Author Topic: No Congressional GOP Leaders Will Support Reducing Immigration  (Read 2144 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 383,315
  • Gender: Female
  • Let's Go Brandon!
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/31/no-congressional-gop-leaders-will-support-reducing-immigration/

by Julia Hahn31 Jul 2015Washington D.C.2,281
As U.S. census data projects that immigration will soon exceed all documented historical records, not one Republican leader in Congress supports the popular step of reducing immigration.

Each year the United States admits one million people with green cards, their dependents and refugees, as well as half a million foreign youths sought by college administrators. Census data projects that, if visas are not slashed or halted, another 14 million immigrant settlers will arrive in the U.S. over the next decade.

Polls from Fox News and Gallup show that Americans — by a 2-to-1 ratio — want to see visa issuances reduced. A 2012 Pew Poll found that 69 percent of Americans want to place greater restrictions on who was allowed into the United States.

By the millions, federal visas are shipped out to many of the poorest and least-developed countries. As a consequence of this federal visa policy, today one in four Americans is either an immigrant or a child of an immigrant. Entire states, consider California and its 55 electoral votes, no longer elect Republicans. That’s at least partly because so many visas have been used to bring in foreign citizens who support big government.

A recent exposé published by Breitbart News documented that the Commonwealth of Virginia is being transformed by the post-1970 immigration wave, which has put the state firmly in play for even the most progressive politicians. The continued wave of new foreign job competitors has also helped keep prior immigrants and their children poor, making them more likely to depend on government services and less likely to pay income taxes.

Breitbart News reached out to every single Republican leader in Congress to ask if they would be willing to support any reduction at all in the record annual dispensation of new green cards and new foreign worker visas.

continued
Proud Supporter of Tunnel to Towers
Support the USO
Democrat Party...the Party of Infanticide

“Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.”
-Matthew 6:34

Offline NavyCanDo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,504
  • Gender: Male
Re: No Congressional GOP Leaders Will Support Reducing Immigration
« Reply #1 on: August 01, 2015, 02:08:47 pm »
Forget about illegal immigrants for a moment. Who opened the flood gates to legal immigrants all of a sudden?  Just 15 years ago when we bought our home in the suburbs, Asians were the largest minority in or Zip Code, coming in somewhere around 14%, followed by Hispanic, blacks, then other.  Today, it is newly arrived Somalis that have taken the top spot and Sikhs, who were in the "other", have rose to there own 4th place spot.
Last night the news did a story about a man shot and killed on the street not too far from here, which appears to be a gang involved shooting. The spectators standing around in the news footage showed dozens of Somali women heads all covered, making the whole scene look surreal, like it was filmed in another country. 
A nation that turns away from prayer will ultimately find itself in desperate need of it. :Jonathan Cahn

Offline PzLdr

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,421
  • Gender: Male
Re: No Congressional GOP Leaders Will Support Reducing Immigration
« Reply #2 on: August 01, 2015, 02:38:17 pm »
And this is a surprise, why?
Hillary's Self-announced Qualifications: She Stood Up To Putin...She Sits to Pee

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Offline alicewonders

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,021
  • Gender: Female
  • Live life-it's too short to butt heads w buttheads
Re: No Congressional GOP Leaders Will Support Reducing Immigration
« Reply #4 on: August 01, 2015, 03:24:39 pm »
Forget about illegal immigrants for a moment. Who opened the flood gates to legal immigrants all of a sudden?  Just 15 years ago when we bought our home in the suburbs, Asians were the largest minority in or Zip Code, coming in somewhere around 14%, followed by Hispanic, blacks, then other.  Today, it is newly arrived Somalis that have taken the top spot and Sikhs, who were in the "other", have rose to there own 4th place spot.
Last night the news did a story about a man shot and killed on the street not too far from here, which appears to be a gang involved shooting. The spectators standing around in the news footage showed dozens of Somali women heads all covered, making the whole scene look surreal, like it was filmed in another country.

Somalis are a large crime element in Denmark.  I do think we should back away from our single-minded focus on Mexican and other Hispanic illegals to also be looking at other groups that are coming in at an alarming rate - by legally granted refugee status, etc.  It is causing huge problems in Europe and is gaining momentum here as well. 

I'm not against immigrants and I love having a mixture of cultures here - that is what has made America great - but many of these new immigrants aren't like those in the past.  Many of them are criminals and troublemakers with a sense of entitlement to the riches others have worked so hard for. 

I think we need to stop the flow from everywhere for awhile, until we can stop and think out solutions for the problems this is causing American citizens.  When we are paying citizens to sit at home and not work - but bringing in people that will do the work cheaper - we got a real big problem.

Don't tread on me.   8888madkitty

We told you Trump would win - bigly!

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: No Congressional GOP Leaders Will Support Reducing Immigration
« Reply #5 on: August 01, 2015, 04:01:49 pm »
Xenophobia is so ugly, and so trite, and so pointless.


The hated immigrants of yesteryear were the Italians (the Dagoes), the Irish (drunken potato noshing sots), the Chinese (chinks, yellow menace), most of the various Eastern Europeans who came over in the 1800s and early 1900s (Slovaks, Czechs, etc, etc, etc) and of course, let's not forget the Jews.

Offline truth_seeker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,386
  • Gender: Male
  • Common Sense Results Oriented Conservative Veteran
Re: No Congressional GOP Leaders Will Support Reducing Immigration
« Reply #6 on: August 01, 2015, 06:38:42 pm »
If we are allowing in bad people, it is solely the Federal Government, in charge and handling the process.

They will tell you that they do screening, but they are inept and incompetent.

Immigrants legal and illegal will tell you that once they get in they are largely home free. Interior enforcement is virtually non-existent.

Commit a crime, get arrested, and get released soon. I'm pretty sure that Worland Wyoming is not a Sanctuary City.

I don't know what good a wall will do, when over half of the illegals in the country overstayed visas. I don't know what good a wall will do when cities large and small release bad guys, and when there is no active mechanism for finding and deporting bad guys.

But the reality is all over the world, people try to get to better places, like in Calais France, in the news. And coming to Italy in boats from North Africa.

"God must love the common man, he made so many of them.�  Abe Lincoln

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: No Congressional GOP Leaders Will Support Reducing Immigration
« Reply #7 on: August 01, 2015, 08:49:12 pm »
Somalis are a large crime element in Denmark.  I do think we should back away from our single-minded focus on Mexican and other Hispanic illegals to also be looking at other groups that are coming in at an alarming rate - by legally granted refugee status, etc.  It is causing huge problems in Europe and is gaining momentum here as well. 

I'm not against immigrants and I love having a mixture of cultures here - that is what has made America great - but many of these new immigrants aren't like those in the past.  Many of them are criminals and troublemakers with a sense of entitlement to the riches others have worked so hard for. 

I think we need to stop the flow from everywhere for awhile, until we can stop and think out solutions for the problems this is causing American citizens.  When we are paying citizens to sit at home and not work - but bringing in people that will do the work cheaper - we got a real big problem.

That's been the prevailing sentiment about all immigrants since the founding of the nation.

Ben Franklin warned about German immigrants in his time:

"I am perfectly of your mind, that measures of great Temper are necessary with the Germans: and am not without Apprehensions, that thro’ their indiscretion or Ours, or both, great disorders and inconveniences may one day arise among us; Those who come hither are generally of the most ignorant Stupid Sort of their own Nation, and as Ignorance is often attended with Credulity when Knavery would mislead it, and with Suspicion when Honesty would set it right; and as few of the English understand the German Language, and so cannot address them either from the Press or Pulpit, ’tis almost impossible to remove any prejudices they once entertain. Their own Clergy have very little influence over the people; who seem to take an uncommon pleasure in abusing and discharging the Minister on every trivial occasion. Not being used to Liberty, they know not how to make a modest use of it; and as Kolben says of the young Hottentots, that they are not esteemed men till they have shewn their manhood by beating their mothers, so these seem to think themselves not free, till they can feel their liberty in abusing and insulting their Teachers. Thus they are under no restraint of Ecclesiastical Government; They behave, however, submissively enough at present to the Civil Government which I wish they may continue to do: For I remember when they modestly declined intermeddling in our Elections, but now they come in droves, and carry all before them, except in one or two Counties; Few of their children in the Country learn English; they import many Books from Germany; and of the six printing houses in the Province, two are entirely German, two half German half English, and but two entirely English; They have one German News-paper, and one half German. Advertisements intended to be general are now printed in Dutch and English; the Signs in our Streets have inscriptions in both languages, and in some places only German: They begin of late to make all their Bonds nad other legal Writings in their own Language, which (though I think it ought not to be) are allowed good in our Courts, where the German Business so encreases that there is continual need of Interpreters; and I suppose in a few years they will be also necessary in the Assembly, to tell one half of our Legislators what the other half say; In short unless the stream of their importation could be turned from this to other colonies, as you very judiciously propose, they will soon so out number us, that all the advantages we have will not in My Opinion be able to preserve our language, and even our Government will become precarious."

The Nativist Movement of the 19th Century warned us about the nation's impending doom at the hands of the "wretched paupers" Irish "Papists" that were certain to destroy the Founders ideals of a nation of Protestant values. Certainly, the Nativists argued, the Catholic Church sent the hordes of Irish immigrants here to subvert the spread of democracy and take control of the under-populated American west. These sentiments gave birth to the Native American Party (the Know-Nothings) whose anti-Catholic sentiments are still evident today in places like TOS.

Anti-Italian immigrant sentiments led to one of the largest mass lynchings in American history, when 11 Italian immigrants were hung by a mob in New Orleans for a crime that nine of them had been acquitted of committing. The other two were just at the wrong place at the wrong time and of the wrong nationality. After the lynching, New Orleans police reacted by arresting hundreds of Italian immigrants arguing that they were all criminals. Anti-Italianism, was part of the anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic ideology of the revived KKK in the early 20th century, with the Klan's stated goal being the preservation of Anglo-Saxon Protestant power in the US.

We have changed as a nation. I don't expect mass lynchings of illegal aliens, but the fear that immigrants will change the nation for the worse still abound.

Most immigrants, or at least those that are not part of a national brain drain strategy, come here and take any work they can take, because they have to. It's not a choice, it's a survival technique. They (we) will take jobs as hotel maids, busboys, waiters, seamstresses, and in lawn maintenance, all of it with the knowledge and the hope that our future generations will achieve the thing that precipitated the sacrifice of leaving a homeland.

All those jobs I listed were at one point or another, held by my parents and myself.

The problem today isn't the immigrants.

The problem is the people in government who have come to understand that immigrants are the road to political power.
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

bkepley

  • Guest
Re: No Congressional GOP Leaders Will Support Reducing Immigration
« Reply #8 on: August 01, 2015, 09:01:17 pm »
I don't know Luis,  I sympathize but as has already been mentioned it is not the same country.  I agree they are hard working but I also believe immgrants support big government and Democrat solutions.  I know Democrats believe immigration is on their side, why shouldn't the GOP be a little concerned about it and there is also the new problem of international radical Islam.

Offline alicewonders

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,021
  • Gender: Female
  • Live life-it's too short to butt heads w buttheads
Re: No Congressional GOP Leaders Will Support Reducing Immigration
« Reply #9 on: August 01, 2015, 09:37:03 pm »
That's been the prevailing sentiment about all immigrants since the founding of the nation.

Ben Franklin warned about German immigrants in his time:

...


Appreciate the history lesson Luis and I understand what you are saying.  Most immigrants have been invaluable to the success of our country.  But, don't you think we are having problems due to the unchecked flow of so many people into our country right now?  Many of them taking jobs Americans shouldn't be too good to take,  many of them are gang and drug cartel members, many of them wish to see Sharia Law supersede our own laws, and many of them actively hate the US!

Don't you think things are just a little different right now? 

 
Don't tread on me.   8888madkitty

We told you Trump would win - bigly!

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: No Congressional GOP Leaders Will Support Reducing Immigration
« Reply #10 on: August 02, 2015, 01:18:15 am »
Appreciate the history lesson Luis and I understand what you are saying.  Most immigrants have been invaluable to the success of our country.  But, don't you think we are having problems due to the unchecked flow of so many people into our country right now?  Many of them taking jobs Americans shouldn't be too good to take,  many of them are gang and drug cartel members, many of them wish to see Sharia Law supersede our own laws, and many of them actively hate the US!

Don't you think things are just a little different right now?

The only difference right now is the redistributive nature of our government.

Immigrants ALWAYS "take jobs" from Americans.

Remember the Mafia?

Catholics were accused of trying to replace our government with one run by The Vatican.

There are arguably more native-born citizens that hate America than immigrants that do the same.
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Offline Fishrrman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,603
  • Gender: Male
  • Dumbest member of the forum
Re: No Congressional GOP Leaders Will Support Reducing Immigration
« Reply #11 on: August 02, 2015, 02:28:58 am »
[[ Each year the United States admits one million people with green cards, their dependents and refugees, as well as half a million foreign youths sought by college administrators. Census data projects that, if visas are not slashed or halted, another 14 million immigrant settlers will arrive in the U.S. over the next decade.
Polls from Fox News and Gallup show that Americans — by a 2-to-1 ratio — want to see visa issuances reduced. A 2012 Pew Poll found that 69 percent of Americans want to place greater restrictions on who was allowed into the United States. ]]


If Donald Trump has any smarts at all, he's going to ride this tide right into the White House.

While the Republican party stands by and stares, wondering "how'd he do that???"

Offline Fishrrman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,603
  • Gender: Male
  • Dumbest member of the forum
Re: No Congressional GOP Leaders Will Support Reducing Immigration
« Reply #12 on: August 02, 2015, 02:40:04 am »
Alice wrote above:
[[ I'm not against immigrants and I love having a mixture of cultures here... ]]
and then she wrote:
[[ I think we need to stop the flow from everywhere for awhile, until we can stop and think out solutions for the problems this is causing American citizens. ]]

Alice, you can have it one way or the other.
You CANNOT have it both ways, and remain intellectually honest about it.
Which do you choose?

I -am- "against immigrants" and immigration, at least for a while. Our country, our culture, our ethnicity, and our heritage is under an attack which we seem to be unwilling to control or even acknowledge.

I've said it before and I'll say it again (like the broken record I am):
It's time to halt immigration into the United States.
We should end ALL of it (including H1-b's) -- for at least fifty years.

If someone says to me, "while you're at it, why don't you advocate tearing down the Statue of Liberty?", I will answer, "fine, take it down for now. What it once represented, is no more."
I'm not being facetious -- I mean that.

We are being swamped.
It's time to build a levee, and build it high.

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: No Congressional GOP Leaders Will Support Reducing Immigration
« Reply #13 on: August 02, 2015, 03:06:47 am »
Alice wrote above:
[[ I'm not against immigrants and I love having a mixture of cultures here... ]]
and then she wrote:
[[ I think we need to stop the flow from everywhere for awhile, until we can stop and think out solutions for the problems this is causing American citizens. ]]

Alice, you can have it one way or the other.
You CANNOT have it both ways, and remain intellectually honest about it.
Which do you choose?

I -am- "against immigrants" and immigration, at least for a while. Our country, our culture, our ethnicity, and our heritage is under an attack which we seem to be unwilling to control or even acknowledge.

I've said it before and I'll say it again (like the broken record I am):
It's time to halt immigration into the United States.
We should end ALL of it (including H1-b's) -- for at least fifty years.

If someone says to me, "while you're at it, why don't you advocate tearing down the Statue of Liberty?", I will answer, "fine, take it down for now. What it once represented, is no more."
I'm not being facetious -- I mean that.

We are being swamped.
It's time to build a levee, and build it high.

Are you sure you have all the facts?

From Conservative Tribune, 7/31/15:

Quote
Notice the Asterisk on Your Social Security Statement? What It Means Has Seniors Panicking

We’ve all been taught, in spite of the utter improbability of it, that whatever we pay into Social Security will be there when we retire. However, even the Social Security Administration admits that’s not true … and if you don’t believe me, just look at the asterisk on your Social Security statement.

A writer for National Review explained that his statement said he could expect to receive “about $2,136 a month” if he were to retire at age 70. However, the asterisk that appeared on the statement revealed there was a bit of a catch.

“The law governing benefit amounts may change because, by 2033, the payroll taxes collected will be enough to pay only about 77 percent of scheduled benefits,” the footnote read.

That would be a reduction of about $492 a month for the writer — quite a significant chunk.

But wait, there’s more — and it only gets worse.

The same writer referred to his 2009 Social Security statement, which bore a similar asterisk. The text, however, was different.

“The law governing benefit amounts may change because, by 2041, the payroll taxes collected will be enough to pay only about 78 percent of your scheduled benefits,” that message read.

In a period of six years, the timeline has shifted eight years earlier and one percentage point down. And, if the 2014 Social Security Trustees Report is any indication, we can continue to expect both numbers to get lower.

More at http://conservativetribune.com/asterisk-social-security-means/

So, how is any of that relevant to this discussion?

Well, there's this:

Quote
STOCKTON, Calif. - Since illegally crossing the Mexican border into the United States six years ago, Ángel Martínez has done backbreaking work, harvesting asparagus, pruning grapevines and picking the ripe fruit. More recently, he has also washed trucks, often working as much as 70 hours a week, earning $8.50 to $12.75 an hour.

Not surprisingly, Mr. Martínez, 28, has not given much thought to Social Security's long-term financial problems. But Mr. Martínez -- who comes from the state of Oaxaca in southern Mexico and hiked for two days through the desert to enter the United States near Tecate, some 20 miles east of Tijuana -- contributes more than most Americans to the solvency of the nation's public retirement system.

Last year, Mr. Martínez paid about $2,000 toward Social Security and $450 for Medicare through payroll taxes withheld from his wages. Yet unlike most Americans, who will receive some form of a public pension in retirement and will be eligible for Medicare as soon as they turn 65, Mr. Martínez is not entitled to benefits.

He belongs to a big club. As the debate over Social Security heats up, the estimated seven million or so illegal immigrant workers in the United States are now providing the system with a subsidy of as much as $7 billion a year.

While it has been evident for years that illegal immigrants pay a variety of taxes, the extent of their contributions to Social Security is striking: the money added up to about 10 percent of last year's surplus -- the difference between what the system currently receives in payroll taxes and what it doles out in pension benefits. Moreover, the money paid by illegal workers and their employers is factored into all the Social Security Administration's projections.

Illegal immigration, Marcelo Suárez-Orozco, co-director of immigration studies at New York University, noted sardonically, could provide "the fastest way to shore up the long-term finances of Social Security."

It is impossible to know exactly how many illegal immigrant workers pay taxes. But according to specialists, most of them do. Since 1986, when the Immigration Reform and Control Act set penalties for employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants, most such workers have been forced to buy fake ID's to get a job.

Currently available for about $150 on street corners in just about any immigrant neighborhood in California, a typical fake ID package includes a green card and a Social Security card. It provides cover for employers, who, if asked, can plausibly assert that they believe all their workers are legal. It also means that workers must be paid by the book -- with payroll tax deductions.

IRCA, as the immigration act is known, did little to deter employers from hiring illegal immigrants or to discourage them from working. But for Social Security's finances, it was a great piece of legislation.

Starting in the late 1980's, the Social Security Administration received a flood of W-2 earnings reports with incorrect -- sometimes simply fictitious -- Social Security numbers. It stashed them in what it calls the "earnings suspense file" in the hope that someday it would figure out whom they belonged to.

The file has been mushrooming ever since: $189 billion worth of wages ended up recorded in the suspense file over the 1990's, two and a half times the amount of the 1980's.

In the current decade, the file is growing, on average, by more than $50 billion a year, generating $6 billion to $7 billion in Social Security tax revenue and about $1.5 billion in Medicare taxes.

In 2002 alone, the last year with figures released by the Social Security Administration, nine million W-2's with incorrect Social Security numbers landed in the suspense file, accounting for $56 billion in earnings, or about 1.5 percent of total reported wages.

Social Security officials do not know what fraction of the suspense file corresponds to the earnings of illegal immigrants. But they suspect that the portion is significant.

"Our assumption is that about three-quarters of other-than-legal immigrants pay payroll taxes," said Stephen C. Goss, Social Security's chief actuary, using the agency's term for illegal immigration.

Other researchers say illegal immigrants are the main contributors to the suspense file. "Illegal immigrants account for the vast majority of the suspense file," said Nick Theodore, the director of the Center for Urban Economic Development at the University of Illinois at Chicago. "Especially its growth over the 1990's, as more and more undocumented immigrants entered the work force."

Using data from the Census Bureau's current population survey, Steven Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies, an advocacy group in Washington that favors more limits on immigration, estimated that 3.8 million households headed by illegal immigrants generated $6.4 billion in Social Security taxes in 2002.

A comparative handful of former illegal immigrant workers who have obtained legal residence have been able to accredit their previous earnings to their new legal Social Security numbers. Mr. Camarota is among those opposed to granting a broad amnesty to illegal immigrants, arguing that, among other things, they might claim Social Security benefits and put further financial stress on the system.

The mismatched W-2's fit like a glove on illegal immigrants' known geographic distribution and the patchwork of jobs they typically hold. An audit found that more than half of the 100 employers filing the most earnings reports with false Social Security numbers from 1997 through 2001 came from just three states: California, Texas and Illinois. According to an analysis by the Government Accountability Office, about 17 percent of the businesses with inaccurate W-2's were restaurants, 10 percent were construction companies and 7 percent were farm operations.

Most immigration helps Social Security's finances, because new immigrants tend to be of working age and contribute more than they take from the system. A simulation by Social Security's actuaries found that if net immigration ran at 1.3 million a year instead of the 900,000 in their central assumption, the system's 75-year funding gap would narrow to 1.67 percent of total payroll, from 1.92 percent -- savings that come out to half a trillion dollars, valued in today's money.

Hmmmm...

Illegal aliens floating Social Security?

Can that be possible?

Well, this research group seems to think so:

From Reports on America, Vol 3, No.1 "Government Spending" by the Population Reference Bureau:

Quote
Many attempts have been made to estimate the fiscal impact of immigration, which not only generates demand for public education, health care, and other services, but also expands the tax base and slows the aging of the population. Some economists rely on cross-sectional estimates, using current data on immigrant households to compare benefits received from the government at all levels and taxes paid this year. But to investigate the long-term fiscal impact, analysis must take into account the expected payments over the life of an immigrant, and even the lifetimes of the immigrant’s children and grandchildren.

According to a study panel under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences, the longterm impact of a newly arrived immigrant turns out to depend greatly on the immigrant’s age at arrival. An average 20 year-old has many years in which to work and pay taxes before reaching the age when individuals typically receive more from the government than they pay in taxes. A 50-yearold, by contrast, is expected to work for only a few more years before becoming a net consumer of government services. The long-term impact also varies significantly with the immigrant’s education: Those with more education are likely to pay higher taxes during their working years, and the benefits they receive from government are not proportionately higher.

In a recent update of estimates prepared for the panel, Ronald Lee and Timothy Miller found that each additional immigrant with characteristics (such as age, education, and family size) typical of recent immigrants has a “net present value” of $46,000. That is, a new immigrant’s impact over the next 75 years is expected to be equivalent to a one-time investment of $46,000. But Lee and Miller estimate that the country would need to admit an additional 5 million immigrants per year, quintupling the current level of immigration, in order to achieve long-term balance in the Social Security trust fund. A recent report from the United Nations Population Division reached a similar conclusion for European countries, announcing that even much larger migration flows than are currently permitted would not counterbalance the effects of population aging.

To maintain the 2000 ratio between the working-age population (people between the ages of 20 and 64) and the older population (people ages 65 and older), the United States would need roughly 95 million more working-age persons in 2025, in addition to those already expected at current levels of immigration. In other words, if the entire working-age population of Mexico were to move to the United States in 2025, there still would not be enough people to restore the old-age dependency ratio of 2000.

Carry on.
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Offline alicewonders

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,021
  • Gender: Female
  • Live life-it's too short to butt heads w buttheads
Re: No Congressional GOP Leaders Will Support Reducing Immigration
« Reply #14 on: August 02, 2015, 05:00:46 am »
Are you sure you have all the facts?

...

snip

...

Carry on.

Do you think this is an ethical way to run things?  First, we have the Washington DC Machine setting up a Ponzi scheme to institute another tax on US workers - promising them retirement benefits which they cannot pay out without importing ever more people into the scheme.....only now.....they create a permanent third world class of cheap labor that lives in the shadows - paying into a system that they can't collect on.

And let's face it, if they are suddenly "made legal" and start collecting Social Security benefits - then the whole system will collapse because with the Baby Boomers retiring now - there aren't enough younger workers (legal and illegal) to pay for the benefits that we paid for all our working lives. 

The system is broken and our leaders/embezzlers should be in prison, truth be told. 

Don't tread on me.   8888madkitty

We told you Trump would win - bigly!

Offline alicewonders

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,021
  • Gender: Female
  • Live life-it's too short to butt heads w buttheads
Re: No Congressional GOP Leaders Will Support Reducing Immigration
« Reply #15 on: August 02, 2015, 05:10:46 am »
Alice wrote above:
[[ I'm not against immigrants and I love having a mixture of cultures here... ]]
and then she wrote:
[[ I think we need to stop the flow from everywhere for awhile, until we can stop and think out solutions for the problems this is causing American citizens. ]]

Alice, you can have it one way or the other.
You CANNOT have it both ways, and remain intellectually honest about it.
Which do you choose?

I -am- "against immigrants" and immigration, at least for a while. Our country, our culture, our ethnicity, and our heritage is under an attack which we seem to be unwilling to control or even acknowledge.

I've said it before and I'll say it again (like the broken record I am):
It's time to halt immigration into the United States.
We should end ALL of it (including H1-b's) -- for at least fifty years.

If someone says to me, "while you're at it, why don't you advocate tearing down the Statue of Liberty?", I will answer, "fine, take it down for now. What it once represented, is no more."
I'm not being facetious -- I mean that.

We are being swamped.
It's time to build a levee, and build it high.

When politicians started buying votes with the promise of free stuff - and then had to figure out ways to pay for all of that free stuff so they could stay in their cushy life career political jobs - that was the beginning of the end.  Now, they are having to import ever more and more people to pay for their schemes, with no thought of what it is doing to the country.  They don't care about anything but their own greedy asses - a great many of them should be rotting in prison.

The system is broken and cannot be fixed without tearing it completely apart and rebuilding it. 

Don't tread on me.   8888madkitty

We told you Trump would win - bigly!

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: No Congressional GOP Leaders Will Support Reducing Immigration
« Reply #16 on: August 02, 2015, 05:43:25 am »
Do you think this is an ethical way to run things?  First, we have the Washington DC Machine setting up a Ponzi scheme to institute another tax on US workers - promising them retirement benefits which they cannot pay out without importing ever more people into the scheme.....only now.....they create a permanent third world class of cheap labor that lives in the shadows - paying into a system that they can't collect on.

And let's face it, if they are suddenly "made legal" and start collecting Social Security benefits - then the whole system will collapse because with the Baby Boomers retiring now - there aren't enough younger workers (legal and illegal) to pay for the benefits that we paid for all our working lives. 

The system is broken and our leaders/embezzlers should be in prison, truth be told.

Do I think this is an ethical way to run things?

No.

How does that change the political reality of the situation?

Try and make the argument that we should throw our "leaders/embezzlers" in prison, and that (when we do that) all SS checks will stop and there won't be any more coming again, then watch what happens next.

Any politician who runs on that platform will never be elected.

In fact, if we as a nation were ever to be honestly told what the true depth of this mess was, and we were given the choice of either stopping mass immigration or continue receiving (or expecting to receive) our SS checks, we would probably demand that mass immigration be stopped and that the checks continue to flow, leaving politicians with no choice but to lie to us.

What is ethical is seldom related to political realities, and you were to be completely honest about this, you'd have to agree that those "leaders/embezzlers" that you would throw in jail today for the mess that is the Social Security system, are actually guilty of little more than trying to sustain a broken system they inherited, and not of creating the mess. All the people actually guilty of creating this mess are long dead. These guys are just managing the mess as best they can, and not doing a very good job of it.
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Offline truth_seeker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,386
  • Gender: Male
  • Common Sense Results Oriented Conservative Veteran
Re: No Congressional GOP Leaders Will Support Reducing Immigration
« Reply #17 on: August 02, 2015, 05:57:32 am »
We will have to face this fact: Our citizens want the benefits of a social safety net, much like they have in Europe, Canada, Australia, etc.

And so when the politicians have no options, they will have to raise payroll and other taxes to pay for it. They DO have higher payroll taxes in Europe, and the people there are willing to pay it.

They can raise retirement ages, they can means test social security, but longer term taxes have to go up. Because benefits are not going to go down.   
"God must love the common man, he made so many of them.�  Abe Lincoln

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: No Congressional GOP Leaders Will Support Reducing Immigration
« Reply #18 on: August 02, 2015, 02:08:57 pm »
We will have to face this fact: Our citizens want the benefits of a social safety net, much like they have in Europe, Canada, Australia, etc.

And so when the politicians have no options, they will have to raise payroll and other taxes to pay for it. They DO have higher payroll taxes in Europe, and the people there are willing to pay it.

They can raise retirement ages, they can means test social security, but longer term taxes have to go up. Because benefits are not going to go down.

When Jeb Bush floated the ideas of raising the retirement age and means-testing Benefits and he was crucified for it by both the left and the right.

Any politician who suggests higher taxes will face the same fate.

So if your solutions will not meet with the approval of the voters, what then?

We all like to lay the blame for all that ails us at the feet of politicians, but we want that safety net, we want the cheap goods, we want the low prices on services generated by low payroll, we want all the things that the things we don't want provide.
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Offline alicewonders

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,021
  • Gender: Female
  • Live life-it's too short to butt heads w buttheads
Re: No Congressional GOP Leaders Will Support Reducing Immigration
« Reply #19 on: August 02, 2015, 02:37:40 pm »
When Jeb Bush floated the ideas of raising the retirement age and means-testing Benefits and he was crucified for it by both the left and the right.

Any politician who suggests higher taxes will face the same fate.

So if your solutions will not meet with the approval of the voters, what then?

We all like to lay the blame for all that ails us at the feet of politicians, but we want that safety net, we want the cheap goods, we want the low prices on services generated by low payroll, we want all the things that the things we don't want provide.

We need people of vision to point out how much better people's lives would be without these false safety nets.  If more money stayed in our pockets due to less government pick-pocketing - if more money stayed in our communities due to less big box corporate monopolies - if more jobs were created by local industries - if our food was safer and tastier by being grown locally and seasonally........

We've been brainwashed into thinking that we need the government to survive and thrive - and nothing could be further from the truth.  But our politicians keep telling us it is so, because it fattens their pockets and power over us. 

We need visionaries that can convey the message.  That is the challenge.

Don't tread on me.   8888madkitty

We told you Trump would win - bigly!

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: No Congressional GOP Leaders Will Support Reducing Immigration
« Reply #20 on: August 02, 2015, 02:55:56 pm »
We need people of vision to point out how much better people's lives would be without these false safety nets.  If more money stayed in our pockets due to less government pick-pocketing - if more money stayed in our communities due to less big box corporate monopolies - if more jobs were created by local industries - if our food was safer and tastier by being grown locally and seasonally........

We've been brainwashed into thinking that we need the government to survive and thrive - and nothing could be further from the truth.  But our politicians keep telling us it is so, because it fattens their pockets and power over us. 

We need visionaries that can convey the message.  That is the challenge.

We also need to not allow ourselves to be brainwashed into closing our minds to the possibility of that level of leadership because of erroneous pre-conceived notions on any candidate.

Challenge everything that you think you know and don't fall prey to memes, empty sloganeering and simplistic posterized ideology.

Look deeply into Jeb Bush's, Scott Walker's and John Kasich's performance as Governors. In politics past performance is indicative of future results.
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Offline alicewonders

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,021
  • Gender: Female
  • Live life-it's too short to butt heads w buttheads
Re: No Congressional GOP Leaders Will Support Reducing Immigration
« Reply #21 on: August 02, 2015, 03:03:07 pm »
We also need to not allow ourselves to be brainwashed into closing our minds to the possibility of that level of leadership because of erroneous pre-conceived notions on any candidate.

Challenge everything that you think you know and don't fall prey to memes, empty sloganeering and simplistic posterized ideology.

Look deeply into Jeb Bush's, Scott Walker's and John Kasich's performance as Governors. In politics past performance is indicative of future results.

Rick Perry is my first choice - and it is based on his past performance as Governor of Texas.  Scott Walker would be my second choice.  I like what Kasich has to say and he has a great resume, but I don't see him catching fire.  I have no interest in Jeb Bush.  I know that you live in Florida and I can understand that you know him better than most of us and Jeb's record as Governor is certainly not terrible. 

But, I'll be honest.  I'm tired of the Bush brand name.  I find them to be reach-across-the-aisle squishees when it comes down to it.  Because of that, he would be far down on the bottom of my list.  His brother and father have shown that they would rather be friends with the enemy than to have to fight them - and at this time in history - that makes me want to vomit.

Don't tread on me.   8888madkitty

We told you Trump would win - bigly!

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51,586
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: No Congressional GOP Leaders Will Support Reducing Immigration
« Reply #22 on: August 02, 2015, 03:09:24 pm »
Quote
I find them to be reach-across-the-aisle squishees when it comes down to it.

Then you wouldn't want John Kasich either as he is a LONG time member of the beltway insider club.
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: No Congressional GOP Leaders Will Support Reducing Immigration
« Reply #23 on: August 02, 2015, 03:10:57 pm »
Rick Perry is my first choice - and it is based on his past performance as Governor of Texas.  Scott Walker would be my second choice.  I like what Kasich has to say and he has a great resume, but I don't see him catching fire.  I have no interest in Jeb Bush.  I know that you live in Florida and I can understand that you know him better than most of us and Jeb's record as Governor is certainly not terrible. 

But, I'll be honest.  I'm tired of the Bush brand name.  I find them to be reach-across-the-aisle squishees when it comes down to it.  Because of that, he would be far down on the bottom of my list.  His brother and father have shown that they would rather be friends with the enemy than to have to fight them - and at this time in history - that makes me want to vomit.

Deciding that you won't vote for Jeb Bush because of his last name makes as much sense as deciding that you'll vote for Obama because of his skin color or Hillary because of her (alleged) gender.

Jeb is actually the best Bush by far.

Here's The Wall Street Journal on Jeb:

Quote
Over his tenure, Mr. Bush cut taxes by some $19 billion, much of it benefiting businesses and investors, such as the repeal of a tax on investments. He created the first school-voucher program in the country, allowing students in failing schools to use public money for private-school tuition, a program later struck down by the state Supreme Court as unconstitutional. Another program, also being challenged in court, gives companies a tax credit if they donate for private school scholarships.

Mr. Bush also sparked protests with his One Florida program, which aimed to end affirmative action preferences for minorities in universities and state contracting.

Mr. Bush was initially opposed to offshore oil drilling, before backing down. He drove to increase the power of the governor’s office, winning total control over judicial nominations, which until then had been shared with the state bar association.

In 2003, he gained national attention with the battle surrounding Ms. Schiavo, a severely brain-damaged woman. The governor pushed legislators to pass a law reinserting her feeding tube, a move later deemed unconstitutional. She died in March 2005. To promote abortion opposition, he approved a “Choose Life” license plate.

On crime, he backed a mandatory sentencing law for offenders using guns and enhanced the state’s concealed carry law. He also signed the “stand your ground” law giving people the right to use deadly force when threatened, which later played a role in the debate over the shooting of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin. Mr. Bush has said he didn’t think the law applied in that case.

~~~snip~~~

Dan Gelber, who was the Democratic leader in the state House during part of Mr. Bush’s tenure, said on issues including guns, taxes, education and abortion, the former governor led from the right. “Anyone who woke up in Florida every morning knew that Jeb Bush was not a moderate,” he said. “You could check every single box.”

The Florida Supreme Court, as you may recall from the Bush/Gore recount wars, is fabulously liberal. They detested Jeb's policies and fought him all the way through his constituency. He eventually won the battle by turning control of the nomination process over to the Governorship and away from the State's Bar Association.

It's a long race, and I believe I know which candidates will be left standing at the end.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2015, 03:13:52 pm by Luis Gonzalez »
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: No Congressional GOP Leaders Will Support Reducing Immigration
« Reply #24 on: August 02, 2015, 03:20:37 pm »
Rick Perry is my first choice - and it is based on his past performance as Governor of Texas.  Scott Walker would be my second choice.  I like what Kasich has to say and he has a great resume, but I don't see him catching fire.  I have no interest in Jeb Bush.  I know that you live in Florida and I can understand that you know him better than most of us and Jeb's record as Governor is certainly not terrible. 

But, I'll be honest.  I'm tired of the Bush brand name.  I find them to be reach-across-the-aisle squishees when it comes down to it.  Because of that, he would be far down on the bottom of my list.  His brother and father have shown that they would rather be friends with the enemy than to have to fight them - and at this time in history - that makes me want to vomit.

I have two different Presidents in mind.

Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama.

One reached across the aisle to work with the opposition and one completely ignored and demonized the opposition.

One unified the nation and led to great prosperity and one divided the nation and brought it to the brink of civil war.

One led and one ruled.

Which of those two styles of leadership led to greater results and benefits for the people of the nation?

Which is it that we need right now?

One that will promote unity or one that will further seek to divide us?
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx