Give us your tired, your poor....we'll take care of them better than our own

Yes, and if you question the government in most of those states you get the same exact treatment, if not worse. Are you for putting the teabaggers to hard labor? If not, holding up the likes of North Korea or Iran as an example for the US to emulate is utterly hypocritical, if not downright moronic.

Well said Adipic!

Well, while that could give you comfort (after all, we are not North Korea), the fact is that our country is alone in the way we deal with illegal immigrants. Indeed, we are insane.

Here is what is happening in the EU.

Initially, the EU had wanted to limit the period of detention of illegal immigrants to three months. The French Socialists and other leftist parties wanted to stick to this limit and said they will oppose the compromise. But it is expected that the majority in the European Parliament will vote in favor of the compromise. In exceptional cases, illegal immigrants could be held for a maximum of 18 months, but most would be sent back to their country of origin after six. The European Parliament is expected to pass the regulation in June, putting an end to a two-year debate in Europe. The compromise deal would also entail a seven-day period for illegal immigrants to voluntarily return to their home countries. In addition, it would require a re-admission agreement with the country of destination for each illegal immigrant, put special facilities and safeguards in place for unaccompanied children, provide non-governmental organizations with access to detention facilities and impose an EU-wide re-entry ban on involuntary deportees.

The answer is NO you do not have a frim grasp on the situation

* A JOB, ----- NO, no one "gives" you a job; this was ignorant, childish

* A DRIVERS LICENSE, ----- again NO (although some states are doing so because of all the unlicensed driversl this gets them to have insurance at least

* SOCIAL SECURITY CARD, ----- Again NO. What they have been doing is using the SSAN of someone else (dead - the money stays in Social Security; Living, the money goes into the account of that person who's SSAN they use) - you show you have no grasp right here - this is incompetent; a L I E

* WELFARE, ----- again NO, welfare requires a birth certificate; there may be some state programs that do not but NO they can not get welfare

* FOOD STAMPS, ----- again, NO; this is a federal program administered by the states and the states may have other money but again requires citizenship

* CREDIT CARDS, ----- what the he11 does this private service have to do with anything? and generally NO, these require a social security account

* SUBSIDIZED RENT OR A LOAN TO BUY A HOUSE, ----- again NO; HUD requires citizenship however there may be local programs without requirements

* FREE EDUCATION, ----- again NO, you have no grasp of this issue

* FREE HEALTH CARE, ----- well, maybe there are charity organizations but NO there is no program for them to get free health care; so what is your point?

Do you just dislike that their are PRIVATE organizations doing these charitable works?

* A LOBBYIST IN WASHINGTON, ----- again a PRIVATE lobbyist? So What?

* BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS PRINTED IN YOUR LANGUAGE, ----- Please remember that for the land we got with Texas through California the official languages by treaty are english AND spanish

* THE RIGHT TO CARRY YOUR COUNTRY'S FLAG WHILE YOU PROTEST THAT YOU DON'T GET ENOUGH RESPECT, ----- we all have that right, so do you; your point is?

* AND, IN MANY INSTANCES, YOU CAN VOTE. ----- NO, but the enforcement is local - your county registrar is supposed to see a birth certificate or document that requires one - usually a driver's license works.

So; it has been demonstrated that this is a childish temper tantrum post; showing jealousy and rage but no logic, sense, or facts

Thank you Eric. You saved me the trouble....

I got in this same discussion with a friend of mine this week, who was oblivious to how Texas raises revune. She insisted "they" don't pay taxes. Bull@!$%#. This state is primarly funded by property taxes and sales taxes. So if you are living in a home, or buying anything you pay taxes.

I don't even want to imagine what would happen to our state coffers if "they" all packed up their toys and went home.

Wonderful post, Eriq.

So, now we confront the other issues since the issues allegedly involved in North Korea are settled.

Start with jobs. Sure, illegal immigrants get jobs. "Give" is perhaps a broad word, but nothing precludes these jobs and no one is prosecuted for doing so. Even legislators hire illegal aliens.

Driver's License - You already admitted that this was true.

Welfare, and other costs:

Among the findings: Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household. Among the largest costs are Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion). With nearly two-thirds of illegal aliens lacking a high school degree, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments, not their legal status or heavy use of most social services. On average, the costs that illegal households impose on federal coffers are less than half that of other households, but their tax payments are only one-fourth that of other households. Many of the costs associated with illegals are due to their American-born children, who are awarded U.S. citizenship at birth. Thus, greater efforts at barring illegals from federal programs will not reduce costs because their citizen children can continue to access them. If illegal aliens were given amnesty and began to pay taxes and use services like households headed by legal immigrants with the same education levels, the estimated annual net fiscal deficit would increase from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for a total net cost of $29 billion. Costs increase dramatically because unskilled immigrants with legal status -- what most illegal aliens would become -- can access government programs, but still tend to make very modest tax payments. Although legalization would increase average tax payments by 77 percent, average costs would rise by 118 percent. The fact that legal immigrants with few years of schooling are a large fiscal drain does not mean that legal immigrants overall are a net drain -- many legal immigrants are highly skilled. The vast majority of illegals hold jobs. Thus the fiscal deficit they create for the federal government is not the result of an unwillingness to work. The results of this study are consistent with a 1997 study by the National Research Council, which also found that immigrants' education level is a key determinant of their fiscal impact.

Voting - I witnessed first hand the failure to enforce the requirement for any identification during the caucuses. Many were potentially illegal immigrants or not citizens.

Of course, facts are unimportant to those who hew to some line that others "were going to make." Of course, facts are the first casualties in the endless war of lies and half-truths. And the biggest ones of all come from those who fail to provide any support, but state "facts" as if they are true. Or maybe Medicare and Medicaid and food stamps are not welfare. And perhaps social security is not the sieve we know it to be. And by the way, I saw a bunch of angels dancing on a pin.

pc,

Perhaps you can find a source that is a touch less... right wing nutcase? Here's a little snippet of something I found that takes issue with CIS:

The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), an anti-immigration advocacy group that masquerades as an objective “think tank,” has issued yet another “study” that concludes with the same “findings” and “policy implications” as virtually every other CIS report.

Let’s be clear: CIS was birthed by FAIR, the militant anti-immigration group. The CIS Executive Director moved from FAIR to CIS to head up the organization. Although now independent, the two organizations share the same basic agenda: an American version of what in Europe is called “zero immigration.”

In this particular report, what CIS leaves out is notable. According to Frank Sharry, Executive Director of the National Immigration Forum, “Where is the honest appraisal of how narrow-cast fiscal studies miss the larger and more important contributions that immigrants make to economic growth, competitiveness, and productivity? Where is the acknowledgement that overall immigrants pay more in taxes than they use in services and contribute billions to our national income every year? Where are the estimates of how much the U.S. benefits from the education immigrants receive in their countries of birth? Why don’t they acknowledge what honest studies found: that after the legalization program signed into law by President Reagan wages for immigrant workers increased and English language and jobs skills increased, and productivity increased? And how does CIS square the “findings” of its “studies” that portray immigrants as an economic drain on the U.S. economy with the incontrovertible fact that this nation of immigrants has the strongest economy in the history of the world?”

To learn more about how CIS promotes junk studies, see here.

Voting - I witnessed first hand the failure to enforce the requirement for any identification during the caucuses. Many were potentially illegal immigrants or not citizens.

Oh look, anecdotal evidence. And I suppose, what with your rant on 'facts' below, that we should just take above evidence to be fact? Riiiiight.. Quit peddling the bull@!$%# here kid, it ain't gonna float.

Well, let's see. You cite the "work" of an author who leads a group that is designed to "uphold" America's "tradition as a nation of immigrants:"

About The Author

Frank Sharry is the Executive Director of the National Immigration Forum. The Forum, based in Washington D.C., is one of the nation’s premier immigration policy organizations, and has a membership of over 250 organizations nationwide. The Forum’s mission is to embrace and uphold America’s tradition as a nation of immigrants.

I would love for you to explain your position by means other than this guy. But let's look at what he says.

Where is the honest appraisal of how narrow-cast fiscal studies miss the larger and more important contributions that immigrants make to economic growth, competitiveness, and productivity? Where is the acknowledgement that overall immigrants pay more in taxes than they use in services and contribute billions to our national income every year? Where are the estimates of how much the U.S. benefits from the education immigrants receive in their countries of birth?

I see no study at all here, just a claim that "overall immigrants" pay taxes. To whom? Sales taxes? And what about that incredible shift from illegal immigrants to "overall immigrants." Some change, n'est pas?

Then, what about the reality of this man's other claims of some problems with the study.

Most of the allegations regarding a "study" in support of immigration come from a 1997 report that was given a limited scope of study and had numerous miscalculations. Indeed, despite the twist put on that study by the NYT, the facts remain that it was not a positive study for immigration in many ways.

One of the problems with the 1997 "study" is the following:

The summary (p.4) says that immigration "does not change the rate of growth of income per capita," which is an odd statement in light of the fact that the immigrants' income is less than the U.S. average. Their own figures contradict their statement. Their estimated figures of a $1 to $10 billion increase in GNP work out to $3.75 to $37.45 per capita of the initial population, which translates to a new income of 1.00014 to 1.0014 of current per capita GNP ($27,000) ö hardly an impressive gain ö but there are now roughly 840,000 more residents as a result of one year's immigration, raising total population by 0.3% (to 1.003). Dividing the increased income (1.00014 to 1.0014) by the increased population (1.003) leads to a decline in per capita GNP of $77 or $54, depending on which gross figure ($1 billion or $10 billion) one chooses.

By the way:

The Study Director for the report came to the NRC from the Urban Institute, which has been the most ardent defender of the argument that immigrants put more into taxes than they take out in benefits. From the outside, it is impossible to tell whether that background influenced this report.

Moreover,

The panel plunged into the endless debate as to whether immigrants take out more in welfare and direct services than they contribute in taxes. They concluded that immigrant households imposed a net fiscal burden of $1,178 on each native-headed California household in 1994-5. For the country as a whole, however, they estimated the burden at far less: "on the order of $166 to $226." So far, the immigrants' impact thus is mildly negative. The panel then built a model of the future. From it, they predicted, with many reservations, that "the net fiscal impact of immigration is positive under most scenarios," but that "the impact of an increase in the annual flow of immigrants would initially be negative overall for a couple of decades before turning positive." In other words: pie in the sky. Later.

So, the claims of the "goodness" of immigration were focused on the prospect of decades of negative effects until the positive came.

And, perhaps more significantly, came in 1997, before the great influx from the south since that time. In fact, the study is so flawed in its presentation that one could almost overlook that the Urban Institute had its hand in shaping this study.

I have noticed an inclination among liberals to contend that studies are wrong, and then to point to clearly flawed studies and at the same time denigrate any source of any information that contradicts their positions by claiming they are biased. My observations come not only through Newsvine, which presents one of the most one-sided propaganda mills in the country, but also among liberals and news agencies all over the world.

Lost in this demagoguery is the reality of facts and the facts of reality. Too bad. Because at one time, we had the upper hand. Now we are lost in defending anything by any means no matter the consequences, and in that we have lost the battle and the war.

I believe you have that totally backwards. We DON'T want illegals working, but it's the poor liberals that scream bloody murder that we are being discriminatory....

No way should we lower our standards to those goverments of North Korea, Iran & the ilk....the right IS discrimatory & it's not just to foreigners.You guys prefer everyone to be, consertative, "christian", white, straight, in some cases southren and have an unquestioning lower IQ that accepts whatever hypocrisy vomits forth from the mouths of, Beck, Rush, Cheny & Palin.

I believe you have that totally backwards. We DON'T want illegals working, but it's the poor liberals that scream bloody murder that we are being discriminatory

I don't think so dude. Every time ICE cracked down on employers or proposed new regs, the Repubs in Congress screamed bloody murder. Me? I'd empose fines of 100K per illegal employee. Wanna make a bet on how fast this crap would stop?

And I would agree with you 100%, however, would you care to make a wager on the amount of discrimination law suits would be filed on behalf of the illegal worker against the company?

wager on the amount of discrimination law suits would be filed on behalf of the illegal worker against the company?

No, because if you were declined a job for being illegal, the would be employee would win the case for not hiring as they were following the law. Plus, how many illegal immigrants can afford a lawsuit?

Good point HVYM

Ok, you can believe that all you want, but until you are forced to defend yourself and your company because you terminated an illegal worker, you will not understand.

Excuse me, I meant to say the would be EMPLOYER would win for following the rule of law.

I'm sure any law that imposes fines, would have a clause in it for existing illegal employees. Prehaps one that alows for a grace period that gives they employee a window of time to gain citizenship before the fines are imposed & and a dock on the pay to recoup sums.

RZ, you may be familiar with federal form I-9; it's been around for 2 decades +.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) seeks to control illegal immigration by eliminating employment opportunity as an incentive for unauthorized persons to come to the United States, by prohibiting the hiring or continued employment of aliens whom employers know are unauthorized to work in the United States. To comply with the law, all U.S. employers must verify the employment eligibility and identity of all employees hired to work in the United States after November 6, 1986 by completing Employment Eligibility Verification forms (Forms I-9) for all employees, including U.S. citizens. Employers who hire or continue to employ individuals knowing that they are not authorized to be employed in the United States may face civil and criminal penalties.

Joanna: I am very familiar with the I-9 form that has been around of decades, however as you stated the form specifically states employer must examine and verify a documentfrom list A or from list B and list C. Problem with the antiquated form is how do you tell if the documentation from list A, B or C is authentic.

Since the introduction of E-Verify from the government that actually verifies the SS number to the person name, it was virtually impossible to know if the documentation was real. As it stands, the E-Verify program is only "voluntary" to companies that wish to participate. I participate so I do not get dragged into court...again.

rz, years ago, I had a phone number for Social Security that I used routinely in the hire of new workers. It was a simple, short call where I gave the SS number and name and the rep from SS would confirm or not confirm. What I found odd is that the verification process could not be done prior to employment; in response to their (SS) question, I would say that the individual was employed. In other words, the I-9 could not be used to deny employment. I'm curious why your company was 'dragged into court' considering there are penalties to corps for non-compliance.

Without getting into a long drawn out discussion, it was simple. We did everything that we as a company was required to do to "verify" the legal status of an employee. When, I found out that he was actually "illegal" I terminated him. He obtained a lawyer and sued me on discrimination that I terminated him because he was an alien. Although, he was illegal, the was represented by an attorney. Their case was I, as an employer should have know that his documents were falsified but we hired him anyway at minimum wage to make a profit on him. It was BS...I won but it cost me plenty.

I won but it cost me plenty.

You don't say whether this case actually made it to trial but anytime attorneys are involved, there's sure to be plenty of costs.

Joanna - I know it is silly but the issue is that you can not have an I-9 legally until the person IS hired (probationally at least) - it is illegal to have that info on a non-employee

Many temp agencies xerox your Driver's License and Social Security card - Illegally, and if they get caught with this it gets shredded and sometimes fines or not being allowed to bid for gov't jobs; but the temp agencies just see it as being easier to hire you when a job does come up and ignore the law

Again, it is a violation of the Privacy Act of 1988 for you to have the information on an I-9 (e.g. a social security number) BEFORE hiring the person

Eriq, re the I-9: I noted above how odd it is that the verification process must be done after hiring. Considering what the I-9 is supposed to do and that it is an INS/USCIS form, what's the point of going through the new hire process only to find a worker is not eligible for employment? With E-verify the eligibility question is answered immediately. Silly indeed.

They are only support illegal’s so they can power grab their vote.

Illegal immigrants cannot vote. Maybe you should have paid more attention while you were getting that free education you're entitled to as a citizen.

Illegal immigrants cannot vote. Correct, however their family that is here legally can and will. It is not a secret that a very, very large percentage, if not all of legal immigrants vote democrat.

I fully understand your feeling. I am sorry you had to get insulted by SH for simply trying to shop in your own country.

I wasn't insulting her; trust me when I want to insult it won't be at all ambiguous.

rz,

If they are here legally, then it is up to the Republican candidates to appeal to them in order to garner their vote.

marcv,

Keep up the personal attacks and I'll see to it that your account be suspended.

BA, : )

BA you are right, but it is difficult when the republican party does not believe in giving amnesty, welfare, free health care ect. as does the democratic party.

As I will your's BA !

Don't think for a minute that you will dish out insults and not get insulted back!

but it is difficult when the republican party does not believe in giving amnesty, welfare, free health care ect. as does the democratic party.

If you're not for the things that people want, then you're not going to get their vote, simple as that. (Disclaimer: I'm in no way saying I endorse or believe in the above, just stating the facts.)

marcv,

Sure you will buddy. You've been here for what, 8 months, and contributed all of 2 seeds. I've been here for 2 years, with 2 articles, 209 seeds, and over 4,000 comments. From the CoH:

A user's participation at Newsvine is judged as a whole.

Good luck with that.

whatever BA

BAjunkie

Illegal immigrants cannot vote. Maybe you should have paid more attention while you were getting that free education you're entitled to as a citizen.

They've been voting in Washington State, and have been actively encouraged to vote in the 'illegal alien sanctuary city' of Seattle. And as of last month, they were still allowed to get driver's licenses without proving they are citizens.

http://www.kndo.com/Global/story.asp?S=11720475

Hop on the Washington Department of Licensing web site and you'll find plenty of information on how to get your driver's license. Provide proof you are who you say you are, prove you live in the state; but you don't have to prove you live here legally.

"Washington is one of a few states in our country where the legislature has not passed laws making that a requirement," says Brad Benfield, spokesman for the DOL.

If they voted, then they voted illegally, and the officials responsible for overseeing that vote can be brought to task for it.

Corie - NO

Proof you are who you say you are means that you proved to someone that you had a birth certificate - that is how you got that proof. The current law does not specifically require a birth certificate for that; so what?

NO they have not been voting (same situation as a driver's license, it requires a Birth Certificate or ID that required a birth certificate)

Correct, however their family that is here legally can and will. It is not a secret that a very, very large percentage, if not all of legal immigrants vote democrat.

SO WHAT?????

Rightwingers are always making this claim of illegal voting and never have anything to back it up. phoenix3, this is the ilk you've cast your lot with. You must have a strong stomach.

Yes, & whats also mindnuming to me is that this conversation was started today as we see more images of the suffering in Haiti. & learn more of their suffering even prior the quake. A little compassion for those who dream to come here to seek a better life should be shown this week of all weeks.

In California (and others) they had temporary green cards and were called "braceros"; Reagan lobbied congress for more braceros as Gov of Cali

Not to mention the banksterclass which works very hard, night and day, to pilfer the pockets of the entire country.

Well, this is a refreshing change, phoenix--I mean from the usual posturing of someone with your views on illegal immigration. I commend your candor and willingness to be persuaded. First, I would want to stipulate that my differing views on how to deal with illegal immigrants doesn't mean that I'm "for" illegal immigration. I believe our current situation is unjust and hurtful to all parties. All too often the more militant anti-immigrant groups or individuals, such as the one who created the email you used, tend to label us, who favor a far less draconian way of dealing with the issue, as just wanting to do nothing. As to the economic issue, here's a link that I think summarizes both sides of the economic question fairly. Yes, it is a Wikipedia entry which I admit should not be taken as any kind of final authority on anything. But it does have plenty of references to use to get a very good grounding on the problems.

Illegal Immigration

I think we should try to agree on a few points: 1. There is no way that any effective solution could include enticing people to come forward, pay thousands of dollars, agree to go back to where they came from and wait several years to be processed back into the country. 2. Even less plausible is any notion that we could somehow round up 12 million people and send them back. 3. There is no practical way that all border crossings could be stopped effectively enough to make any dent in the numbers coming in. 4. Regardless of the argument on the economic benefit or detriment that illegal immigrants bring to the country, there's no question that bringing them to a legal status where they have both the protections and the obligations of legal residents would be a huge, unqualified benefit. Government revenues would increase (I read a recent item that put the net gain to the state and federal tax bases of $1.2 trillion over, I believe, a ten year period).

I would also add that I don't thing that there must be a mandatory pathway to citizenship for everyone, but I wouldn't suggest that we should all agree on that.

Your turn.

And the idea that local cities and churches are blatantly going against federal law to act as "sanctuaries" just blows my mind.

Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about the States' RIghts movement over healthcare? After all, if the states have the right to nullify national healthcare policy, don't they also have the right to nullify national welfare policy and offer benefits to whomever they want?

Also, how do you feel about churches in China openly defying government policies there?

Just wondering if there is any consistency to your feelings or if they are only aroused when illegal immigration is involved.

Comparing drug dealers to hardworking, albeit illegal, immigrants is pretty scummy thing to do. The illegal drug business results in tens of thousands of deaths, both from murder and drug use. Try to stay out of the gutter in your arguments. It only weakens your case.

We need to deport illegal immigrants.....come here the right way

How you going to do that?

Your side can't even get majorities in either party or branch/level of government.

Every year more cities become sanctuary cities.

P.S. Which, bringing economics back into it, would cost the citizens of this country far more than anything associated with illegal immigration does now and still wouldn't work.

And they'd just come back anyway. We can't secure the border between Syria and Iraq and the US-Mexican border is far, far longer.