That is why the Republican leadership is pushing this issue. It's consistent with what Americans want. The illegals are not going to be deported, it's a tremendously divisive issue, and we are certainly no better off today than 7 years ago when the GOP scuttled the best deal they could have ever gotten on immigration reform.
Every poll shows that by large majorities, Americans want this issue settled in favor of some type of legalization.
...but conservatives don't and they need us to win elections...we have a chance to win and win big...just like the GOP to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.....GOP = Stupid Party
I think most people realize that mass deportation is unfeasible. I do prefer Rand Paul's idea of issueing work visas - with the provision that they aren't given voting rights, etc. They need to get rid of the anchor baby privilege though. These workers should be employed above-board, trackable and paying taxes like the rest of us.
Of course, that will never happen - can't buy votes that way.
...but conservatives don't and they need us to win elections...we have a chance to win and win big...just like the GOP to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.....GOP = Stupid Party
Americans always want issues settled...as in solved and put away and forgotten about. The problem is that any legislatin on this issue will not "settle" immigration issues for anything more than a very brief time. The issue will always keep coming back, it will never be settled at least until the U.S. is no longer an attraction...a place that people in other countries no longer want to come to for economic reasons. If this bill were truly to settle the immigration issue for a generation or more, then yes, it would be supported by the general public because the general public always wants issues to be solved and go away. It won't do that. All it will do is hasten the demographic suicide of traditional America.
Americans always want issues settled...as in solved and put away and forgotten about. The problem is that any legislatin on this issue will not "settle" immigration issues for anything more than a very brief time. The issue will always keep coming back, it will never be settled at least until the U.S. is no longer an attraction...a place that people in other countries no longer want to come to for economic reasons. If this bill were truly to settle the immigration issue for a generation or more, then yes, it would be supported by the general public because the general public always wants issues to be solved and go away. It won't do that. All it will do is hasten the demographic suicide of traditional America.
Yes we do have a good chance this November. But one of several issues hindering that is the lingering issue of immigration, which is why GOP leaders want something done today rather than next year.
Do you really think these *new citizens* will vote Repub?..... the GOP will just be strengthening the Dems base....
And when Republicans like Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) promote granting work visas to all of the country's illegal immigrants and allowing them to remain in the country, he is promptly greeted the next day by Hispanic leaders in Wisconsin who call him "offensive."
I'd support this.
It could be improved, however, by adding a few provisions:
1. By accepting the work visa you agree never to apply for citizenship unless you return to your home country and go through normal channels. Your children, if they were born here, can apply.
2. You agree to forego all Social Security benefits derived from previous income, although you will qualify for benefits for future income. Also, you understand that you are unqualified to receive food stamps, AFDC or any other form of public assistance.
3. If you do not agree to the foregoing, you will be deported. It will be strictly enforced.
I would think number 1 would be part of the negotiation process, but I wouldn't have a problem with the long path as proposed in S.1348 from 2007. As for children born here, they are already citizens and need not apply. No. 2 is fine with me on Social Security if they did not make contributions. If they did then it could be problematic given that SS probably accepted the money. The last part of No. 2 was in the prior legislation and should be in this new proposal. I agree.
Yup. I would never vote for, nor support in any way, anyone pushing this crap. They can all go to hell.
That is why the Republican leadership is pushing this issue. It's consistent with what Americans want. The illegals are not going to be deported, it's a tremendously divisive issue, and we are certainly no better off today than 7 years ago when the GOP scuttled the best deal they could have ever gotten on immigration reform.
No. 2 is fine with me on Social Security if they did not make contributions.
A few quick points on that. First, most of those legalized under Reagan never did apply for citizenship. Second, Bush got 44% of the Hispanic vote in 2004. Finally, If done right, the legalization process would be long, tough and costly for the candidate. The 2007 legislation would have required a path that took approximately 13 years.
Yes we do have a good chance this November. But one of several issues hindering that is the lingering issue of immigration, which is why GOP leaders want something done today rather than next year.
Why is it that amnesty supporters constantly bring up mass deportations? Is it that amnesty is so destructive that a strawman is required to defend your position?
There are a lot of moving parts to this:
Mass deportations, while technically possible, is unfeasible. Mass deportation would fuel emotional fires, and it's just wrong. Many illegals were tempted to come here, and given a simple path. They are wanted for their cheap labor. If they've been here for any substantial amount of time, arbitrarily let's say 5 years, (that can be negotiated), have worked, and stayed out of trouble, deportation is not an option.
The big issue is, you can't make a deal with the Obama administration. You just can't. If you give them a path to citizenship based on conditions, like improved border security, they'll take the path, and renege on the security.
The laws on the books would suffice. More laws makes it more confusing, just what the political class loves.
The last amnesty did nothing but make illegals citizens. The Democrats, shock of all shocks, reneged on security.
Fast tracking illegals to citizenship is wrong too. I know a coworker, not Mexican, who finally got his citizenship, he's been here 12 years. I know another immigrant family, where the man of the house lost his job and is worried he'll be deported, (also not Mexican).
Finally, while making illegals suddenly legal is not appealing, but seems to be pragmatic, what amnesty does is encourage foreigners to continue to break our laws. Mexicans may do what many Americans don't want to do, but they also take jobs that Americans would do, and suppress wages.
What makes anyone think that any NEW immigration law will be enforced any more than the ones we already have?
When they decide to enforce current law we can begin to talk about any reforms that may be necessary but not before!
Bush's alleged 44% of the Hispanic vote in 2004 is widely disputed. That figure came from exit poll data which had many false reads and projections. More significantly, many Hispanic voters were asked in English rather than Spanish. Those interviewed in Spanish overwhelming supported Kerry. According to the Washington Post, Antonio Gonzalez, president of the William C. Velasquez Institute, said his exit poll showed Bush taking 33 percent. The Annenberg survey, which is run through the University of Pennsylvania, says its best estimate is that 41 percent of the Hispanic vote went for Bush over Kerry. Bush received 35% of the Hispanic vote in 2000. Amnesty promoting McCain received 31% in 2008. Romney received 27-29% in 2012. Obviously, it takes a very strained reading of the data to suggest that the GOP can significantly win the Hispanic vote. The clear data shows the GOP increasingly losing such vote and it will be permanent.
You won't get any arguments from Democrats. They love the status quo.
We frequently attack exit polling when it challenges our position. And I agree that the Hispanic vote for Republicans has decreased year after year since 2004. Most of that came after the debates on the 2007 legislation, in which very public arguments were made that scared hell out of people about Hispanics in general, not the specifics of the legislation. And Republicans did nothing to counter those arguments made in their name. If I were a Mexican voter and I read arguments about losing American tradition and how my kind is prone to this and that, I wouldn't vote GOP either.
How to regain the Hispanic vote, which by the way isn't as entrenched in one party as the black vote, is another debate. But a fair comprehensive immigration bill that includes border security and better enforcement as a starter would be a good beginning.
And why wouldn't they? After all they currently have a President, Attorney General, and Majority leader of the senate who just ignore the law and do whatever the hell they want while using every department of the federal government for political purposes and nothing is being done about it.
A fair comprehensive immigration bill is an oxymoron. A fair bill would include border security, enforcement and yes, deportations to comply with current law. This would benefit American citizens. Amnesty only helps the illegal invaders and the corporate interests that thrive off slave labor wages. Do you really think that uneducated, impoverished individuals illegally coming to America will be attracted to GOP principles? They may initially come to achieve a higher wage, but will soon realize that government entitlements such as SSI, Medicaid, Obamacare, Child tax credits, HUD housing and food stamps are much more enticing than "work." By supporting comprehensive immigration you are damning the GOP and your country to a Marxist hell.
Well...because the GOP is thwarting the will of most Americans, and in so doing, some on the far right are using racial demagoguery to do so. I'd say it's more than just the current administration. In any case, Republicans are losing the issue.
Personally I don't believe MOST Americans want anything remotely like amnesty. What they do Want is that the laws (all of them) be faithfully executed!
If republicans are loosing the issue it's because they have failed to make a case! This isn't about right and wrong it's about what the high dollar donors want and to HELL with everything and everyone else!
May I gently disagree, brother?
While most Americans want the laws duly enforced, there are two small problems. Firstly - no one wants to pay for it. Boots on the ground cost, you know that very well. Secondly - well - Americans as a whole are wonderful and generous people. A single guy who has slid the boarder to work illegally is one thing. Same guy has kids with him and the (rather admirable) compassion kicks in.
Personally I don't believe MOST Americans want anything remotely like amnesty. What they do Want is that the laws (all of them) be faithfully executed!
If republicans are loosing the issue it's because they have failed to make a case! This isn't about right and wrong it's about what the high dollar donors want and to HELL with everything and everyone else!
I'm sorry but I fail to find that out listed anywhere in our Constitution.
I'm sorry but I fail to find that out listed anywhere in our Constitution.
I'm sorry but I fail to find that out listed anywhere in our Constitution.
Can't find the Air Force in there either, but it doesn't make it less real.
That doesn't seem to bother many, they're more concerned about the results of "polls!" smh
That doesn't seem to bother many, they're more concerned about the results of "polls!" smh
Seriously my friend. Would you like me to link you to almost every poll over the past 8 years on the issue that would disagree with you? But yes I agree, Republicans have failed to make a case, most likely because they are in a civil war over it.
Yeah, who cares what the American people want? Ain't none of their affair anyway...
Yeah, who cares what the American people want? Ain't none of their affair anyway...
You're barking up the wrong tree if you think the Constitution and first principles are up for modification based on polling results, or elections for that matter. Can you really be serious???
Not sure what the Constitution has to do with immigration policy. But yeah, I'm serious. If my political representative didn't give a hoot what I thought, I'd vote to replace him. Why aren't the interests of the American people of some relevance?
In most cases, they make contributions under a phony or borrowed social security number. All of that needs to be erased off the books.
As for citizenship, given the high hurdle, we are probably not talking about a large number of people who will do it, but in principle I oppose the "path to citizenship." People do have the right to sell their labor, and I do not fault anyone who comes to this country for that reason. We should encourage free trade in all of its forms. But citizenship -- given our neo-socialist, managerial state -- is a whole other animal.
In summary, it's not the amnesty that bothers me, but the insistence that as a condition of amnesty we increase the number of Democrats on the voter rolls.
Query: if they pay social security taxes under someone else's social security number, is it fair if that person gets credit for those taxes?
Personally I don't believe MOST Americans want anything remotely like amnesty. What they do Want is that the laws (all of them) be faithfully executed!
If republicans are loosing the issue it's because they have failed to make a case! This isn't about right and wrong it's about what the high dollar donors want and to HELL with everything and everyone else!
Bigun.
You contradict yourself.
Your constant complaint is that the people in the government don't observe the Constitution or enforce the laws, and at the same time you say that most Americans want elected officials who will faithfully execute all laws.
Most Americans voting for people who don't observe the Constitution or faithfully execute the laws is the reason why those people are in government to begin with.
I'm still trying to understand what the Constitution and the oath of office have to do with immigration reform. :pondering:
I'm still trying to understand what the Constitution and the oath of office have to do with immigration reform. :pondering:
I'm still trying to understand what the Constitution and the oath of office have to do with immigration reform. :pondering:
The word "immigration" is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. The Constitution gives Congress the power "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" (Article I, Section 8, Clause iv), and "naturalization" is the manner by which an immigrant already in the country can become a citizen.
That means that in the strictest sense of Constitutional law, being that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" (Tenth Amendment), it could be easily argued that power to regulate immigration belongs to the States, and the power to set the rules and methods of how those immigrants would become citizens belongs to the United States.
That was changed, defined or redefined (pick your own word) by way of a series of SCOTUS decisions which all basically argued that allowing the States to decide who came in and who got the boot, and the Feds who could become a citizen would leave us with a hot mess. So, the Feds took over all phases of immigration.
Eventually, the issue of immigration became a inherent sovereign power of the United States.
Having said all that, while the Constitution charges the Executive with enforcing all laws, the Constitution and case law grants Congress the ability to create or "reform" immigration law at will.
The Oath of Office has absolutely nothing to do with the Congressional power to enact or reform immigration laws, and even less to do with the enforcement of those laws, since Congress lacks the Constitutional power to enforce existing laws.
That's right Luis and since the executive REFUSES to faithfully execute the laws and the Congress lacks the WILL to hold him accountable for that passing any new law is an absolutely futile gesture! A total waste of time and effort IMHO!
The will?
The votes Bigun.
A President can't be impeached when his Party hold the Senate.
The truly futile thing is impeachment.
That goes right back of the whole "government we deserve" thing.
That's right Luis and since the executive REFUSES to faithfully execute the laws and the Congress lacks the WILL to hold him accountable for that passing any new law is an absolutely futile gesture! A total waste of time and effort IMHO!
Why new laws? The existing ones are explicit. Enforce them. Hell - shake the taxpayer money tree and make a specific immigrant court. No right of appeal and their decisions are final. They look at the circumstances and decide - stay or deportation. Get deported and come up a second time? Execution.
Now you are beginning to get the picture! There isn't anything wrong with our CURRENT immigration laws except for the fact that some folks don't like them! All they need is enforcing!
Now you are beginning to get the picture! There isn't anything wrong with our CURRENT immigration laws except for the fact that some folks don't like them! All they need is enforcing!
Why new laws? The existing ones are explicit. Enforce them. Hell - shake the taxpayer money tree and make a specific immigrant court. No right of appeal and their decisions are final. They look at the circumstances and decide - stay or deportation. Get deported and come up a second time? Execution.
Damn you, EC... poking the bear again! LOL!
'Shirley'....you can't be serious regarding "Execution!".
:tongue2:
It does have the advantage of discouraging repeat offenders.
See? I 'know' you.
What is more unnerving here is that nobody else questioned or referred to it.
Or can it be that others know him as well and didn't take that part seriously.
Now you are beginning to get the picture! There isn't anything wrong with our CURRENT immigration laws except for the fact that some folks don't like them! All they need is enforcing!
Our survival as a culture depends on immigration from South of our border.
There, I've just poked the biggest bear.
Once everyone is done hyperventilating, I'll return to make my case.
The current laws aren't as great as one would think. I'd like to see a lot better border security. I want to see better id cards that can't so easily be forged (biometrics?). Current laws give the executive a lot of discretion over the legalization process and Obama is using it. I want to see a law that until border governors give a green light on the security of their borders, no legalizations can take place.
I want to see an end to chain migration and the diversity lottery. I want to see an improved standard for the skills and education of those coming into the Country. I want to see the standards tightened on those applying for asylum. I want to see those who are going to come under the legalization process to pay fines, wait in line, have no serious criminal history, be employed, not be on welfare. I want to see that those who don't apply in a reasonable time be sought out, found and deported.
I want to see the laws encourage state governors to participate with the federal government in enforcement of the laws rather than what has been happening these past few years.
And on my side of the aisle I want to see the debate actually center on the specifics of the proposals rather than a broad-brush attack on an entire ethnic population as a means of condemning the proposal.
Our survival as a culture depends on immigration from South of our border.
There, I've just poked the biggest bear.
Once everyone is done hyperventilating, I'll return to make my case.
My 'guess' is that we're not reproducing above the replacement rate, which is understandable in an "I want it NOW!" culture due to economic policies....abortion...and feminism.
Also, immigrants to the South are Christian...if anything, and our culture is Christian-based.
Also, more women will appear that look like Salma Hayek...once the bloodlines intermingle. :laugh:
....which would help address the birth rate issue.
My 'guess' is that we're not reproducing above the replacement rate, which is understandable in an "I want it NOW!" culture due to economic policies....abortion...and feminism.
Also, immigrants to the South are Christian...if anything, and our culture is Christian-based.
Also, more women will appear that look like Salma Hayek...once the bloodlines intermingle. :laugh:
....which would help address the birth rate issue.
We should get back to the idea of the "melting pot" instead of encouraging people to embrace their "cultural identities." Politicians on both sides of the aisle feed on the natural inclination of people to distrust "the other." The Democrats have honed the craft to an art form.
You might be joking about races intermingling, but I think our only hope as a country is if we can encourage young people of different backgrounds to marry and have children. Instead, they're having skype sex and avatar sex, which, the last I looked, isn't going to make too many offspring, Salma Hayeks or otherwise. Our sophisticated technology has brought an entire generation to the point that its members prefer virtual reality to reality.
I maintain that God prefers mixed races as well, since the most healthy and robust creatures on the planet in any species come from the offspring of the most diverse genes.
Very well said!
OK, just don't take it as an endorsement of the mulatto POTUS of ours.
OK, just don't take it as an endorsement of the mulatto POTUS of ours.
Some seem to think that the Hispanic population is as vulnerable to Democrat giveaways as the black population. That is the farthest thing from reality. What percentage of the black voters have supported Republicans in the past 50 years? How about Latino? Any reasonable reading of the voting patters show that Hispanics do actually think for themselves.
A bit racist in your analysis, don't you think? All impoverished, uneducated people are vulnerable to democrat giveaways. Amnesty will greatly increase their number and exponentially when their anchor babies can vote. You bring in millions of impoverished, uneducated people of any race or culture and you will bring in more democrats, culminating in a Marxist hell.
This from you: Do you really think that uneducated, impoverished individuals illegally coming to America will be attracted to GOP principles?
And I'm the racist for suggesting that Latinos can actually think for themselves? You've actually written them off; I'm suggesting we can embrace them and bring more into the GOP. :shrug:
The racist implication was that blacks (and you made several direct contrasts between blacks and Latinos) cannot think for themselves. Uneducated, impoverished individuals illegally coming to America of any race, color or creed will not be attracted to GOP principles. In the short run it is in their best interest to vote for entitlements and that they will do.
Personally I don't believe MOST Americans want anything remotely like amnesty. What they do Want is that the laws (all of them) be faithfully executed!
If republicans are loosing the issue it's because they have failed to make a case! This isn't about right and wrong it's about what the high dollar donors want and to HELL with everything and everyone else!
"We have 50 million Muslims in Europe. There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe—without swords, without guns, without conquest—will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades." - Muammar Gaddafi
"...down goes Frazier! Down goes Fraier!" :laugh:
There is no such thing as an American melting pot.
Never existed.
It's a quilt.
I agree it never existed in reality. Americans have always been divided by racial, geographic, generational and social class differences. But it was an aspiration, and it was a good one, because it suggested we should find common ground and build on it, as opposed to the current political climate which focuses on the differences and suggests that each group should "get theirs" in the form of tax breaks or handouts or both.
There is no such thing as an American melting pot.
Never existed.
It's a quilt.
Alice - I might be slightly in love with you right now.
I agree with you Luis. You know what's so beautiful about a quilt? Every little block of fabric is different and beautiful on it's own - then when you piece them all together it is a beautiful work of love!
Who wants a melting pot - you melt everything together and you get this homogenous sauce that is all one color and one flavor - BORING.
I love different cultures! Just because we are different and want to keep our traditions doesn't mean we can't have common ground. Our common ground is our love for America - with all of it's DIFFERENT patches of fabric, it's beautiful because it's not all the same.
I live in a part of the country that is known for it's unique cultural heritage, Appalachia. I LOVE the culture and history of my people and would absolutely hate it if we were asked to forget it and meld in with everyone else.
I love the immigrants, no matter where they come from. I just think that we should have the right to know who is here, if they have a criminal background, and will they be able to be a productive member of our society without having to be a drain to our resources. If they want to jump through the hoops to become a citizen - great! Get in line.
Should we make it easier for people to get work visas and citizenship? Yes. But we should require that they follow the rules. The problem is that our government has turned it's back on enforcing the rules and encouraged people to sneak in the back door. Why? I'll tell you why and it is evil to the core.
Big business and the politicians they financially support need third world country cheap labor to drive their profits. What is more convenient than having a third world country right on our southern border? They don't want these countries to develop - they want to keep the people desperate so that they'll work cheap - and that's just the whole sordid truth about it.
I agree it never existed in reality. Americans have always been divided by racial, geographic, generational and social class differences. But it was an aspiration, and it was a good one, because it suggested we should find common ground and build on it, as opposed to the current political climate which focuses on the differences and suggests that each group should "get theirs" in the form of tax breaks or handouts or both.
"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 and 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." - Benjamin Franklin, letter to Peter Collinson May 9, 1753/quote]
I will argue that our concerns about immigrants not adapting themselves to our society and the fear that their lack of willingness to adapt will harm the nation is neither new, or unique.
Right...
Blacks are 95% owned by the Democrats and since you believe Hispanics are undeniably heading in the same direction, because of issues of who they are (which you said), I respectfully disagree on several levels. I haven't written them off; you have.
And I would argue that those fears have been well founded in many cases.
Alice - I might be slightly in love with you right now.
And I would argue that those fears have been well founded in many cases.
It is a different world now that America is a welfare state. Decades ago, everyone had to make it on their own with no or little government assistance. We did not have to worry about immigrants sucking on the government tit until it ran dry. Today, the government benefits given by America make work optional for millions. When enough of those achieve political power, the Republic is lost. Amnesty will give the democrats everything they need.
IOW....it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the desire for cheap labor.
That's baloney.
It's to create a 'permanent' underclass who look to your party for assistance...so that you can retain power and play God.
Bah! Beer goggles, I tell ya!
Quilt squares each have a history. The key word is 'history'.
Once you're here, you assimilate. If that means your children only.....you're assimilating.
In one generation....the cheese is melted. :laugh:
IOW....it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the desire for cheap labor.
That's baloney.
It's to create a 'permanent' underclass who look to your party for assistance...so that you can retain power and play God.
Arrrrrrgh - DC! That quilt (history as you say) is snuggly and comforting and keeps us warm in a cold world. It is comfort.
"In one generation....the cheese is melted." - Okay, maybe the next generation moves on to an electric blanket - it sounds "cheesy", but there will come a time when they will treasure the old frayed quilt - made with love and precious history. And they will pass it down to their children.
Beer goggles? Really? :beer:
It is BOTH, DC. There are two powerful forces at play here!! The statists (left, progressives, etc.) are the ones that want what you describe.
The corporatists (just use the Chamber of Commerce as an example) want the cheap labor. Why do you think that they have been agitating for this?? Certainly not "to create a 'permanent' underclass who look to your party for assistance...so that you can retain power and play God."
Yes, there are two very powerful forces that have been agitating and lobbying to further the destruction of the nation. We the People are no longer represented in this, for all intents and purposes.
LOL! Was teasing because your were hypnotizing normally lucid posters with heart-tugging prose.
I love you too.... :beer:
Query: if they pay social security taxes under someone else's social security number, is it fair if that person gets credit for those taxes?
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.
I've seen the data Luis but it has to happen lawfully! No one that I know is opposed to LEGAL immigration!
They had collected $586 Billion as of 2001.
But they aren't holding any of that. It's spent propping up liberal bastions in many cities.
Perhaps, I was being too defensive...being self-employed for over 50 years. LOL!
Economic climate now what it is....my original POV regarding these wonderful people wouldn't be the same.
Because 20% of American households have NOBODY earning wages, it no longer holds true that they are doing jobs Americans don't want to do. They would.
Now they are competing for jobs, while our local and state governments go out of their way to make them comfortable.
Just a tangent but what's the biggest employer in the U.S.A.?
Walmart.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/08/22/ten-largest-employers/2680249/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/08/22/ten-largest-employers/2680249/)
:google:
Where does the Federal gov't stand on that list, add states, counties, locals?
Now, the fertility rates and predictions in my posts have been the subject of many a debate, and many have been challenged.
The fertility rate of Muslims is declining, the inevitable consequence of the economic factors impacting the existence of larger families in Western culture.
But the fertility rate of non-Islamic cultures is declining as well and the decline of the influence of Christianity on Western culture is inarguable, while the increasing footprint of Islam on our culture is equally inarguable.
Post in forums such as this, speak to a decline in our culture. Certainly there are many changes in our culture as well, yet not all of them really equate to a decline, but the decline is unquestionable and gaining speed.
China and Russia are on the rise as international power brokers and Islam is on the rise as Christianity declines.
There are too many more pressing issues concerning our long-term outlook as both a nation and a culture to waste decades arguing about the finer points of something that's already happened, and discussions about what to do about the illegal immigrants that are already here is an absolute waste of our precious time.
The nuances of how to legalize those whom we both need to have present here, and can't really force to leave is a massive waste of our energies.
Get it done already.
Regarding muslim fertility, there is also a lot of genetic failure related birth defects among muslims due to inbreeding.
Se West Virginia is in even more trouble than the rest of the nation?:laughingdog:
Se West Virginia is in even more trouble than the rest of the nation?
Se West Virginia is in even more trouble than the rest of the nation?
Here are the (somewhat) current fertility rates in Europe:
- France - 1.8
- England - 1.6
- Greece - 1.3
- Germany - 1.3
- Italy - 1.2
- Spain - 1.1
The European Union's combined fertility rate is 1.38.
However, the population of the European Union is increasing.
In France the rate of fertility of Muslims is 8.1.
France will be an Islamic Republic in under 30 years.
Europe will be an Islamic continent in 50 years.
Without the influx of Hispanics, legal or otherwise, we could be an Islamic Republic by 2060.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys4zYe0qiJw
We still have to do immigration lawfully or it won't matter what happens to the culture.
Six pages. Nice discussion. And nice, too, to see discussion on immigration without once seeing the word, xenophobe. Come to expect that at TBR. :patriot:
"... or it won't matter what happens to the culture."
Sigh...
I'll give you this tip for free (I enjoy your posts, even if I often don't agree with your lines of thought or reasoning), ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cj59hwfh-HE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cj59hwfh-HE)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys4zYe0qiJw
We still have to do immigration lawfully or it won't matter what happens to the culture.
Thanks!
I'm here through Sunday.
Try the veal.
Our survival as a culture depends on immigration from South of our border.
There, I've just poked the biggest bear.
Once everyone is done hyperventilating, I'll return to make my case.