

 

Reading Jeb Bush's book in immigration right now. Not a huge fan of the Bush..but so far it's a decent read.

 

The Federal Reserve is privately owned and does not create any real wealth. In fact many correctly point out that the Federal Reserve is stealing the wealth of America with inflationary monetary policies by issuing fraudlent promissory notes that it has no intention of redeeming.

There are very minor exceptions to the rule that private enterprise creates the wealth of America but these are few and don't amount to much. For example a city might directly employ workers to patch roadways but they do so by funds obtained from private enterprise. I'm not sure who operates Hoover Dam today but we do know it was built by private enterprise and not by the US government. The government merely funded the building of the dam but didn't build it.

Where the government does generate the creation of wealth is the consumption by goverment workers that aren't producing any wealth. Their consumption drives the producting of wealth from the private sector which is created by the workers of America.