I wholeheartedly agree Pete...the government does very little to prevent illegals from entering the country. In many cases, certain law enforcement agencies might as well be fishing with the catch and release policies they have. I've heard stories about locals calling ICE when they have an illegal in custody only to be told to release them because they don't have the time or manpower to do anything about it. That's why some states are taking matters into their own hands. Hell, some cities in Kalifornia actually declare themselves as a "sanctuary city" for illegals! How fucked up is that?

I also agree that we need to come down HEAVILY on companies that employ illegals. Maybe the threat of a $250,000 fine per illegal found during a raid would change their minds about hiring them.

As far as the figures...I don't have them and I'm sure they vary according to who you believe. I think it's safe to say that it is in the billions upon billions of dollars per year. Changing 14 will at least be a start by defining that just because a pregnant illegal is lucky enough to evade capture on the way here...she can't legally put down roots because the child is a citizen.

Are you denying that illegal aliens cost us citizens money? If not, then why do you need specific numbers? If yes, then you're nuts.
Since when has this been the standard? AZ is trying to enforce the laws we already have, with law enforcement officers already employed. Not allowed to at the moment...
Who's we? I'm not looking the other way. I'm not hiring illegals. I'd like to not support them either.

The 14th has been interpreted many different ways over the years, depending on political climate. The political climate right now calls into question the soundness of the current interpretation because of those who are abusing it.

Best be careful if the 14th is going to get re-worded... Roe v. Wade is based entirely on some rather innocuous wording within the 14th Amendment.

Fundamental right to privacy. Should be anchored on something much stronger imo. Perhaps it's own amendment.

The part that comes into question with regard to anchor babies is the Citizenship Clause

which is pretty straight forward - and yet wasn't enough to grant citizenship to native americans.
Political climate...

I'm looking for a frame of reference.
Is this a big problem or a little problem? How does it compare with the other problems we have? Will it cost more to fix this problem than to leave it alone? If you don't have the answers to these questions, then why are you focusing on this particular problem? America's got lots of problems and this is just one of many.
Because changing the constitution is brain surgery. You don't want to do this unless the problem is a major problem. You also don't want to do this if the problem can be fixed with less drastic measures.

The economy is in the toilet, unemployment is very high. Re-evaluation of where the money is going is happening at a familial level all the way thru national level- that's why this issue is in the forefront (imo anyway). America does have a lot of problems. It's not an either-or thing though, you can address this problem AND any other problem you personally want to focus on. Focusing on this one to say we shouldn't be focusing on it is helping how?

The costs: How much does it cost to NOT grant citizenship, issue birth cert. and social secuirty cards, to infants who's mothers can't prove they are here legally?
How much does it cost to have a federal task force inspect paperwork at ever business in America, frequently? (Keep in mind that targeting businesses that most commonly hire illegals would be profiling, so they would have to check every single one. Frequently.)

I agree that business should face penalties for hiring illegals. If done effectively it would reduce incentive for illegal immigration, just like getting rid of the anchor-baby option. Unfortunately, it would also cost a lot.

What does passing an amendment really cost, other than legislators' time? (Which, let's face it, they're on salary and I don't believe they'd necessarily be doing anything better with that time...) I don't think the cost is a valid argument against, nor do I think it's a useful exercise to gauge precisely how important this problem is in relation to other problems--if it's large enough to be a hotbutton issue that can alter the course of an election, it's large enough to address.

However, I'm not sure whether I support the idea yet or not, but only because I think it might have counterintuitive results. The way I see it, the fundamental problem is that illegal immigrants are living outside the system--they use a host of social services that they contribute no taxes to. (This is where someone might try to jump in with the notion that some illegal immigrants, by virtue of using false social security numbers, are paying taxes they will never see a return on, but the budget sheets from the border states consistently show that the expenditures far outweigh the small amount that comes back this way.)

Anchor babies, for better or for worse, are "in" the system. As minors they will continue to freely benefit for another 18 years, but then at some point they will, indeed, feed back into the system. On the other hand, if we remove the anchor baby option, I don't think it's really going to turn away that many illegal immigrants. They'll still be here, but their babies will be illegal too, and in 18 years you will still have yet another person feeding off the system without contributing. What's more, the anchor babies encourage their worker parents to truly set up home here, rather than sending the money back to Mexico, which is an even worse thing to do to our economy than just feeding off it.

This is, again, why Texas has very high sales taxes instead of state income taxes. Because that's how you tax your illegal immigrant base, thus getting back a portion of what you are spending on them. If they were paying for the services they use, no one would be complaining.

:corn:

Good touch or bad touch?

Increasing manpower would mean enlarging the federal government and increasing taxes. The same people who want to stop illegal immigration don't want to enlarge the federal government or increase taxes.

I think Pete is correct in asking for specifics. You poo-poo the notion that illegals pay payroll taxes, and you assume that all illegals are "feeding off the system without contributing". I'd like to know if either of those situations is true, and if it is, is it impactful. There's also the lower sales tax revenue that states will see, given the vast reduction in "spenders". Another factor in analyzing the cost will be the increase in the cost of products and services that will now have to be performed at a US Citizen-level wage, as opposed to the (more than likely) lower than US Citizen-level wage that the illegals have been paid.

According to the bipartisan report generated by the Texas State Comptroller, it is.

"Local taxes" mostly means sales taxes, here--the state has a base rate of sales tax, then each city gets to add their own percentage on top--plus a small amount of property taxes, though most undocumented immigrants tend to be renters.

Either way, you seem to have completely missed my point and inserted someone else's. I am not in favor of mass deportation. I am in favor of rapid assimilation into the system. I think the United Farm Workers' "Take Our Jobs" campaign makes it very obvious that most citizens will not choose to do this work for this amount of money. It's the government's fault that immigration is such a painfully long, expensive, bureaucratic process. Once again, if they were paying for the services they use, no one would be complaining. But the flip side is, a magical amnesty program won't fix that problem either, because most illegal immigrants would actually prefer to continue receiving cash payments off-the-books. They want their children to be citizens for the future, but for right now, they are not particularly interested in any program that causes them to start having to pay income taxes. Many, if not most, want to be un-deportable, but still off-the-books.

Just to make sure I understand this correctly ...
According to the Texas State Comptroller Illegal Immigrants costs the state between $800 and $900 million per year?




For those who won't click on the link...

What is EMS if not Emergency Medical Services? If that is correct then how does that differ from Emergency Medical Care?

I would guess that EMS would be more ambulance related (or outside of the hospital, in general), and EMC would be emergency rooms.

I don't understand your interpretation of the link you cited. The first paragraphs list services available, but then the next section says:

I think "services" is the paramedics and ambulance, and "care" is the ER. But I could be wrong.

Edit: I see HM beat me to it.