• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

How serious is the problem of undocumented immigration?

Sabine Grant said:
maxparrish said:
Gasp, if they let the French in the borders are not "open", they must not EXIST! ;)
Click to expand...
As if the number of non US citizens arriving via a port of entry are French citizens only! Open borders would apply in several nations within the European Community where such controls and check points verifying the status of people leaving and entering the territory are non existent. In the early 70's, every car and train passenger was checked at the Ventimiglia border check point between Italy and France. As often as we traveled between Italy and France between 1995 and 2001, there was no checking any longer.

And FYI, no matter which wishful thinking of yours, as long as mandated documentation is presented when entering US territory, immigration agents do not pull holders of such mandated documentation into a separate locale based on their skin pigmentation while undertaking to verify they have a sufficient IQ or/and hold college degrees!
Click to expand...

I hoped you knew I was joking - perhaps you did not?
 
fromderinside said:
Yeah, now there's a real threat since it only takes 44 quarters (11 years) of SS inputs to qualify for SS and MC.
Click to expand...

Actually no. Anyone over the age of 70 can qualify for SS supplement if they income qualify, even if they did not contribute. Moreover, 11 years of SS taxes from low income persons does not even pay for the benefits.
 
maxparrish said:
fromderinside said:
Yeah, now there's a real threat since it only takes 44 quarters (11 years) of SS inputs to qualify for SS and MC.
Click to expand...

Actually no. Anyone over the age of 70 is qualified, even if they did not contribute.
Click to expand...

Well There's a nonstarter. Although not actually giving us life expectancy of illegal immigrants to the US; "Estimating the work life expectancy of undocumented Mexican migrant workers" http://research.utep.edu/portals/379/033.pdf show that life expectancy among illegal (mostly latino) immigrants in the US is at about that of blacks and that most of the older ones have returned to country of origin before age 70. So there you go. Being seventy is not a very good bet for illegal immigrants for a bunch of reasons like stress and emigration home.

Return your Starter's Pistol sir.*

*don't mess with old FDI one age and SS related stuff whippersnapper.
 
fromderinside said:
maxparrish said:
Actually no. Anyone over the age of 70 is qualified, even if they did not contribute.
Click to expand...

Well There's a nonstarter. Although not actually giving us life expectancy of illegal immigrants to the US; "Estimating the work life expectancy of undocumented Mexican migrant workers" http://research.utep.edu/portals/379/033.pdf show that life expectancy among illegal (mo stly latino) immigrants in the US is at about that of blacks and that most of the older ones have returned to country of origin before age 70. So there you go. Being seventy is not a very good bet for illegal immigrants for a bunch of reasons like stress and emigration home.

Return your Starter's Pistol sir.*

*don't mess with old FDI one age and SS related stuff whippersnapper.
Click to expand...


Actually I was incorrect, but not for the reasons you stated. The 5 million cannot obtain Supplemental Social Security Benefits because, in my reading, you have to be admitted for long-term residence. My impression is that they won't be under that category after the eo. They will, however be eligible for Medicare at 70, even if they never paid into it (perhaps before 70). And if that is a prospect, then illegal aging ones, made legal, will have less incentive to their home country.

In any event, those who put in their 10 years, or credited for prior work, will be given SSI and Medicare at 65/66 (or whatever) - a net loss.
 
maxparrish said:
fromderinside said:
Yeah, now there's a real threat since it only takes 44 quarters (11 years) of SS inputs to qualify for SS and MC.
Click to expand...

Actually no. Anyone over the age of 70 is qualified, even if they did not contribute.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Even Americans who didn't work the required time don't qualify. (Yes, there are a few. I'm aware of one--she spent a lot of time as a live-in lover of a rich guy, after the split he gave her enough to live on. She's now approaching retirement age, IIRC a few years of work, 5 years of marriage, no job prospects, no SS, no Medicare. Due to some bad investments she doesn't have the nest egg, either.)
 
NobleSavage said:
19 pages and very little data! Come on TFT.

Wackaloon Heritage Foundation has a big study: "legalizing current illegal immigrants would cost $9.4 trillion over a lifetime and pay just $3.1 trillion in taxes, resulting in a net cost of $6.3 trillion."

http://www.heritage.org/research/re...m_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Heritage+Hotsheet

Who's got the liberal numbers?
Click to expand...

On Thursday evening, President Obama unveiled his plan to offer legal status to approximately 5 million undocumented aliens. “If you’re willing to pay your fair share of taxes,” said Obama, “you’ll be able to apply to stay in this country.” But the President neglected to mention that the income of the typical illegal immigrant is so low that he would pay no net income taxes, and become eligible for welfare benefits like Obamacare. According to a 2006 report from the left-leaning Century Foundation, “it is likely that the undocumented workers will end up receiving rather than paying the Treasury money.”
Click to expand...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...mmigration-plan-will-pay-no-net-income-taxes/



The wisdom and generosity of our Emperor, may Dear Leader have mercy those of us who do pay, sometimes dearly.
 
Illegal immigration.

I've never talked on the subject, and though I'm not prepared to espouse any view I might personally hold, there is this thought I have that makes me wonder if the fact that the illegal part is merely a convenient post hoc justification for the dismal view of immigration. In other words, perhaps people (and possibly even unknowingly) have a problem with immigration (but not necessarily across the board). Sure, they cite the legality of the issue, and they may purport to have only an issue with its legality, but if that's a post hoc justification for their issues, then there may be a high probability that there's an unspoken, underlying (and perhaps emotionally based bias) serving as a catalyst for their views against illegal immigration that has more to do with immigration than the legality of it.

Could it indeed be a prejudice that in no way takes into account the legality of the matter? Could a vast silent commonplace view be held in mind that remains unspoken? It could be similar to racism with the legality of immigration being the great common theme to clasp to.

And no, i have not espoused my view...just exploring the subject a tad.
 
fast said:
Illegal immigration.

I've never talked on the subject, and though I'm not prepared to espouse any view I might personally hold, there is this thought I have that makes me wonder if the fact that the illegal part is merely a convenient post hoc justification for the dismal view of immigration. In other words, perhaps people (and possibly even unknowingly) have a problem with immigration (but not necessarily across the board). Sure, they cite the legality of the issue, and they may purport to have only an issue with its legality, but if that's a post hoc justification for their issues, then there may be a high probability that there's an unspoken, underlying (and perhaps emotionally based bias) serving as a catalyst for their views against illegal immigration that has more to do with immigration than the legality of it.

Could it indeed be a prejudice that in no way takes into account the legality of the matter? Could a vast silent commonplace view be held in mind that remains unspoken? It could be similar to racism with the legality of immigration being the great common theme to clasp to.

And no, i have not espoused my view...just exploring the subject a tad.
Click to expand...

I suspect there is a strong element of folks in denial, criticizing illegal immigration while convincing themselves they support immigration in general - either that, or they are damn fools.

The bottom line is that the American people would have, in general, been far better off without the changes in immigration law in 1963 and 1965. Moreover, a policy that promoted the immigration of folks with knowledge, skills, or at least ability would have created a far happier and freer society, with far less poverty.

California has always been a leading example of the "Blade Runner" fate that awaits the nation over the next half century. Is this gonna be great or what?

blade_runner_on_the_run_by_guang2222-d4gu25n.jpg
 
maxparrish said:
I suspect there is a strong element of folks in denial, criticizing illegal immigration while convincing themselves they support immigration in general - either that, or they are damn fools.

The bottom line is that the American people would have, in general, been far better off without the changes in immigration law in 1963 and 1965. Moreover, a policy that promoted the immigration of folks with knowledge, skills, or at least ability would have created a far happier and freer society, with far less poverty
Click to expand...
That would have been true in the 1800s as well. Should we go back and deport all of the descendents of those unskilled or unknowledgeable or unable immigrants? Or has the US benefited over the years from the descendants of those immigrants?
 
And of course the fact that they don't pay much taxes is bogus.

They provide useful services, that contribute to the profitability and taxes of others.

The guy who cleans the floors doesn't pay much in the way of taxes. Yet the floor needs to be cleaned, or else the executives don't get their fat raises because their clients go to somewhere else where the floors aren't filthy.

Like most right wing arguments, its nothing but distraction and irrelevant points. The fact that immigrants can easily find work shows that they are useful. If they weren't useful, they wouldn't find anyone to hire them. QED.
 
maxparrish said:
California has always been a leading example of the "Blade Runner" fate that awaits the nation over the next half century. Is this gonna be great or what?
Click to expand...

Funny, I hadn't noticed killer cyborgs roaming the streets. Or flying police cars. Blade Runner (1982) was set in 2019. In Los Angeles. More accurately, a Los Angeles where it rains all the time and is apparently never sunny.

Maybe in the next four or five years Southern California will be plunged into a rainy darkness, but will that be because of illegal immigrants? Probably not.


While we're at it, if the effect of an executive order granting a sort of amnesty to millions of illegals is enough to turn a city or even the entire nation into a post-apocalyptic wasteland in a mere 50 years, then why is it that we're not halfway there already?

Four years after Blade Runner hit theaters, St. Ronald Reagan granted amnesty to millions of undocumented immigrants. That was almost 30 years ago. You'd think by now we'd be seeing at least a little bit of an apocalypse, right?


Well the forecast today for LA is partly cloudy and 67, with a 10 percent chance of precipitation and zero chance of replicants.
 
Ford said:
Four years after Blade Runner hit theaters, St. Ronald Reagan granted amnesty to millions of undocumented immigrants.
Click to expand...

And now we have a black president.

THANKS REAGAN! :angryfist:
 
maxparrish said:
Three videos that says it all, two of them with a sense of humor
Click to expand...


Yeah, racism is hilarious to you, isn't it?


I didn't see any flying police cars or cyborgs in any of those videos. Is that in part 4?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom