Report shows Obama is granting de facto amnesty to almost all illegal aliens

[aGameOfThrones]

(Daily Caller) – The Obama administration’s immigration polities have provided a de facto amnesty for most of the illegal immigrants living in the United States, according to Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions.

“Under the guise of setting ‘priorities,’ the Administration has determined that almost anyone in the world who can enter the United States is free to illegally live, work and claim benefits here as long as they are not caught committing a felony or other serious crime,” Sessions said Wednesday in conjunction with a three-page report, obtained by The Daily Caller, detailing the administration’s immigration “lawlessness.”

Sessions’ three-pager labeled “DHS Enforcement Data Reveals Administrative Amnesty Much Broader Than Previously Understood” shows even future visa overstays and illegal immigrants will not face any repercussions.

FAX BLAST SPECIAL: NO AMNESTY for Illegals!

“[A] review of Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICS) published enforcement statistics for 2013 reveals a shocking truth: DHS has blocked the enforcement of immigration law for the overwhelming majority of violations — and is planning to widen that amnesty even further,” the document reads.

The review of the 2013 ICE data revealed that less than 0.2 percent of the approximately 12 million illegal immigrants and visa overstays who were not convicted of a serious criminal offense were placed in removal proceedings. Further, merely .08 percent of the 12 million who were not convicted of a serious crime or a repeat immigration offender were placed in removal proceedings.

Thus, 99.92 percent of illegal immigrants and visa overstays without serious crime convictions or repeat immigration offenses did not face deportation.

The report recalled two 2013 local news reports — one from Arizona, the other from Texas — about ICE simply releasing illegal immigrant workers “because they did not have known outstanding warrants or criminal convictions” and were therefore considered low priority.

“Instances like these are not the exception, but the rule. DHS has decided that the Administration’s ‘priorities’ trump the immigration laws passed by Congress,” the report reads. “The Administration’s priorities have therefore provided an executive amnesty not only to the great majority of the 12 million living here illegally today (including even the most recent arrivals) but to those who will violate immigration law tomorrow. It is an open invitation for a future immigrant to overstay a visa, or to enter the U.S. illegally, knowing that they will be immune from enforcement as long as they avoid being convicted of a felony or other serious crime once here.”

According to the document, this “free pass” applies to illegal immigrants even if they have a criminal record — so long as that record does not meet the level of an agency “priority.”

“In effect, DHS has ordered ICE to largely abandon crime prevention and to wait until after a serious criminal offense has occurred, a conviction has been obtained, and a prison sentence has been served at taxpayer expense — and to only take action subsequent to the offense by providing shuttle transport to the airport,” the report reads. “Much of ICE’s operation has been reduced to transporting convicted felons from prisons to planes.”

And while the number of illegal immigrants deported due to their illegality is already very small, the document argues that fraction is about to get even smaller due to the administration’s “enforcement review.”

“DHS is considering exempting even some of the most habitual immigration violators and fugitives, offering near enforcement immunity to any illegal immigrant who does not commit a felony or other grave offense,” it reads.

The report concludes by calling the Obama administration’s actions “breathtaking and without precedent.”

http://www.teaparty.org/report-shows-obama-granting-de-facto-amnesty-almost-illegal-aliens-37685/

[staerker]

It's 'illegal' to live and work in the US. haha #landOfTheFree

[FloralScent]

It's 'illegal' to live and work in the US. haha #landOfTheFree

Enjoy your lower wages and shittier work conditions as the glut of illegal and legal invaders snatch up jobs that Americans want too much money to do. Just remember, corporate America has got your back on this issue, and this would only be the case if it were aligned with the best interests of their fellow countrymen.

[staerker]

Enjoy your lower wages and shittier work conditions as the glut of illegal and legal invaders snatch up jobs that Americans want too much money to do. Just remember, corporate America has got your back on this issue, and this would only be the case if it were aligned with the best interests of their fellow countrymen.

You're saying the free market should be illegal? If someone can provide the same service that I can, at a lower cost, sucks to be me.

[Zippyjuan]

Enjoy your lower wages and shittier work conditions as the glut of illegal and legal invaders snatch up jobs that Americans want too much money to do. Just remember, corporate America has got your back on this issue, and this would only be the case if it were aligned with the best interests of their fellow countrymen.

The "glut of invaders" has been zero or less for seven years now (starting in 2007).

http://immigration.procon.org/files/1-illegal-immigration-images/population_studies_of_immigrants_in_US_illegally.P NG
http://immigration.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000844

Of course we could hire a few million more police force to stop everybody on the streets and check IDs on everyone to see if they have proper papers (yes, everyone including you dear reader- we can't afford to miss any) and kick anybody without proper papers on them out of the country- legal citizen or not. That would clean it up (at a huge cost to civil liberties). And it would create more jobs for citizens.

[puppetmaster]

stop giving welfare to illegals

[AlexAmore]

This topic always bring the statists out of the woodwork. Please...tell us exactly how free market fails us here. Please tell us exactly why anybody, especially liberals, should believe in the free market if it has such a HUGE, GAPING flaw of destroying labor markets and wages with mere immigration.

http://reactiongifs.me/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Bill-Hader-Popcorn-reaction-Gif-On-The-Daily-Show.gif

[Zippyjuan]

stop giving welfare to illegals

A simplistic answer which would have no real impact on illegal immigration.

Why did net illegal immigration stop in 2007? Welfare payments increased. That should have meant more coming to "live for free" if that was the reason. Instead they quit coming. Why? Jobs became harder to find. Not that welfare was stopped. They come for work and opportunity- to "live free" not "live FOR free". If they are too lazy to work, they will likely be too lazy to spend money to leave home and go someplace else to not work. We have a bigger problem with too many citizens on welfare.

[puppetmaster]

A simplistic answer which would have no real impact on illegal immigration.

Why did net illegal immigration stop in 2007? Welfare payments increased. That should have meant more coming to "live for free" if that was the reason. Instead they quit coming. Why? Jobs became harder to find. Not that welfare was stopped. They come for work and opportunity- to "live free" not "live FOR free". If they are too lazy to work, they will likely be too lazy to spend money to leave home and go someplace else to not work. We have a bigger problem with too many citizens on welfare.

I can show you the welfare line here in Nevada and you will see a huge number of non US citizens collecting benefits.
I also know a few that work AND collect benefits so to say benefits have no impact is simplistic.
I have a friend who works there and she says more than half are not citizens.....that is a strain on the system. Besides, do they really know how many are here?...of course not, that is a guess at the very best and comes from GOV or a .org with an agenda. I am not blind to reality.

I do agree that there are too many people on the dole

[GunnyFreedom]

I don't understand this. I mean, I hate Obama and pretty much everything he does, so I'm not trying to defend him I am just trying to bring some clarity here. How is he promoting de facto amnesty when IIRC aren't per-capita deportations of illegal immigrants at an all-time high these last 4 years?

[Zippyjuan]

I can show you the welfare line here in Nevada and you will see a huge number of non US citizens collecting benefits.
I also know a few that work AND collect benefits so to say benefits have no impact is simplistic.
I have a friend who works there and she says more than half are not citizens.....that is a strain on the system. Besides, do they really know how many are here?...of course not, that is a guess at the very best and comes from GOV or a .org with an agenda. I am not blind to reality.

I do agree that there are too many people on the dole

Just curious- how does she know who is and isn't a citizen? Do they have to show papers when they apply? Illegal immigrants aren't supposed to be elgible for federal aid. Thanks for the info.

I found this:
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/11/ImmigrantAccess/Eligibility/ib.shtml

Overview of Immigrants’ Eligibility for SNAP, TANF, Medicaid, and CHIP


While many immigrants who are lawfully present in the United States are eligible for public benefits, there are restrictions based on citizenship and immigration status that limit their access to several federal means-tested programs. These include many of the programs intended to support work, economic stability, nutrition, and health for low-income children and families: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),[2] Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP).[3] Historically, unauthorized immigrants were ineligible for federally funded assistance, but welfare reform in 1996 also restricted access for lawfully present immigrants based on their immigration status, when they arrived in the United States, and length of U.S. residence.

PRWORA established two categories of immigrants: qualified immigrants, including lawful permanent residents (LPRs), refugees, and other protected immigration statuses; and nonqualified immigrants.[4] Nonqualified is not synonymous with unauthorized immigrant status. The group of nonqualified immigrants for public benefit eligibility combines various immigration categories, including lawfully present immigrants such as students and tourists, immigrants in protected statuses such as asylum seekers, and unauthorized immigrants (see figure 5 for definitions).

The second important provision of welfare reform was to make a distinction for qualified immigrants arriving prior to the enactment of PRWORA (August 22, 1996) and those arriving after, and to further divide the latter group into those with five or fewer years versus more than five years in the United States in qualified status. Welfare reform limited access to public benefits for post-PRWORA immigrants with less than five years of qualified status, also called the five-year ban. Select groups of immigrants are exempt from the five-year ban: refugees, asylees and other immigrants exempt on humanitarian grounds;[5] and members of the military and veterans (and their spouses and children).

PRWORA also set parameters for states’ ability to administer public benefit programs. First, states can use state funding to cover qualified immigrants during the five-year ban to replace the loss of SNAP, TANF, and Medicaid benefits. States can also provide state-only-funded assistance to nonqualified immigrants. Second, outside of the five-year ban, states are required to cover certain immigrants: refugees and asylees, LPRs with 40 qualifying quarters of work, and members of the military and veterans (and their spouses and children). But states can determine whether other qualified immigrants are eligible for TANF and Medicaid (Broder and Blazer 2010; Fix et al. 2009; Fortuny and Chaudry, 2011).

Detailed information on eligibility under federal law for the specific immigration categories for each program is available in the comprehensive review of literature developed for this study (Fortuny and Chaudry 2011).[6] Some special provisions enacted since 1996 apply to children and pregnant women and are worth highlighting. Since 2002, qualified immigrant children are not subject to the five-year ban for SNAP benefits. Since 2009, children and pregnant women can be eligible for Medicaid/ CHIP, including during the five-year ban, if they reside in a state that has chosen to extend coverage under the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 (CHIPRA).

Under CHIPRA, states can receive federal funding to provide Medicaid and/or CHIP to lawfully residing children up to age 21 and pregnant women for 60 days postpartum, including during the five-year ban.[7] The lawfully present group that states can cover is a broader group than the qualified immigrants group as defined by welfare reform. States choosing this option can provide coverage to children only, to pregnant women only, or to both, and can do so through Medicaid only or through both Medicaid and CHIP (NILC 2010a).[8] States that have chosen this option are discussed in the Medicaid section below.

States, though, may have different rules.

[staerker]

I can show you the welfare line here in Nevada and you will see a huge number of non US citizens collecting benefits.
I also know a few that work AND collect benefits so to say benefits have no impact is simplistic.

Go to any (/most) other state in the US and you will see huge numbers of US citizens collecting benefits.

Immigration is not the problem, and to fixate on who has more of a right to redistributed wealth is not only a distraction from the true issue, but dehumanizing to portions of our population.

#bornInTheUSA

[GunnyFreedom]

Just curious- how does she know who is and isn't a citizen? Do they have to show papers when they apply? Illegal immigrants aren't supposed to be elgible for federal aid. Thanks for the info.

I found this:
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/11/ImmigrantAccess/Eligibility/ib.shtml

Overview of Immigrants’ Eligibility for SNAP, TANF, Medicaid, and CHIP



States, though, may have different rules.

In NC they check against SSN to verify identity. The SSN has to match the person's identity and be listed with the SSA as a US Citizen. They verify this online with a special access to the SSA system that state welfare offices get. If someone does not have an SSN, they have to apply for one before they are allowed to file. They are then required to produce a birth certificate proving they were born in the US, or INS papers proving they are a citizen. That is only for temporary aid until the SSN comes back, whereupon they check against SSA records for citizenship status.

[GunnyFreedom]

The "welfare for illegals" in NC is really for the children of illegals. It is strictly against the law for an illegal immigrant to collect any type of welfare EXCEPT emergency kidney dialysis. I am not sure why that one medical procedure is an explicit exception, but it is.

[Zippyjuan]

Go to any (/most) other state in the US and you will see huge numbers of US citizens collecting benefits.

Immigration is not the problem, and to fixate on who has more of a right to redistributed wealth is not only a distraction from the true issue, but dehumanizing to portions of our population.

#bornInTheUSA

Immigration is usually a deflection- blame somebody who can't vote against you for your problems.

[Zippyjuan]

In NC they check against SSN to verify identity. The SSN has to match the person's identity and be listed with the SSA as a US Citizen. They verify this online with a special access to the SSA system that state welfare offices get. If someone does not have an SSN, they have to apply for one before they are allowed to file. They are then required to produce a birth certificate proving they were born in the US, or INS papers proving they are a citizen. That is only for temporary aid until the SSN comes back, whereupon they check against SSA records for citizenship status.

Thanks for the info!

[PRB]

he also deported record numbers

www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/12/24/167970002/obama-administration-deported-record-1-5-million-people

[rpfocus]

he also deported record numbers

www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/12/24/167970002/obama-administration-deported-record-1-5-million-people

Exactly. He's hardly "granting de-facto amnesty." But illegals will no doubt get it, because 11+ million illegals aren't going anywhere. The problem is that the government REFUSES to enforce immigration laws. The invasion began while Reagan was asleep at the wheel, and now the kids and grandkids, so-called Dreamers, want their benefits.

[Zippyjuan]

Exactly. He's hardly "granting de-facto amnesty." But illegals will no doubt get it, because 11+ million illegals aren't going anywhere. The problem is that the government REFUSES to enforce immigration laws. The invasion began while Reagan was asleep at the wheel, and now the kids and grandkids, so-called Dreamers, want their benefits.

What more should be done which isn't? We have had zero net illegal immigration over the last seven years. Deportations have been at record levels. Spending on border security is twice what it was when Obama took office. We have twice as many border agents. Just under half of those currently in the country illegally came here legally and overstayed (student, work, and travel visas).

[PRB]

What more should be done which isn't? We have had zero net illegal immigration over the last seven years. Deportations have been at record levels. Spending on border security is twice what it was when Obama took office. We have twice as many border agents. Just under half of those currently in the country illegally came here legally and overstayed (student, work, and travel visas).

Do what Arizona did.

[Zippyjuan]

Start checking IDs on anybody who looks Mexican?

[PRB]

Start checking IDs on anybody who looks Mexican?

if the goal was to make Mexicans uncomfortable and feel unwelcome, would that not be the logical thing to do?

[GunnyFreedom]

if the goal was to make Mexicans uncomfortable and feel unwelcome, would that not be the logical thing to do?

What about well-tanned Americans with dark hair?

[PRB]

What about well-tanned Americans with dark hair?

they'd probably become unintended victims of racism and statism. but even then, you're assuming race is only skin deep, hardly, or else albinos would look just like white people.

[AlexAmore]

We should definitely let cops make more judgement calls.

[Cutlerzzz]

Enjoy your lower wages and shittier work conditions as the glut of illegal and legal invaders snatch up jobs that Americans want too much money to do. Just remember, corporate America has got your back on this issue, and this would only be the case if it were aligned with the best interests of their fellow countrymen.

In this post: A larger division of labor is bad, labor is one commodity as opposed to millions of different commodities.

[Zippyjuan]

We should definitely let cops make more judgement calls.

SO you would not mind being stopped on the street by one for no reason.

[GunnyFreedom]

they'd probably become unintended victims of racism and statism. but even then, you're assuming race is only skin deep, hardly, or else albinos would look just like white people.

:confused: You know white people can be albinos too, right? Because white people also have pigment in our skin. Or, is that thought just too horrible to contemplate?

[PRB]

SO you would not mind being stopped on the street by one for no reason.
http://i.imgur.com/qi7PzQc.jpg

[PRB]

:confused: You know white people can be albinos too, right? Because white people also have pigment in our skin. Or, is that thought just too horrible to contemplate?

yes, white people can be albinos too. but being an albino, you can still tell if a person is African American, Asian, or European. that's my point. race is not mere skin deep.

[LibForestPaul]

It's 'illegal' to live and work in the US. haha #landOfTheFree

I do not want dirty fucks with parasites, no notion that women are equal and do not walk ten paces behind, complain we don't ring out 5 times a day, kill all their girl children, don't know how to use a latrine. I iz a bad person no doubt.

[GunnyFreedom]

yes, white people can be albinos too. but being an albino, you can still tell if a person is African American, Asian, or European. that's my point. race is not mere skin deep.

Pretty sure you are the only person here to raise the strawman that "race is only about skin tone." Did you have fun knocking it over?

[Zippyjuan]

I do not want dirty fucks with parasites, no notion that women are equal and do not walk ten paces behind, complain we don't ring out 5 times a day, kill all their girl children, don't know how to use a latrine. I iz a bad person no doubt.

Mmm. Ok. ?

[PRB]

Pretty sure you are the only person here to raise the strawman that "race is only about skin tone." Did you have fun knocking it over?

I said that? Where?

[GunnyFreedom]

I said that? Where?

That was your strawman that you just spent multiple posts trying to disprove. I just stood off the the side mocking you for it. :)

[PRB]

That was your strawman that you just spent multiple posts trying to disprove. I just stood off the the side mocking you for it. :)

what was my strawman? what was I trying to disprove?

[GunnyFreedom]

what was my strawman? what was I trying to disprove?

The notion that "race is only skin deep" aka skin tone.

[DamianTV]

Before the welfare state existed, the only way a person could survive, whether born here, or immigrate "legally" or "illegally" was to work and become a "productive" part of society.

Our Govt is exceptionally good at getting us to point our fingers at each other while absolving itself as being the source of the problem. In this case, our Govt, as in many cases, is the real source of the problem, not the solution. It creates "incentives" to come here "illegally" and people respond to incentives, regardless of ethnicity or where they were born.

Would a solution perhaps be one of Free Market? No welfare, but absolutely NO Govt intervention. Say a person wants to move from Canada to Ohio. Do they speak the same language? If they do, they will be able to work in some places. If they dont, they may be able to work in other places. Do they have children? What happens to the children? Typical Govt curtain to hide behind. Without a Govt run school, if that person wants their kid to go to school, they would most likey have to pay for it. If they needed Medical Care (not insurance), they'd also have to pay for it. If they wanted to EAT, same thing, they'd also have to pay for it. Thus, if a person is not able to provide for themselves once they immigrate, there is a strong incentive to not immigrate.

But introduce Govt. Welfare. Education. Food Stamps. These are all strong incentives to immigrate and not become a part of that society. Immigrating illegally also has an incentive where a "low pay worker" can get paid under the table and thus, avoid paying taxes on what they bring home. Again, Govt (well, the IRS) is the source of the problem, not the illegal immigration.

Now, Govt solution to any problem that it causes is typically MORE Govt! Once we have a welfare society that panders to "illegal", the Govt solution would be to put restrictions on who can immigrate and who can not. It is an Empty Gesture. The desire is to get the "best and brightest", while leaving the "undesirables" in their country of origin, yet the result is that once all the "best and brightest" leave, that society is no longer up to the standards of where the "best and brightest" live. It creates an incentive for the "undesired" to leave and move to where the "best and brightest" live, regardless if they can become a part of that society or not. The terms "best and brightest" are extremely subjective. Those that can do well for themselves should be able to do well regardless of where they live. But we also have a tendancy to define "best" as one who makes the most money. The "brightest" are also thought of as those who use their intellect to better society, but can also have a very dark side. Hitler was "bright", but was no philanthropist. The very mention of his name incites thoughts of the worst that humanity has to offer, and the word "bright" was not associated with his recall in the minds of the average person at all, despite having been very "bright".

The US wages economic warfare on nearly every other country on this planet. We consume resources and goods while "exporting our inflation". The Petrol Dollar has caused the value of the competing currencies of other countries to be devalued to such a degree that a dollar here will barely buy you a sandwich or candy bar, but can be stretched much further when spent in other countries. This is also an "incentive" for people to come here and work. The difference in the value of the currency creates even further incentive to immigrate.

Lets flip the coin for a second. Say the value of the currency between US and Mexico was 10 to 1. What you can buy in the US for a buck, you could get for ten times less in Mexico. Lets also say that wages were also to scale. What you'd earn in the US, you'd make ten times less in Mexico. Would you want to immigrate to Mexico, work for ten times less money, then try to send that back to the US so your family could survive? Or would you stay here? Now, what if you lived in Mexico, could move to the US, make ten times what you earned in Mexico, and support your entire family? You'd consider a US wage of $10 bucks an hour to be worth $100 bucks an hour. You'd also be willing to put up with some extreme working situations that US workers are "unwilling to do". Why? Difference in the value of the currency. The same thing will have different levels of value placed on it by different individuals. US citizens consider a wage of $10 bucks an hour to be damn near "unlivable" and decreases incentives for US citizens to take those jobs. The dollar here does not go nearly as far as it does in Mexico. But to an immigrant, that same $10 an hour job is like $100 bucks down there (again, hypthetical), and an immigrant will be far more willing to take a $10 dollar an hour job than a US citizen.

The point being, most people are very distracted by the Race Card. Govt absolves itself of blame when it is truly responsible for problems it causes. Im not trying to side with immigrants or say that immigration has not caused its own set of problems and frustrations, but point out the real source of the problems: Govt.

[PRB]

The notion that "race is only skin deep" aka skin tone.

I specifically said race is NOT skin deep. Was that making a strawman? I believe you're the one who asked me "what about well tanned Americans"?

[puppetmaster]

Just curious- how does she know who is and isn't a citizen? Do they have to show papers when they apply? Illegal immigrants aren't supposed to be elgible for federal aid. Thanks for the info.

I found this:
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/11/ImmigrantAccess/Eligibility/ib.shtml

Overview of Immigrants’ Eligibility for SNAP, TANF, Medicaid, and CHIP





States, though, may have different rules.

They ask on the form and when they check the form is filled out properly they can tell. I have not seen the form myself. She is from Mexico so I guess she discusses this with them. Reality is that they do get benefits. The fact that we have this system at all for whom ever is the problem. BTW my wife is a non US citizen with LEGAL status. My brothers wife is Hispanic so this is not about race for me. Just dawned on me that most of my friends are from other countries and most of them from Mexico, and farther south.

Your info seems a little off and ambiguous...."historically?."

[puppetmaster]

Before the welfare state existed, the only way a person could survive, whether born here, or immigrate "legally" or "illegally" was to work and become a "productive" part of society.

Our Govt is exceptionally good at getting us to point our fingers at each other while absolving itself as being the source of the problem. In this case, our Govt, as in many cases, is the real source of the problem, not the solution. It creates "incentives" to come here "illegally" and people respond to incentives, regardless of ethnicity or where they were born.

Would a solution perhaps be one of Free Market? No welfare, but absolutely NO Govt intervention. Say a person wants to move from Canada to Ohio. Do they speak the same language? If they do, they will be able to work in some places. If they dont, they may be able to work in other places. Do they have children? What happens to the children? Typical Govt curtain to hide behind. Without a Govt run school, if that person wants their kid to go to school, they would most likey have to pay for it. If they needed Medical Care (not insurance), they'd also have to pay for it. If they wanted to EAT, same thing, they'd also have to pay for it. Thus, if a person is not able to provide for themselves once they immigrate, there is a strong incentive to not immigrate.

But introduce Govt. Welfare. Education. Food Stamps. These are all strong incentives to immigrate and not become a part of that society. Immigrating illegally also has an incentive where a "low pay worker" can get paid under the table and thus, avoid paying taxes on what they bring home. Again, Govt (well, the IRS) is the source of the problem, not the illegal immigration.

Now, Govt solution to any problem that it causes is typically MORE Govt! Once we have a welfare society that panders to "illegal", the Govt solution would be to put restrictions on who can immigrate and who can not. It is an Empty Gesture. The desire is to get the "best and brightest", while leaving the "undesirables" in their country of origin, yet the result is that once all the "best and brightest" leave, that society is no longer up to the standards of where the "best and brightest" live. It creates an incentive for the "undesired" to leave and move to where the "best and brightest" live, regardless if they can become a part of that society or not. The terms "best and brightest" are extremely subjective. Those that can do well for themselves should be able to do well regardless of where they live. But we also have a tendancy to define "best" as one who makes the most money. The "brightest" are also thought of as those who use their intellect to better society, but can also have a very dark side. Hitler was "bright", but was no philanthropist. The very mention of his name incites thoughts of the worst that humanity has to offer, and the word "bright" was not associated with his recall in the minds of the average person at all, despite having been very "bright".

The US wages economic warfare on nearly every other country on this planet. We consume resources and goods while "exporting our inflation". The Petrol Dollar has caused the value of the competing currencies of other countries to be devalued to such a degree that a dollar here will barely buy you a sandwich or candy bar, but can be stretched much further when spent in other countries. This is also an "incentive" for people to come here and work. The difference in the value of the currency creates even further incentive to immigrate.

Lets flip the coin for a second. Say the value of the currency between US and Mexico was 10 to 1. What you can buy in the US for a buck, you could get for ten times less in Mexico. Lets also say that wages were also to scale. What you'd earn in the US, you'd make ten times less in Mexico. Would you want to immigrate to Mexico, work for ten times less money, then try to send that back to the US so your family could survive? Or would you stay here? Now, what if you lived in Mexico, could move to the US, make ten times what you earned in Mexico, and support your entire family? You'd consider a US wage of $10 bucks an hour to be worth $100 bucks an hour. You'd also be willing to put up with some extreme working situations that US workers are "unwilling to do". Why? Difference in the value of the currency. The same thing will have different levels of value placed on it by different individuals. US citizens consider a wage of $10 bucks an hour to be damn near "unlivable" and decreases incentives for US citizens to take those jobs. The dollar here does not go nearly as far as it does in Mexico. But to an immigrant, that same $10 an hour job is like $100 bucks down there (again, hypthetical), and an immigrant will be far more willing to take a $10 dollar an hour job than a US citizen.

The point being, most people are very distracted by the Race Card. Govt absolves itself of blame when it is truly responsible for problems it causes. Im not trying to side with immigrants or say that immigration has not caused its own set of problems and frustrations, but point out the real source of the problems: Govt.

this is where I am at also.

[PRB]

They ask on the form and when they check the form is filled out properly they can tell. I have not seen the form myself. She is from Mexico so I guess she discusses this with them. Reality is that they do get benefits. The fact that we have this system at all for whom ever is the problem. BTW my wife is a non US citizen with LEGAL status. My brothers wife is Hispanic so this is not about race for me. Just dawned on me that most of my friends are from other countries and most of them from Mexico, and farther south.

Your info seems a little off and ambiguous...."historically?."

if it's not about race, what would be the problem if we just legalized them and gave them amnesty? is there any correlation between legality and asking for benefits?

[FloralScent]

This topic always bring the statists out of the woodwork. Please...tell us exactly how free market fails us here. Please tell us exactly why anybody, especially liberals, should believe in the free market if it has such a HUGE, GAPING flaw of destroying labor markets and wages with mere immigration.

http://reactiongifs.me/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Bill-Hader-Popcorn-reaction-Gif-On-The-Daily-Show.gif

Supply and demand doesn't apply to the labor markets? Are you fucking simple?(rhetorical)

[Ender]

Supply and demand doesn't apply to the labor markets? Are you fucking simple?(rhetorical)

Are you?

The economy has always benefited from an abundance of good labor- especially if there is no minimum wage. Take entitlements away and everyone wins.

[Lord Xar]

Simple fact is, entitlements will NOT go away.... so, though I agree that the free market can best handle this - the problem is -- WE DO NOT HAVE A FREE MARKET. I always giggle a little inside when the open border advocates try to toss ideological positions in the face of those who don't want hordes streaming across the border.. "Oh, don't like the free market?..", "oh, you must be a collectivist..", "oh, racist are you...", " supply and demand...". Here is the rub. We have an entitlement / welfare machine that churns out dependents and sycophants of the state in droves. IF anyone of you "let them in" advocates truly believe most will turn liberty/freedom minded, you are out to lunch. They are nothing but pawns, caught up in a game that you think you can control with some ideological advocacy.

Let California be the barometer of what will happen. The country will turn HARD LEFT.

[staerker]

IF anyone of you "let them in" advocates truly believe most will turn liberty/freedom minded, you are out to lunch. They are nothing but pawns, caught up in a game that you think you can control with some ideological advocacy.

I never said immigrants will become 'liberty/freedom minded.'

I am calling you out as being same minded.

In the face of corruption, you propose more tyranny as the solution, and side skirt the true issue.

[Lord Xar]

I never said immigrants will become 'liberty/freedom minded.'

I am calling you out as being same minded.

In the face of corruption, you propose more tyranny as the solution, and side skirt the true issue.

That is a far stretch you make, and one typical of open border advocates. If I don't side with you, I am tyrannical & evil, and I'm sure a lil' racist thrown in...
Asking people to abide by the law and not stream over in hordes. To stop the perpetuation of the welfare/entitlement state. The state is just allowing more farm animals on the farm... and you seem to advocating it. Nevermind the farm exists, we have farmers etc... But, turn off the spicket, and not have me pay the freight for others.. then sure, I'm in. But until you achieve that -- I am will not partake in sinking my own boat.

[Zippyjuan]

They ask on the form and when they check the form is filled out properly they can tell. I have not seen the form myself. She is from Mexico so I guess she discusses this with them. Reality is that they do get benefits. The fact that we have this system at all for whom ever is the problem. BTW my wife is a non US citizen with LEGAL status. My brothers wife is Hispanic so this is not about race for me. Just dawned on me that most of my friends are from other countries and most of them from Mexico, and farther south.

Your info seems a little off and ambiguous...."historically?."

Thanks for the info!

Illegals may elgible for state benefits like Welfare/ food stamps or schooling or drivers licenses if that state allows it, but they are not elgible for federal benefits like Medicare/ Medicaid or Social Security. Nevada seems to be allowing them to receive benefits in your case.

[Lucille]

Thanks for the info!

Illegals may elgible for state benefits like Welfare/ food stamps or schooling or drivers licenses if that state allows it, but they are not elgible for federal benefits like Medicare/ Medicaid or Social Security. Nevada seems to be allowing them to receive benefits in your case.

Wrong again.


If an illegal worker obtains a forged SSN, and uses it to obtain work in the US, then that illegal worker will be entitled to receive SS benefits (http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2013-01-17/immigration-and-social-security) on exactly the same terms as a legal worker. The only difference is that the illegal worker must receive their SS payments in a bank account outside of the country. What a system!

[Zippyjuan]

Source? (Having a fake card does not make it legal that they are receiving benefits and if they do have a fake number, the are paying social security taxes along with other taxes). Citizens also use fraud to get benefits they are not elgible for.


WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — While many Americans believe illegal immigrants don't pay taxes, billions of dollars deducted from paychecks issued to undocumented workers flow to the Social Security Administration (SSA) every year. Those workers almost certainly will never see that money again.

Social Security officials keep a record of wages that do not match up with real names and numbers in their system. The record is called the earnings suspense file.

In 2009, the last year for which figures are available, employers reported wages of $72.8 billion for 7.7 million workers who could not be matched to legal Social Security numbers.

That total hit a record $90.4 billion, earned by 10.8 million workers, in 2007, just before the recession. Some of those were legal workers who simply made paperwork mistakes, but the majority are believed to be illegal immigrants.

Because those wages were reported by employers and not paid under the table, Social Security and Medicare deductions had to be made. A total of 12.4 percent of those wages went into the SSA system — 6.2 percent paid each by the worker and the employer. An additional 2.9 percent was paid into Medicare, half by the worker and half by the employer.

That means about $11.2 billion went into the Social Security Trust Fund in 2007, and $2.6 billion went into Medicare. While that money will be used to pay retirees and health-care beneficiaries, it most likely will never be claimed by the illegal immigrants who contributed it.
http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2017113852_immigtaxes29.html

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/03/social-security-for-illegal-immigrants/


We first saw this bogus claim bandied about as a Republican campaign theme during the 2006 midterm elections. As we explained then, no benefits can legally be paid to illegal immigrants and there was never a proposal to change that.

The false claims mischaracterize debate over immigration legislation in 2006. There was a failed attempt by Republicans to change current law in order to prevent immigrants who become citizens, or who are granted legal status, from getting credit toward future Social Security benefits for taxes they paid before becoming legal. Current law allows illegal immigrants to get such credit – but only when and if they become legal. Republicans offered an amendment to change this, but it failed, as did the immigration legislation to which it would have been attached.

But the bunk didn’t die with the bill. During the 2008 Republican presidential primaries, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney attacked eventual nominee Sen. John McCain on this same issue. We noted the falsehood again then. The rumor took on new life last fall when an independent group ran television ads saying Barack Obama’s domestic plan "gives illegals Social Security." As we pointed out at the time, the allegation was simply false.

We’ll just quickly note that illegal immigrants are broadly disqualified from collecting benefits from government programs, according to U.S. Code, with only limited exceptions. Those exceptions are:

Emergency medical care (which includes emergency labor and delivery)
Emergency disaster relief that is provided for the short term and is not a cash payment
Limited immunizations and testing, and treatment of symptoms of communicable diseases
Certain community programs, such as soup kitchens or crisis counseling, as specified by the Attorney General
Limited housing or community development assistance to those already receiving it in 1996

These are the only circumstances under which illegal immigrants can lawfully receive government assistance. Notably absent from this list is any type of Social Security benefits. To repeat: Illegal immigrants cannot legally receive Social Security benefits, and Congress isn’t about to vote on legislation that would change that.

Of course, some immigrants who are here without legal permission do end up receiving Social Security and other benefits, through bureaucratic mistakes or through deliberate fraud. The Government Accountability Office has even called this a "serious problem," though the GAO also says that "the full extent of benefit fraud is unknown." This problem draws the ire of conservative commentators and is sometimes distorted in Internet or e-mail postings to imply falsely that such payments are government policy.

[staerker]

That is a far stretch you make, and one typical of open border advocates. If I don't side with you, I am tyrannical & evil, and I'm sure a lil' racist thrown in...
Asking people to abide by the law and not stream over in hordes. To stop the perpetuation of the welfare/entitlement state. The state is just allowing more farm animals on the farm... and you seem to advocating it. Nevermind the farm exists, we have farmers etc... But, turn off the spicket, and not have me pay the freight for others.. then sure, I'm in. But until you achieve that -- I am will not partake in sinking my own boat.

It appears you recognize the true issue as the existence of the welfare state. It also appears that in absence of the welfare state you would be in favor of mass immigration.

Deportation of all participants of the welfare state would surely lighten the load more so (regardless of origin of birth.) Why do you not propose that?

edit: Also, my claim of increasing tyranny is well made, and was not refuted. You propose more government intervention when it comes to the physical location of an individual. i.e. a claim over others' property

[FloralScent]

Are you?

The economy has always benefited from an abundance of good labor- especially if there is no minimum wage. Take entitlements away and everyone wins.


If the supply of labor increases the supply curve will shift to the right and down, every time, without fail. Tell me genius, how does that help anyone but the corptocracy? The only people I know who feel this way are assholes who think their jobs are somehow immune to the the glut of cheap labor, everyone else be damned.

[DamianTV]

So who started the availability of cheap labor in the get-go? The laborers themselves, or perhaps the Govt?

Always keep in mind that Govt seeks to absolve itselve of ALL responsibility for problems it knowingly causes. Govt will also suggest that the solution to problems that result from a Govt that has gotten too big is to make it even bigger.

So lets be clear, are we complaining about all immigrants, or mostly hispanic spanish speaking ones? I dont hear anyone complaining about the number of illegal Canadians. And why is that? Two reasons: #1 many speak english, and #2 we arent swamped with illegal Canadians. Thus, turn our focus to Mexico. Im not trying to say Mexico is an evil place, deserving of discrimination, or Mexicans are bad people. Now, lets look at what may cause anyone born in Mexico to look at migrating to the US as something they would consider desirable. First, the Petro Dollar goes further than a Peso does. Incentive to migrate. Result: people migrate. The difference between the value of the currencies is directly proportional to volume of immigration. Next incentive is the availability of Welfare. For those that come to the US illegally, they do so because our Welfare system rewards that type of behavior.

Immigration is the direct result of a Welfare / Economic Warfare State.

And the solution that many people conclude is more Govt. Hegalian Dialect: Problem, Reaction, Solution. Work backwards on this. Govt seeks to expand itself, thus, bigger Govt is the solution that needs to be concluded. How to do that? Now we focus on reaction. Reaction here would be to have a negative response to so much immigration so that people turn to Govt (thus making it bigger) for the solution. Thus, the problem percieved needs to be Immigration, which leads to reaction, which leads to the solution. Causing immigration has many benefits for Govt. People that respond well to a Welfare state will immigrate. These immigrants, if given the power to vote, will vote for more Govt benefits and vote for anyone who promises more Welfare. Companies who seek 'cheaper labor', and politicians who win elections find immigrants to be desirable. Companies and Politicians do not want people who are unwilling to accept exceptionally low pay or do not vote for Politicians. The two may work hand in hand to cause even more immigration, at the expense of displacing the existing population.

Govt causes more problems than it solves, and only seeks to cause more problems. Of course, it depends on who you ask. "Oh, I get freebies from the Govt!" Those people are going to see Govt as a solution to their own problem of wanting to be a part of the "Have" group and leave behind the "Have Not" group. Everything else that happens is a result of Govt starting the problems then absolving itself of responsibility for the problems it created. Racism, Income Inequality, Welfare.

What we can do in order to achieve a solution that maintains Freedom and Liberty is to alter our reactions. The intent is to conclude something other than "more Govt" as a solution. We again need to work backwards. Solution: get Govt out of the picture. To do so, we need the reaction to be a sense of total dissatisfaction with Govt. Which goes back to the Problem and we recognize Govt is the source of the problem of Immigration.

Our solution has to be to eliminate the source of the incentives to immigrate: Welfare. I think that many other proposed solutions would only cause more immigration, and more Govt, and more problems. More Govt would mean more Cops asking you for your 'papers' because your skin is brown, and we have a good idea where that goes. Amnesty gives power to those that responded to the incentives to have the power to vote, which displaces you and me. Continuation of the Welfare state will only enable Distribution of Wealth and enable more Socialism. More Govt would be needed to enforce employment laws. Companies will love less restrictions on who can be hired and who can not be hired, while Govt wont like that so much. The availability of "cheap labor" enables companies to hire immigrants needs to be removed, thus, the incentive of the difference in value of currency needs to be addressed. If the value of the Dollar vs the Peso were more equal, there would be less incentive for an immigrant to take a "cheap labor" job, which contains the problem of availability of that "cheap labor" pool. And the only way for Dollar vs Peso to be addressed is to tackle our Govts abuse of the Petro Dollar that enables it to "export our inflation".

The only real solution to Immigration, along that line of thinking, is to end the Welfare / Warfare State. And that is definitely an uphill battle at this point.

[PRB]

So who started the availability of cheap labor in the get-go? The laborers themselves, or perhaps the Govt?


Cheap is relative. If China and India didn't decide to make themselves available for trade, they wouldn't be either cheap or expensive, they'd not be available. Asian labor is cheapER than Americans. Does that mean they are underpaid or we are overpaid? That all depends on what you set as standard, doesn't it? Are they less human than we are or are we less free to choose what our expenses are? After all, all humans need the same resources to survive, right?

Countries which we trade with, their government definitely is complicit for allowing/pimping their people to trade with us and sell their labor.

[AlexAmore]

If the supply of labor increases the supply curve will shift to the right and down, every time, without fail. Tell me genius, how does that help anyone but the corptocracy? The only people I know who feel this way are assholes who think their jobs are somehow immune to the the glut of cheap labor, everyone else be damned.

You forget that the extra body in the labor market also needs to be fed, clothed, sheltered, entertained...etc. It all works out in the end.

[RandallFan]

In the long term it is not a bad thing. If Obama had not done all these executive orders the GOP may have granted permanent amnesty to some illegals whether it was 2, 4 or 12 million undocumented Democrats. Then that smaller number of illegals sponsors their parents and illegals creating a 10,20 or 30 million new Democrat voters.

The illegal immigration problem is not going to be solved in less than 3 years by RINOs and Obama "working together".

The worse it gets the more likely the next president and congress will be forced to act. The worse Obama behaves the less likely The Stupid Party creates millions more democrats.

Many illegals are by nature, are desperate criminals and lie to claim benefits.

http://gunowners.org/alert1242014.htm


Next Wednesday, the House Republican leadership will announce a set of "principles" for immigration reform. Supposedly, if these "principles" are not well-received, the House will shelve the issue for the remainder of the year.

To be blunt: The health of the Second Amendment relies on demolishing these "principles."Immigration reform will add over 8,000,000 anti-gun voters to the voting rolls.

[PRB]

If the supply of labor increases the supply curve will shift to the right and down, every time, without fail. Tell me genius, how does that help anyone but the corptocracy? The only people I know who feel this way are assholes who think their jobs are somehow immune to the the glut of cheap labor, everyone else be damned.

you're assuming cheap labor and unemployment doesn't benefit people except employers, sorry, that's just not true. if it were true, automation should never happen. Who benefits when computers can do work people used to be paid for? there are some jobs that are indeed immune to competition from cheap labor, particular things which can't be automated or require lots of education and training (like medical care, engineering). they are rare, most jobs are open to competition by both cheaper people and automation.

[pcosmar]

I specifically said race is NOT skin deep. Was that making a strawman? I believe you're the one who asked me "what about well tanned Americans"?

What race? is there some race other than Human?

[pcosmar]

I thought the Republicans were pushing the Amnesty (again) to pass the Real ID. and a bunch of other shit in the Bill..

Immigration Reform? my pale pimply butt, :(

[GunnyFreedom]

I specifically said race is NOT skin deep. Was that making a strawman? I believe you're the one who asked me "what about well tanned Americans"?

No, I asked about 'the law's effect on well tanned Americans.' You then carried it off into race and albinos and such. I'm still trying to figure out what you are after with that.

[PRB]

What race? is there some race other than Human?

Race is an old word, today the better word is population or ancestry. There's a reason people who are albinos, cannot hide or lose their ancestral and inherited traits, why Africans still have thicker lips and curlier hair. So within the human race, there's many populations which have measurable and distinct characteristics, this is the basis of "racial profiling" regardless of whether it's moral or fair.

[PRB]

No, I asked about 'the law's effect on well tanned Americans.' You then carried it off into race and albinos and such. I'm still trying to figure out what you are after with that.

Ok, then I think I answered you, that the law's effect may carry on to people of similar skin color though not similar ancestry and national origin. However, knowing that race is NOT but skin deep, police and profilers are likely to look at other traits, all depends.

[GunnyFreedom]

Race is an old word, today the better word is population or ancestry. There's a reason people who are albinos, cannot hide or lose their ancestral and inherited traits, why Africans still have thicker lips and curlier hair. So within the human race, there's many populations which have measurable and distinct characteristics, this is the basis of "racial profiling" regardless of whether it's moral or fair.

http://reho.st/http://i34.tinypic.com/2rpzgye.jpg

http://reho.st/https://i.imgflip.com/26am.jpg

[GunnyFreedom]

Ok, then I think I answered you, that the law's effect may carry on to people of similar skin color though not similar ancestry and national origin. However, knowing that race is NOT but skin deep, police and profilers are likely to look at other traits, all depends.

Are you suggesting the justification of a different application of law amongst the different racial origins of man?

[PRB]

Are you suggesting the justification of a different application of law amongst the different racial origins of man?

Nope. I believe this all started with "if the goal is to make Mexicans uncomfortable and unwelcome, it would be logical to harass people who look Mexican". So no, I am not suggesting the justification of any law. However, immigration and border laws are inherent race based, even if indirectly via national origin and citizenship.

[pcosmar]

So why is this CFR plan being attributed to Obama?.

First I heard of it ,, it was being pushed by Jeb Bush.
http://www.cfr.org/immigration/us-immigration-policy/p20030
Though the last amnesty bill was a Bush push too.

little memory bump
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1053849/posts

[PRB]

http://reho.st/http://i34.tinypic.com/2rpzgye.jpg


example of a person who still looks rather oriental/Asian despite being albino, I could be wrong, as it's a first glance and the pictures are not very clear.

[GunnyFreedom]

Nope. I believe this all started with "if the goal is to make Mexicans uncomfortable and unwelcome, it would be logical to harass people who look Mexican". So no, I am not suggesting the justification of any law. However, immigration and border laws are inherent race based, even if indirectly via national origin and citizenship.

http://reho.st/http://i.huffpost.com/gen/866578/thumbs/s-DIEGOBONETA-large.jpg?4

[DamianTV]

if it's not about race, what would be the problem if we just legalized them and gave them amnesty? is there any correlation between legality and asking for benefits?

Why dont we just offer Welfare to every citizen of every country then? Or perhaps it is the benefits (source: Govt) that is the problem?

[PRB]

Why dont we just offer Welfare to every citizen of every country then? Or perhaps it is the benefits (source: Govt) that is the problem?

I think you answered your own question. The answer to government is less government, not more.

[GunnyFreedom]

if it's not about race, what would be the problem if we just legalized them and gave them amnesty? is there any correlation between legality and asking for benefits?

It's about citizenship in an organized polity. It has been many era since tribalism dominated man, and more recently on this continent, but still centuries ago. The nation-state has taken the planet, and in the majority of them citizenship is entirely independent of race. This is particularly true in the United States of America.

[FloralScent]

You forget that the extra body in the labor market also needs to be fed, clothed, sheltered, entertained...etc. It all works out in the end.

You're assuming those displaced by the lower wage workers have been able to find employment. If this is not the case there is no "extra".

[AlexAmore]

You're assuming those displaced by the lower wage workers have been able to find employment. If this is not the case there is no "extra".

Learn what a labor market is before lecturing me on economics.

The labor market is the pool of eligible laborers. It doesn't imply/assume gainful employment.

The extra food, clothing, shelter, and entertainment required by the immigrant will demand more manpower. Therefore the labor market will have more demand for the displaced worker.

You can't look at economics purely from a micro level because that's where anecdotal evidence lives and breeds. If we didn't allow cheap labor and machines (a form of cheap labor) take over, we'd all still be working on family farms.

[PRB]

It's about citizenship in an organized polity. It has been many era since tribalism dominated man, and more recently on this continent, but still centuries ago. The nation-state has taken the planet, and in the majority of them citizenship is entirely independent of race. This is particularly true in the United States of America.

what's so good about limiting citizenship privileges and making people wait to become citizens? in other words, what's wrong with legalizing the 10+ million in this country now, if it's not a racial problem? Especially if they want to become equal, pay taxes, vote, work..etc (not that you'd be so statist to require that citizens must work).

[PRB]

Learn what a labor market is before lecturing me on economics.

The labor market is the pool of eligible laborers. It doesn't imply/assume gainful employment.

The extra food, clothing, shelter, and entertainment required by the immigrant will demand more manpower.


no, or else they wouldn't be cheap in the first place. The whole point and reason of them being cheap is because they consume less.



Therefore the labor market will have more demand for the displaced worker.


That's assuming the displaced are willing to work for even cheaper.



You can't look at economics purely from a micro level because that's where anecdotal evidence lives and breeds. If we didn't allow cheap labor and machines (a form of cheap labor) take over, we'd all still be working on family farms.

agreed!

[PRB]

You're assuming those displaced by the lower wage workers have been able to find employment. If this is not the case there is no "extra".

you are correct, that IS the assumption. But equally absurd is the notion that people need to be employed to live. There's no guarantee that displaced workers will find newer or better jobs, but there's also no rule that says you must work to stay alive.

[DamianTV]

you are correct, that IS the assumption. But equally absurd is the notion that people need to be employed to live. There's no guarantee that displaced workers will find newer or better jobs, but there's also no rule that says you must work to stay alive.

The need to be employed to survive can easily be offset by Welfare, or by being filthy rich.

[AlexAmore]

no, or else they wouldn't be cheap in the first place. The whole point and reason of them being cheap is because they consume less.

And they create cheaper products for everybody.


That's assuming the displaced are willing to work for even cheaper.

Maybe temporarily. An influx of cheap laborers brings with it an influx of businesses. It also makes it easier and cheaper to start a new business which can grow and eventually provide jobs to Americans who demand higher wages and benefits not pertinent to a budding business. Being able to hire cheap labor gives people more choices and if you trust the free market, then you must allow people to make as many choices as possible.

Even if border supporters had their doomsday scenarios follow through, Americans aren't entitled to any job. Right off the bat you're supporting a government policy based on entitlement, not the free market. Lets get that clear. You're showing strong signs of nationalism which is an extreme vulnerability that elites can easily exploit (history is littered with examples). I wouldn't promote any nationalist ideals to the masses, all you're doing is creating sheep.

[PRB]

The need to be employed to survive can easily be offset by Welfare, or by being filthy rich.

or taking care of oneself, minding one's own business, you know, how farmers used to, or Amish still do. Radical idea huh?

[PRB]

And they create cheaper products for everybody.

Maybe temporarily. An influx of cheap laborers brings with it an influx of businesses.


I think that is definitely temporary, influx of cheap labor brings influx of cheap products and services, but unless consumption catches on, it'll eventually be useless piles of cheap products nobody needs.



It also makes it easier and cheaper to start a new business which can grow and eventually provide jobs to Americans who demand higher wages and benefits not pertinent to a budding business.


We should make starting businesses easier anyway, regardless of whether we have more immigrants and automation. But opportunities and demand of new businesses are irrespective of whether cheap labor increases (and even often independent of government regulations). People who want to start a business aren't always stopped by regulations.



Being able to hire cheap labor gives people more choices and if you trust the free market, then you must allow people to make as many choices as possible.


Agreed. And even that has its limits. I think this is where people who are concerned about immigration have a point, this is a social issue rather than an equality and human rights issue. What if labor was one day worthless? What if automation became so good that people are worth nothing as workers unless they're highly educated? That means the cheap labor immigrants (and their children) will become consumers rather than workers, but is that a bad thing? Probably not. I guess it's a bad thing if you don't want immigrants to have good lives.



Even if border supporters had their doomsday scenarios follow through, Americans aren't entitled to any job.


you mean to tell me the Constitution doesn't guarantee my right to life, liberty and a job to pursue happiness?



Right off the bat you're supporting a government policy based on entitlement, not the free market. Lets get that clear. You're showing strong signs of nationalism which is an extreme vulnerability that elites can easily exploit (history is littered with examples). I wouldn't promote any nationalist ideals to the masses, all you're doing is creating sheep.

I'm showing signs of nationalism? I think I've been advocating more immigrants and less regulations the whole time...

[Lord Xar]

It appears you recognize the true issue as the existence of the welfare state. It also appears that in absence of the welfare state you would be in favor of mass immigration.

Deportation of all participants of the welfare state would surely lighten the load more so (regardless of origin of birth.) Why do you not propose that?

edit: Also, my claim of increasing tyranny is well made, and was not refuted. You propose more government intervention when it comes to the physical location of an individual. i.e. a claim over others' property

I didn't offer to stop the welfare state, specifically calling out every peter - paul and mary, because I referenced the monolith that is government. I would assume it meant everyone under the sun in which I have to use the fruits of my labor to prop up it's malevolent nature. I assumed it was a given.

Also, I am of the mind of what Ron Paul said "A nation without borders, is no nation at all". If you think that allowing hordes of sycophants of government to start suckling on the teet of government, and then assume that "some time down the road", these same individuals AND all the ones currently getting fat on mothers milk will come to the conclusion that welfare is bad -- is a fools gambit.

I understand waxing poetic about ones' ideological standing and the nature of open borders. And this insatiable urge to use race to curry favor in your direction. But you advocate your own ruin, or lets say - you advocate the hurrying of the decline OF property rights, liberties.... and in this case, I believe it is your position that brings about an attack on MY property rights, not the other way around.

Until we get our own house in order, I think it is a bad idea (see california) to perpetuate this hypothesis of allowing open borders to bring what may come. To let the free market, which we don't have, coupled with a small government in which the power is more localized, which we don't have - to somehow sort this all it..... I'll be sitting, waiting, at the dinner table with santa clause, global warming and the easter bunny ... waiting

[Zippyjuan]

Perhaps ironic that Ron Paul said "A nation without borders is no nation at all" and also cautions that securing the border may be not to keep others out but us in. In this video he argues against tighter border security:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esp-ruhkZqQ

[Lord Xar]

Perhaps ironic that Ron Paul said "A nation without borders is no nation at all" and also cautions that securing the border may be not to keep others out but us in. In this video he argues against tighter border security:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esp-ruhkZqQ

Ron Paul also advocating for NO WELFARE! You can't, and still retain intellectual honesty, display a position and use it as a panacea for open borders without the context of Ron Paul's other positions on the matter. C'mon.

[Zippyjuan]

Illegal aliens are not elgible for federal government aid programs already. Some states do allow them to get welfare. He also says states should be able to make their own decisions. Should the Federal Government tell them they can't do that?

In the video he says "If we had a healthy economy, this would not be a problem". A catch there is that a healthy economy is more attractive to foreign workers seeking jobs. When did the net influx of illegal immigrants end? When the economy crashed in 2007. They come looking for jobs. When the jobs disappeared, they basically quit coming. A healthy economy is also able to absorb more workers which is why Ron Paul said it (illegal immigration) would not be such an issue.

There are over a million fewer illegal immigrants in the US today than there were seven years ago.

[staerker]

I didn't offer to stop the welfare state, specifically calling out every peter - paul and mary, because I referenced the monolith that is government. I would assume it meant everyone under the sun in which I have to use the fruits of my labor to prop up it's malevolent nature. I assumed it was a given.

Also, I am of the mind of what Ron Paul said "A nation without borders, is no nation at all". If you think that allowing hordes of sycophants of government to start suckling on the teet of government, and then assume that "some time down the road", these same individuals AND all the ones currently getting fat on mothers milk will come to the conclusion that welfare is bad -- is a fools gambit.

I understand waxing poetic about ones' ideological standing and the nature of open borders. And this insatiable urge to use race to curry favor in your direction. But you advocate your own ruin, or lets say - you advocate the hurrying of the decline OF property rights, liberties.... and in this case, I believe it is your position that brings about an attack on MY property rights, not the other way around.

Until we get our own house in order, I think it is a bad idea (see california) to perpetuate this hypothesis of allowing open borders to bring what may come. To let the free market, which we don't have, coupled with a small government in which the power is more localized, which we don't have - to somehow sort this all it..... I'll be sitting, waiting, at the dinner table with santa clause, global warming and the easter bunny ... waiting

I believe you view (based on past comments) that open borders are an end goal, and having no welfare state is also an end goal.

So, if there is a welfare state, and increasingly open borders, why would you fight against the increasingly open borders? Open borders are one of the end goals.

Yes, increasingly open borders may bolster the welfare state.

Which brings me to a previously brought up point: current Americans are bolstering the welfare state.

So, you either believe that all men are created equal, or that some (United States of American born?) are more entitled to redistributed wealth than others (racist? To use the term loosely.)

If you believe the former, than you should be in favor of deporting (aggressing against) all Americans on welfare, and not only immigrants. This would destroy the welfare state much more effectively than the aforementioned strategy, and would do so without discrimination due to the location of which an individual was born.

solution: Forget about borders, and attack the welfare state. Much cleaner.

[Zippyjuan]

I believe you view (based on past comments) that open borders are an end goal, and having no welfare state is also an end goal.

So, if there is a welfare state, and increasingly open borders, why would you fight against the increasingly open borders? Open borders are one of the end goals.

Yes, increasingly open borders may bolster the welfare state.

Which brings me to a previously brought up point: current Americans are bolstering the welfare state.

So, you either believe that all men are created equal, or that some (United States of American born?) are more entitled to redistributed wealth than others (racist? To use the term loosely.)

If you believe the former, than you should be in favor of deporting (aggressing against) all Americans on welfare, and not only immigrants. This would destroy the welfare state much more effectively than the aforementioned strategy, and would do so without discrimination due to the location of which an individual was born.



SO if your Dad lost his job and his savings and couldn't find another one, you would rather see him kicked out of the country (to which country or countries should they be sent?) than to take any government aid to help him pay rent and put food on the table? (Or what about yourself if it was you)?

[Lord Xar]

Illegal aliens are not elgible for federal government aid programs already. Some states do allow them to get welfare. He also says states should be able to make their own decisions. Should the Federal Government tell them they can't do that?

In the video he says "If we had a healthy economy, this would not be a problem". A catch there is that a healthy economy is more attractive to foreign workers seeking jobs. When did the net influx of illegal immigrants end? When the economy crashed in 2007. They come looking for jobs. When the jobs disappeared, they basically quit coming. A healthy economy is also able to absorb more workers which is why Ron Paul said it (illegal immigration) would not be such an issue.

There are over a million fewer illegal immigrants in the US today than there were seven years ago.

Zippy, removing the idea that "not eligible for federal government aid.." from the argument -- do you really believe that?

http://cis.org/immigrant-welfare-use-2011
http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/millions-of-illegal-immigrants-are-using-a-massive-scam-to-get-much-bigger-tax-refunds-than-you-are
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/05/latest-scam-illegal-aliens-getting-bigger-tax-refund-checks/

I also worked in the educational system for a time -- and uhmmm, lets say - there was a LOT of welfare being used to educate the students. Again, is this something I really have to link. I know you know the strain of educating millions of illegal and children of illegal immigrants.

Also, what about Hospitals -- who foots the bill for all of the care illegals receive? I don't want to paste every single link here, but I'm fairly certain you are aware of the strain on the health care system illegals have.

I've seen you mention many times, "they don't get federal aid" - but that is just not true. Have an anchor baby, and boom - all better.

[Lord Xar]

I believe you view (based on past comments) that open borders are an end goal, and having no welfare state is also an end goal.

So, if there is a welfare state, and increasingly open borders, why would you fight against the increasingly open borders? Open borders are one of the end goals.

Yes, increasingly open borders may bolster the welfare state.

Which brings me to a previously brought up point: current Americans are bolstering the welfare state.

So, you either believe that all men are created equal, or that some (United States of American born?) are more entitled to redistributed wealth than others (racist? To use the term loosely.)

If you believe the former, than you should be in favor of deporting (aggressing against) all Americans on welfare, and not only immigrants. This would destroy the welfare state much more effectively than the aforementioned strategy, and would do so without discrimination due to the location of which an individual was born.

solution: Forget about borders, and attack the welfare state. Much cleaner.

I never said I was for open borders. I never said americans on welfare good - everyone else, bad. You seem to be infatuated with hate for America. And much of your position, it seems, focuses on arbitrarily attributing positions of hypocrisy on my part to try to validate your position. Quick question - not trying to sidetrack things.. do you believe in or desire a one world government? What I am driving at is - What is your position.. complete statelessness, one world government, limited government.. what?

[staerker]

SO if your Dad lost his job and his savings and couldn't find another one, you would rather see him kicked out of the country (to which country or countries should they be sent?) than to take any government aid to help him pay rent and put food on the table? (Or what about yourself if it was you)?

No :) I was applying what I believe to be his train of thought (deport immigrants because of welfare usage) to all people (due to welfare usage.) #allMenAreEqual

I am not in favor of taking those actions.

[staerker]

I never said I was for open borders. I never said americans on welfare good - everyone else, bad.

Okay, my bad!


And much of your position, it seems, focuses on arbitrarily attributing positions of hypocrisy on my part to try to validate your position

So then, do you think that you are a hypocrite? (You haven't said whether you believe all men were created equal or not.)

My position is based on certain principles, and I believe that if you hold to those principles, you must hold my position (or, be a hypocrite?)


Quick question - not trying to sidetrack things.. do you believe in or desire a one world government? What I am driving at is - What is your position.. complete statelessness, one world government, limited government.. what?

I have no position, really. In our fallen world nothing perfect is attainable, so the discussion of ideal situations and their viability is pointless. I just like pointing out wrong as wrong, to somehow stifle the perpetuation. And the United States Government is wrong.

[pcosmar]

Quick question - not trying to sidetrack things.. do you believe in or desire a one world government? What I am driving at is - What is your position.. complete statelessness, one world government, limited government.. what?

That is coming,, like it or not.

And the rampant Nationalism is one of the tools that will bring it about.

And no,, it is not my desire.

[PRB]

Perhaps ironic that Ron Paul said "A nation without borders is no nation at all" and also cautions that securing the border may be not to keep others out but us in. In this video he argues against tighter border security:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esp-ruhkZqQ

yep. the dilemma of a libertarian wanting both a free society and a nation.