#2 VS #14

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by classicman

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 believe EMS funds are for the ambulance and first responders programs that are serviced, in part, by the state and counties, whereas Medicare / Medicaid etc are services within hospitals etc.

[Lamplighter]

On a national level, even the Bush administration's report concluded that immigrants are more economically positive than negative:

<snip> In a 2007 report by the White House Council of Economic Advisors,
it is estimated that over a lifetime, immigrants and their descendents contribute
$80,000 more in taxes than they receive in public services." 7
----
7
Immigration’s Economic Impact, White House Council of Economic Advisors, June 20, 2007
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archiv...on_062007.html

$1K per year for an 80 yr-old is not a lot, but it's not negative.
Another "odd" thing about this 2007 Impact report... at the end they write:

Conclusion: As in the past, immigrants evince a strong work ethic, and the children of immigrants tend to assimilate in terms of language acquisition and educational attainment.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

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

It's explained in more detail on the main page of that document (which doesn't actually seem to be linked, but if you cut off the last bit of the URL you'll get there.) Overall, the state as a whole breaks even. However, the local governments are A.) bearing a huge portion of the services costs that the state is not, and B.) not getting back in taxes what they spend, as opposed to the state.

In a 2007 report by the White House Council of Economic Advisors,
it is estimated that over a lifetime, immigrants and their descendents contribute
$80,000 more in taxes than they receive in public services."

And this was my point--the numbers work out when you include the taxes paid by their descendants, who are often legal because of the anchor baby clause. Take that away, and the balance sheet may change.

[Happy Monkey]

So if we change the Constitution to remove the "anchor baby clause", the balance sheet may go from positive to negative?

[dmg1969]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

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 can't speak for others but I do NOT have a problem adding manpower to the ICE and Border Patrol. What I (and others I'm sure) have a problem with and think about when we mention big government is the bureaucracy and having a czar for everything. We don't need more red tape...we just need to enforce the laws we have and give ourselves the means (manpower) to do the job.

In fact, I support mobilizing the national guard...but in an ENFORCEMENT capacity. Putting a few national guard troops down there with some technology is a band-aid on a gaping wound. Put them down there and give them the same arrest powers as the border patrol agents have. Our leaders have pussy-footed around too long and America is PISSED.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by dmg1969

What I (and others I'm sure) have a problem with and think about when we mention big government is the bureaucracy and having a czar for everything.

Do you not like having one person in charge of helping the President with a particular issue, or do you just not like the word? It seems odd to hate both bureaocracy and a method used to counteract it.

[classicman]

Well said dmg. What I think you are saying is that you want a MORE EFFICIENT Gov't?
That would be nice. Reminds me of what Ross Perot said. Gotta run it more like a business.
There is too much waste and bureaucracy. This isn't a D or R thing - its a Gov't thing that we can no longer afford. Reallocating resources or removing redundant layer upon layer of duplication would certainly help.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Do you not like having one person in charge of helping the President with a particular issue, or do you just not like the word? It seems odd to hate both bureaocracy and a method used to counteract it.

Czars are a means to avoid the appointment process, accountability and oversight ... the checks and balances. IIRC we can thank the R's.

[Pete Zicato]

Originally Posted by jinx

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.

This is untrue. Unless you want to raise taxes, there is only so much money to spend on solving americas problems. You can't focus on everything, so you've got to pick and choose.

Originally Posted by jinx

Focusing on this one to say we shouldn't be focusing on it is helping how?

People seem to be in "the sky is falling" mode over this issue. Call me a skeptic, but if people want me to be all upset over this, then I need more than rhetoric. Someone must be out there saying we need to change the constitution. Isn't that the focus of this thread? All I'm saying is that changing the constitution is (or should be) a big deal, and should not be done for issues that can be handled in cheaper simpler ways.

Originally Posted by jinx

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?

This sounds ok to me. What is the current law on this? Are children of illegals legal or is this just bad record keeping?

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Pete Zicato

What is the current law on this? Are children of illegals legal or is this just bad record keeping?

Any child born in the US is a US citizen. This is one of the hot-button issues as it creates situations whereby there are millions of families who have both legal and illegal members here. Typically the parents came here illegally and had a child.
Parents = illegal
Child = US citizen.

One argument is that this is not what was intended when it was originally written.

[Shawnee123]

One argument about the 2nd amendment is that this is not what was intended when it was originally written.

And, we're right back to the OP, yes?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by classicman

Czars are a means to avoid the appointment process, accountability and oversight ... the checks and balances. IIRC we can thank the R's.

They're single-issue advisors. I'm not sure why the Senate should get a veto on who gives advice to the President.

The extent of their power is that, as the President's point-person on a particular issue, the people with statutory powers will probably take their suggestions seriously, on the assumption that if they don't then the President will tell them to do so anyway. And, of course, if their statutory powers are such that they don't have to do what the President says on that particular point, then there's not even that.

Of course, the term has no legal meaning and is usually assigned by the press, and some people have been called "Czars" who actually have statutory power. But as far as I know, they're confirmed by the Senate, so that complaint doesn't apply.

[Shawnee123]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/08/0...ex.html?hpt=C2

The far right has latched onto the idea that the provision in question -- which grants citizenship to children born in the U.S. -- is being abused by illegal immigrants who choose to come to America to have their children, thus worsening the illegal immigration problem.

Some are even trying to suggest that how it is being used today is counter to the original intent of the Founding Fathers.

Of course, the 14th Amendment was not in the first U.S. Constitution as drawn up by our framers. It was adopted on July 9, 1868, to prevent Southern states from denying citizenship to former slaves and their children, since they didn't choose to come to America. They were brought here for the purpose of the vicious and dehumanizing free-labor plan that helped build the nation -- slavery.

It's clear that overall Congress is choosing to apply a Band-Aid to the illegal immigration problem instead of dealing with it head-on.

We have members on both sides of the aisle who care more about protecting their precious jobs and partisan poll numbers instead of actually finding a bipartisan solution. So instead of leadership, we get asinine suggestions like this one, which will do absolutely nothing about the estimated 10 million illegal immigrants in the country.

[lookout123]

So you're saying we should repeal the 14th amendment because there are probably no living slaves that have yet to be granted citizenship?

[dmg1969]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Do you not like having one person in charge of helping the President with a particular issue, or do you just not like the word? It seems odd to hate both bureaocracy and a method used to counteract it.

Have you ever heard the saying "too many cooks spoil the broth"? It's the reason that a kitchen has a head chef, a sous chef and on down the line. You can't have more than one head chef and expect the kitchen to run smoothly and efficiently.

There are TOO many oversight positions being created in government. Our government is probably the most bloated and wasteful in the world. What's next...an oil czar? a natural gas czar? a coal czar? a bank czar? a czar overseeing the other czars (I guess that would be a czar czar)? Where does it stop?

Americans have been very long in waking up to the fact that our politicians fuck us every time we drop our keys and bend over to pick them up...but we are waking up. We're also tired of the government doing nothing about illegal immigration...but we're waking up.