Joe Legal vs Jose Illegal

[Jumby]

Just got the following email forwarded to me…

*************************************
You have two families: “Joe Legal” and “Jose Illegal”. Both families have two parents, two children, and live in California

Joe Legal works in construction, has a Social
Security Number and makes $25.00 per hour with taxes deducted.

Jose Illegal also works in construction, has NO Social Security Number, and gets paid $15.00 cash “under the table”.

Ready? Now pay attention…
Joe Legal: $25.00 per hour x 40 hours = $1000.00 per week, or $52,000.00 per year. Now take 30% away for state and federal tax; Joe Legal now has $31,231.00.

Jose Illegal: $15.00 per hour x 40 hours = $600.00 per week, or $31,200.00 per year. Jose Illegal pays no taxes. Jose Illegal now has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal pays medical and dental insurance with limited coverage for his family at $600.00 per month, or $7,200.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $24,031.00.

Jose Illegal has full medical and dental coverage through the state and local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $31,200..00.

Joe Legal makes too much money and is not eligible for food stamps or welfare. Joe Legal pays $500.00 per month for food, or $6,000.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $18,031.00.

Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for food stamps and welfare. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal pays rent of $1,200.00 per month, or $14,400.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $9,631.00.

Jose Illegal receives a $500.00 per month federal rent subsidy. Jose Illegal pays $500.00 per month, or $6,000.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $ 31,200.00.

Joe Legal pays $200.00 per month, or $2,400.00 for insurance. Joe Legal now has $7,231.00.

Jose Illegal says, “We don’t need no stinkin’ insurance!” and still has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal has to make his $7,231.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, etc.

Jose Illegal has to make his $31,200.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, and what he sends out of the country every month.

Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part time job after work.

Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.

Joe Legal’s and Jose Illegal’s children both attend the same school. Joe Legal pays for his children’s lunches while Jose Illegal’s children get a government sponsored lunch. Jose Illegal’s children have an after school ESL program. Joe Legal’s children go home.

Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same police and fire services, but Joe paid for them and Jose did not pay.

Do you get it, now?

Anyone who votes for or supports any politician that supports illegal aliens is part of the problem! It’s WAY PAST time to take a stand for America and Americans!

[Coronita]

Joe legal needs to get a grip and stop complaining

Joe legal needs to stop voting for those steal-a-ticians who are taking 30% away of his pay and fattening city/state/federal worker pensions.

[Raybyrnes]

Correct me if I am wrong but Joe Legal get Social Security whereas Jose Illegal does not. Additionally most Jose Illegal end up using a ficticios Social Security which taxes are taken out and they have no chance of getting anything back.

Not to say that your number are wrong or that I disagree with your argument. i just want to add back to more accurately net the calculation out.

[Raybyrnes]

Correct me if I am wrong but Joe Legal get Social Security whereas Jose Illegal does not. Additionally most Jose Illegal end up using a ficticios Social Security which taxes are taken out and they have no chance of getting anything back.

Not to say that your number are wrong or that I disagree with your argument. i just want to add back to more accurately net the calculation out.

[Raybyrnes]

Correct me if I am wrong but Joe Legal get Social Security whereas Jose Illegal does not. Additionally most Jose Illegal end up using a ficticios Social Security which taxes are taken out and they have no chance of getting anything back.

Not to say that your number are wrong or that I disagree with your argument. i just want to add back to more accurately net the calculation out.

[Raybyrnes]

Correct me if I am wrong but Joe Legal get Social Security whereas Jose Illegal does not. Additionally most Jose Illegal end up using a ficticios Social Security which taxes are taken out and they have no chance of getting anything back.

Not to say that your number are wrong or that I disagree with your argument. i just want to add back to more accurately net the calculation out.

[Raybyrnes]

Correct me if I am wrong but Joe Legal get Social Security whereas Jose Illegal does not. Additionally most Jose Illegal end up using a ficticios Social Security which taxes are taken out and they have no chance of getting anything back.

Not to say that your number are wrong or that I disagree with your argument. i just want to add back to more accurately net the calculation out.

[bobby]

you really need to check your math.
70% of $52,000 is not $31,231.
then $31,200 – 6000 (for housing) is not $31,200.
people need to stop and think before mindlessly reposting stupid crap.

[Jumby]

instead of me checking my math you need to read…i said i had this email forwarded to me

[moneymaker]

This is probably accurate depiction, but the system is also “worked” by legals on welfare who work under the table. Unfortunately the middle class bears the brunt through higher taxes.

[moneymaker]

This is probably accurate depiction, but the system is also “worked” by legals on welfare who work under the table. Unfortunately the middle class bears the brunt through higher taxes.

[moneymaker]

This is probably accurate depiction, but the system is also “worked” by legals on welfare who work under the table. Unfortunately the middle class bears the brunt through higher taxes.

[moneymaker]

This is probably accurate depiction, but the system is also “worked” by legals on welfare who work under the table. Unfortunately the middle class bears the brunt through higher taxes.

[moneymaker]

This is probably accurate depiction, but the system is also “worked” by legals on welfare who work under the table. Unfortunately the middle class bears the brunt through higher taxes.

[bobby]

[quote=Jumby]instead of me checking my math you need to read…i said i had this email forwarded to me[/quote]

hence my statement of “mindlessly reposting”.
Folks on this board know basic math. You’re the exception.
apparently you don’t know how to do basic reading either.

[Jumby]

I don’t know how to do math because I posted an email that was sent to me?

Get some logic and then get a life, loser.

[briansd1]

Get the facts straight.

1) American citizens, and legal residents with restrictions, have access to social services.

2) Illegals are not eligible for the social safety net.

3) A child born in USA (of a illegal or illegal mother) is an American citizen.

Without immigration, there would be no economic growth. Remember that.

Economic growth benefits most the people at the top who control the wealth. That would be rich white men and the class of professionals that support the economic system.

If you’re a working class White person, you really have more in common with Blacks and Hispanics than you would want to believe.

[Hobie]

[quote=briansd1]

Without immigration, there would be no economic growth. Remember that.

[/quote]

LEGAL is the key word missing here. And it does change the argument.

[briansd1]

Hobie, the economy (money) does not care if immigration is legal or not. To have a vibrant economy, you need people to create economic turnover.

If you think about real estate. A house can be just as well built with legal or illegal construction workers. The house itself does not care.

[moneymaker]

“If you think about real estate. A house can be just as well built with legal or illegal construction workers. The house itself does not care.”

This reminds me of a few years ago when I was in El Cajon there was a young kid,hispanic who spoke spanish who was using a nail gun during “construction” of one of those apt-to-condo things. Well he was mindlessly nailing the plywood with the gun, just trying to get it stuck back together, it was hilarious and sad at the same time. I wonder how many pipes or wires he must have hit?

[ucodegen]

This reminds me of a few years ago when I was in El Cajon there was a young kid,hispanic who spoke spanish who was using a nail gun during “construction” of one of those apt-to-condo things. Well he was mindlessly nailing the plywood with the gun, just trying to get it stuck back together, it was hilarious and sad at the same time. I wonder how many pipes or wires he must have hit?

Nailgun in the hands of someone inexperienced? That scares the sh*t out of me. It is not called a Nailgun for the heck of it. It can easily put a 16d nail through someones skull, eyes or other body parts.
I’ve seen the same type of thing. I put myself through college doing construction and had the opportunity to ‘inherit’ the journeyman carpenter’s business at 18 (I could have quit college and took up the business). I passed on it. I saw the writing on the wall. I put a lot of the blame on ‘beancounters’ with no experience in the business. The ‘beancounters’ would compare the hourly rate and use that for sole determination, ignoring rework, quality and production rates.

I have also seen the ‘rework’ of these guys. Case in point, a recently purchased new house had damage to the bathtub (probably a hammer dropping on it). Part of the purchase agreement was for the tub to be replaced. Because tubs have an outer raised lip that fits under the tile, the tub has to be ‘cut’ out of the wall. The person who cut out the tub did the cut in one pass.. through the tile, creteboard/cement backing board, moisture barrier, OSB/Green-rock. This creates the problem where the seam between the replaced tile and existing tile is not supported and will flex, breaking the grout and allowing water all the way into the wall. The cuts are supposed to be ‘staggered’ and the cut behind the OSB/Green-rock needs to be ‘crippled’.

Your posts are spot-on. Don’t let the emotional and personal attacks bother you. It simply means they don’t have a valid, logical argument.

Thanks.. I don’t let them bother me.. but I do address them directly and call the attacks for what they are.

BTW, I’d much prefer paying $3.00 per head of lettuce than $.50, if it meant the worker who picked it was legal and earning a livable wage and good benefits; but that’s just me.

I will never fall for the argument that cheaper produce (and we really don’t **know** that, do we?)

Interesting that you mention this. Lettuce is largely picked mechanically, as are beets, potatoes, celery, etc. If you have the book “The Way Things Work”, Simon and Schuster publisher; vol 1 page 434 is a lightweight description of how a beet harvester works. A lettuce harvester is similar except it doesn’t have to pick up the root and effectively the top of the ‘beet’ is the lettuce head in the device. I got the series for my 8th Christmas birthday.

Apples, Oranges, Avocados, Strawberries, etc are picked manually. I wouldn’t be surprised if Strawberries can be picked mechanically since the plant can be sacrificed at picking time.

[NotCranky]

Fudging is ubiquitous. I can’t blame people for targeting “illegals” specifically, even though I don’t agree with them. What I do wonder is do they also target the moral slippery slopes of their own existence and enterprise? Or it is a “kiss up kick down kind” of thing,which enables us to maintain ourselves deluded about our moral position compared to that of the inferiors standing below the proverbial pedestal? Are we absolved of our sins by picking on the little fish in a sea of corruption… and justify it because he comes from the other side of a line drawn in the sandy bottom of that murky sea?

[briansd1]

[quote=Russell]Fudging is ubiquitous. I can’t blame people for targeting “illegals” specifically, even though I don’t agree with them. What I do wonder is do they also target the moral slippery slopes of their own existence and enterprise? Or it is a “kiss up kick down kind” of thing,which enables us to maintain ourselves deluded about our moral position compared to that of the inferiors standing below the proverbial pedestal? Are we absolved of our sins by picking on the little fish in a sea of corruption… and justify it because he comes from the other side of a line drawn in the sandy bottom of that murky sea?[/quote]

Russell, you’re asking people to look at the big picture and to self-examine. That’s hard and painful for most people to do.

Kiss up and kick down is a typical human trait. People have survived for millions of years by ingratiating themselves (oftentimes to their own detriment) to the more powerful.

That’s why the Republican masses with no teeth or health care in Mississippi would vote for Haley Barbour. I can’t blame them for doing so but sometimes I just wonder…

[briansd1]

[quote=Russell]Fudging is ubiquitous. I can’t blame people for targeting “illegals” specifically, even though I don’t agree with them. What I do wonder is do they also target the moral slippery slopes of their own existence and enterprise? Or it is a “kiss up kick down kind” of thing,which enables us to maintain ourselves deluded about our moral position compared to that of the inferiors standing below the proverbial pedestal? Are we absolved of our sins by picking on the little fish in a sea of corruption… and justify it because he comes from the other side of a line drawn in the sandy bottom of that murky sea?[/quote]

Russell, you’re asking people to look at the big picture and to self-examine. That’s hard and painful for most people to do.

Kiss up and kick down is a typical human trait. People have survived for millions of years by ingratiating themselves (oftentimes to their own detriment) to the more powerful.

That’s why the Republican masses with no teeth or health care in Mississippi would vote for Haley Barbour. I can’t blame them for doing so but sometimes I just wonder…

[briansd1]

[quote=Russell]Fudging is ubiquitous. I can’t blame people for targeting “illegals” specifically, even though I don’t agree with them. What I do wonder is do they also target the moral slippery slopes of their own existence and enterprise? Or it is a “kiss up kick down kind” of thing,which enables us to maintain ourselves deluded about our moral position compared to that of the inferiors standing below the proverbial pedestal? Are we absolved of our sins by picking on the little fish in a sea of corruption… and justify it because he comes from the other side of a line drawn in the sandy bottom of that murky sea?[/quote]

Russell, you’re asking people to look at the big picture and to self-examine. That’s hard and painful for most people to do.

Kiss up and kick down is a typical human trait. People have survived for millions of years by ingratiating themselves (oftentimes to their own detriment) to the more powerful.

That’s why the Republican masses with no teeth or health care in Mississippi would vote for Haley Barbour. I can’t blame them for doing so but sometimes I just wonder…

[briansd1]

[quote=Russell]Fudging is ubiquitous. I can’t blame people for targeting “illegals” specifically, even though I don’t agree with them. What I do wonder is do they also target the moral slippery slopes of their own existence and enterprise? Or it is a “kiss up kick down kind” of thing,which enables us to maintain ourselves deluded about our moral position compared to that of the inferiors standing below the proverbial pedestal? Are we absolved of our sins by picking on the little fish in a sea of corruption… and justify it because he comes from the other side of a line drawn in the sandy bottom of that murky sea?[/quote]

Russell, you’re asking people to look at the big picture and to self-examine. That’s hard and painful for most people to do.

Kiss up and kick down is a typical human trait. People have survived for millions of years by ingratiating themselves (oftentimes to their own detriment) to the more powerful.

That’s why the Republican masses with no teeth or health care in Mississippi would vote for Haley Barbour. I can’t blame them for doing so but sometimes I just wonder…

[briansd1]

[quote=Russell]Fudging is ubiquitous. I can’t blame people for targeting “illegals” specifically, even though I don’t agree with them. What I do wonder is do they also target the moral slippery slopes of their own existence and enterprise? Or it is a “kiss up kick down kind” of thing,which enables us to maintain ourselves deluded about our moral position compared to that of the inferiors standing below the proverbial pedestal? Are we absolved of our sins by picking on the little fish in a sea of corruption… and justify it because he comes from the other side of a line drawn in the sandy bottom of that murky sea?[/quote]

Russell, you’re asking people to look at the big picture and to self-examine. That’s hard and painful for most people to do.

Kiss up and kick down is a typical human trait. People have survived for millions of years by ingratiating themselves (oftentimes to their own detriment) to the more powerful.

That’s why the Republican masses with no teeth or health care in Mississippi would vote for Haley Barbour. I can’t blame them for doing so but sometimes I just wonder…

[NotCranky]

Fudging is ubiquitous. I can’t blame people for targeting “illegals” specifically, even though I don’t agree with them. What I do wonder is do they also target the moral slippery slopes of their own existence and enterprise? Or it is a “kiss up kick down kind” of thing,which enables us to maintain ourselves deluded about our moral position compared to that of the inferiors standing below the proverbial pedestal? Are we absolved of our sins by picking on the little fish in a sea of corruption… and justify it because he comes from the other side of a line drawn in the sandy bottom of that murky sea?

[NotCranky]

Fudging is ubiquitous. I can’t blame people for targeting “illegals” specifically, even though I don’t agree with them. What I do wonder is do they also target the moral slippery slopes of their own existence and enterprise? Or it is a “kiss up kick down kind” of thing,which enables us to maintain ourselves deluded about our moral position compared to that of the inferiors standing below the proverbial pedestal? Are we absolved of our sins by picking on the little fish in a sea of corruption… and justify it because he comes from the other side of a line drawn in the sandy bottom of that murky sea?

[NotCranky]

Fudging is ubiquitous. I can’t blame people for targeting “illegals” specifically, even though I don’t agree with them. What I do wonder is do they also target the moral slippery slopes of their own existence and enterprise? Or it is a “kiss up kick down kind” of thing,which enables us to maintain ourselves deluded about our moral position compared to that of the inferiors standing below the proverbial pedestal? Are we absolved of our sins by picking on the little fish in a sea of corruption… and justify it because he comes from the other side of a line drawn in the sandy bottom of that murky sea?

[NotCranky]

Fudging is ubiquitous. I can’t blame people for targeting “illegals” specifically, even though I don’t agree with them. What I do wonder is do they also target the moral slippery slopes of their own existence and enterprise? Or it is a “kiss up kick down kind” of thing,which enables us to maintain ourselves deluded about our moral position compared to that of the inferiors standing below the proverbial pedestal? Are we absolved of our sins by picking on the little fish in a sea of corruption… and justify it because he comes from the other side of a line drawn in the sandy bottom of that murky sea?

[ucodegen]

This reminds me of a few years ago when I was in El Cajon there was a young kid,hispanic who spoke spanish who was using a nail gun during “construction” of one of those apt-to-condo things. Well he was mindlessly nailing the plywood with the gun, just trying to get it stuck back together, it was hilarious and sad at the same time. I wonder how many pipes or wires he must have hit?

Nailgun in the hands of someone inexperienced? That scares the sh*t out of me. It is not called a Nailgun for the heck of it. It can easily put a 16d nail through someones skull, eyes or other body parts.
I’ve seen the same type of thing. I put myself through college doing construction and had the opportunity to ‘inherit’ the journeyman carpenter’s business at 18 (I could have quit college and took up the business). I passed on it. I saw the writing on the wall. I put a lot of the blame on ‘beancounters’ with no experience in the business. The ‘beancounters’ would compare the hourly rate and use that for sole determination, ignoring rework, quality and production rates.

I have also seen the ‘rework’ of these guys. Case in point, a recently purchased new house had damage to the bathtub (probably a hammer dropping on it). Part of the purchase agreement was for the tub to be replaced. Because tubs have an outer raised lip that fits under the tile, the tub has to be ‘cut’ out of the wall. The person who cut out the tub did the cut in one pass.. through the tile, creteboard/cement backing board, moisture barrier, OSB/Green-rock. This creates the problem where the seam between the replaced tile and existing tile is not supported and will flex, breaking the grout and allowing water all the way into the wall. The cuts are supposed to be ‘staggered’ and the cut behind the OSB/Green-rock needs to be ‘crippled’.

Your posts are spot-on. Don’t let the emotional and personal attacks bother you. It simply means they don’t have a valid, logical argument.

Thanks.. I don’t let them bother me.. but I do address them directly and call the attacks for what they are.

BTW, I’d much prefer paying $3.00 per head of lettuce than $.50, if it meant the worker who picked it was legal and earning a livable wage and good benefits; but that’s just me.

I will never fall for the argument that cheaper produce (and we really don’t **know** that, do we?)

Interesting that you mention this. Lettuce is largely picked mechanically, as are beets, potatoes, celery, etc. If you have the book “The Way Things Work”, Simon and Schuster publisher; vol 1 page 434 is a lightweight description of how a beet harvester works. A lettuce harvester is similar except it doesn’t have to pick up the root and effectively the top of the ‘beet’ is the lettuce head in the device. I got the series for my 8th Christmas birthday.

Apples, Oranges, Avocados, Strawberries, etc are picked manually. I wouldn’t be surprised if Strawberries can be picked mechanically since the plant can be sacrificed at picking time.

[ucodegen]

This reminds me of a few years ago when I was in El Cajon there was a young kid,hispanic who spoke spanish who was using a nail gun during “construction” of one of those apt-to-condo things. Well he was mindlessly nailing the plywood with the gun, just trying to get it stuck back together, it was hilarious and sad at the same time. I wonder how many pipes or wires he must have hit?

Nailgun in the hands of someone inexperienced? That scares the sh*t out of me. It is not called a Nailgun for the heck of it. It can easily put a 16d nail through someones skull, eyes or other body parts.
I’ve seen the same type of thing. I put myself through college doing construction and had the opportunity to ‘inherit’ the journeyman carpenter’s business at 18 (I could have quit college and took up the business). I passed on it. I saw the writing on the wall. I put a lot of the blame on ‘beancounters’ with no experience in the business. The ‘beancounters’ would compare the hourly rate and use that for sole determination, ignoring rework, quality and production rates.

I have also seen the ‘rework’ of these guys. Case in point, a recently purchased new house had damage to the bathtub (probably a hammer dropping on it). Part of the purchase agreement was for the tub to be replaced. Because tubs have an outer raised lip that fits under the tile, the tub has to be ‘cut’ out of the wall. The person who cut out the tub did the cut in one pass.. through the tile, creteboard/cement backing board, moisture barrier, OSB/Green-rock. This creates the problem where the seam between the replaced tile and existing tile is not supported and will flex, breaking the grout and allowing water all the way into the wall. The cuts are supposed to be ‘staggered’ and the cut behind the OSB/Green-rock needs to be ‘crippled’.

Your posts are spot-on. Don’t let the emotional and personal attacks bother you. It simply means they don’t have a valid, logical argument.

Thanks.. I don’t let them bother me.. but I do address them directly and call the attacks for what they are.

BTW, I’d much prefer paying $3.00 per head of lettuce than $.50, if it meant the worker who picked it was legal and earning a livable wage and good benefits; but that’s just me.

I will never fall for the argument that cheaper produce (and we really don’t **know** that, do we?)

Interesting that you mention this. Lettuce is largely picked mechanically, as are beets, potatoes, celery, etc. If you have the book “The Way Things Work”, Simon and Schuster publisher; vol 1 page 434 is a lightweight description of how a beet harvester works. A lettuce harvester is similar except it doesn’t have to pick up the root and effectively the top of the ‘beet’ is the lettuce head in the device. I got the series for my 8th Christmas birthday.

Apples, Oranges, Avocados, Strawberries, etc are picked manually. I wouldn’t be surprised if Strawberries can be picked mechanically since the plant can be sacrificed at picking time.

[ucodegen]

This reminds me of a few years ago when I was in El Cajon there was a young kid,hispanic who spoke spanish who was using a nail gun during “construction” of one of those apt-to-condo things. Well he was mindlessly nailing the plywood with the gun, just trying to get it stuck back together, it was hilarious and sad at the same time. I wonder how many pipes or wires he must have hit?

Nailgun in the hands of someone inexperienced? That scares the sh*t out of me. It is not called a Nailgun for the heck of it. It can easily put a 16d nail through someones skull, eyes or other body parts.
I’ve seen the same type of thing. I put myself through college doing construction and had the opportunity to ‘inherit’ the journeyman carpenter’s business at 18 (I could have quit college and took up the business). I passed on it. I saw the writing on the wall. I put a lot of the blame on ‘beancounters’ with no experience in the business. The ‘beancounters’ would compare the hourly rate and use that for sole determination, ignoring rework, quality and production rates.

I have also seen the ‘rework’ of these guys. Case in point, a recently purchased new house had damage to the bathtub (probably a hammer dropping on it). Part of the purchase agreement was for the tub to be replaced. Because tubs have an outer raised lip that fits under the tile, the tub has to be ‘cut’ out of the wall. The person who cut out the tub did the cut in one pass.. through the tile, creteboard/cement backing board, moisture barrier, OSB/Green-rock. This creates the problem where the seam between the replaced tile and existing tile is not supported and will flex, breaking the grout and allowing water all the way into the wall. The cuts are supposed to be ‘staggered’ and the cut behind the OSB/Green-rock needs to be ‘crippled’.

Your posts are spot-on. Don’t let the emotional and personal attacks bother you. It simply means they don’t have a valid, logical argument.

Thanks.. I don’t let them bother me.. but I do address them directly and call the attacks for what they are.

BTW, I’d much prefer paying $3.00 per head of lettuce than $.50, if it meant the worker who picked it was legal and earning a livable wage and good benefits; but that’s just me.

I will never fall for the argument that cheaper produce (and we really don’t **know** that, do we?)

Interesting that you mention this. Lettuce is largely picked mechanically, as are beets, potatoes, celery, etc. If you have the book “The Way Things Work”, Simon and Schuster publisher; vol 1 page 434 is a lightweight description of how a beet harvester works. A lettuce harvester is similar except it doesn’t have to pick up the root and effectively the top of the ‘beet’ is the lettuce head in the device. I got the series for my 8th Christmas birthday.

Apples, Oranges, Avocados, Strawberries, etc are picked manually. I wouldn’t be surprised if Strawberries can be picked mechanically since the plant can be sacrificed at picking time.

[ucodegen]

This reminds me of a few years ago when I was in El Cajon there was a young kid,hispanic who spoke spanish who was using a nail gun during “construction” of one of those apt-to-condo things. Well he was mindlessly nailing the plywood with the gun, just trying to get it stuck back together, it was hilarious and sad at the same time. I wonder how many pipes or wires he must have hit?

Nailgun in the hands of someone inexperienced? That scares the sh*t out of me. It is not called a Nailgun for the heck of it. It can easily put a 16d nail through someones skull, eyes or other body parts.
I’ve seen the same type of thing. I put myself through college doing construction and had the opportunity to ‘inherit’ the journeyman carpenter’s business at 18 (I could have quit college and took up the business). I passed on it. I saw the writing on the wall. I put a lot of the blame on ‘beancounters’ with no experience in the business. The ‘beancounters’ would compare the hourly rate and use that for sole determination, ignoring rework, quality and production rates.

I have also seen the ‘rework’ of these guys. Case in point, a recently purchased new house had damage to the bathtub (probably a hammer dropping on it). Part of the purchase agreement was for the tub to be replaced. Because tubs have an outer raised lip that fits under the tile, the tub has to be ‘cut’ out of the wall. The person who cut out the tub did the cut in one pass.. through the tile, creteboard/cement backing board, moisture barrier, OSB/Green-rock. This creates the problem where the seam between the replaced tile and existing tile is not supported and will flex, breaking the grout and allowing water all the way into the wall. The cuts are supposed to be ‘staggered’ and the cut behind the OSB/Green-rock needs to be ‘crippled’.

Your posts are spot-on. Don’t let the emotional and personal attacks bother you. It simply means they don’t have a valid, logical argument.

Thanks.. I don’t let them bother me.. but I do address them directly and call the attacks for what they are.

BTW, I’d much prefer paying $3.00 per head of lettuce than $.50, if it meant the worker who picked it was legal and earning a livable wage and good benefits; but that’s just me.

I will never fall for the argument that cheaper produce (and we really don’t **know** that, do we?)

Interesting that you mention this. Lettuce is largely picked mechanically, as are beets, potatoes, celery, etc. If you have the book “The Way Things Work”, Simon and Schuster publisher; vol 1 page 434 is a lightweight description of how a beet harvester works. A lettuce harvester is similar except it doesn’t have to pick up the root and effectively the top of the ‘beet’ is the lettuce head in the device. I got the series for my 8th Christmas birthday.

Apples, Oranges, Avocados, Strawberries, etc are picked manually. I wouldn’t be surprised if Strawberries can be picked mechanically since the plant can be sacrificed at picking time.

[moneymaker]

“If you think about real estate. A house can be just as well built with legal or illegal construction workers. The house itself does not care.”

This reminds me of a few years ago when I was in El Cajon there was a young kid,hispanic who spoke spanish who was using a nail gun during “construction” of one of those apt-to-condo things. Well he was mindlessly nailing the plywood with the gun, just trying to get it stuck back together, it was hilarious and sad at the same time. I wonder how many pipes or wires he must have hit?

[moneymaker]

“If you think about real estate. A house can be just as well built with legal or illegal construction workers. The house itself does not care.”

This reminds me of a few years ago when I was in El Cajon there was a young kid,hispanic who spoke spanish who was using a nail gun during “construction” of one of those apt-to-condo things. Well he was mindlessly nailing the plywood with the gun, just trying to get it stuck back together, it was hilarious and sad at the same time. I wonder how many pipes or wires he must have hit?

[moneymaker]

“If you think about real estate. A house can be just as well built with legal or illegal construction workers. The house itself does not care.”

This reminds me of a few years ago when I was in El Cajon there was a young kid,hispanic who spoke spanish who was using a nail gun during “construction” of one of those apt-to-condo things. Well he was mindlessly nailing the plywood with the gun, just trying to get it stuck back together, it was hilarious and sad at the same time. I wonder how many pipes or wires he must have hit?

[moneymaker]

“If you think about real estate. A house can be just as well built with legal or illegal construction workers. The house itself does not care.”

This reminds me of a few years ago when I was in El Cajon there was a young kid,hispanic who spoke spanish who was using a nail gun during “construction” of one of those apt-to-condo things. Well he was mindlessly nailing the plywood with the gun, just trying to get it stuck back together, it was hilarious and sad at the same time. I wonder how many pipes or wires he must have hit?

[briansd1]

Hobie, the economy (money) does not care if immigration is legal or not. To have a vibrant economy, you need people to create economic turnover.

If you think about real estate. A house can be just as well built with legal or illegal construction workers. The house itself does not care.

[briansd1]

Hobie, the economy (money) does not care if immigration is legal or not. To have a vibrant economy, you need people to create economic turnover.

If you think about real estate. A house can be just as well built with legal or illegal construction workers. The house itself does not care.

[briansd1]

Hobie, the economy (money) does not care if immigration is legal or not. To have a vibrant economy, you need people to create economic turnover.

If you think about real estate. A house can be just as well built with legal or illegal construction workers. The house itself does not care.

[briansd1]

Hobie, the economy (money) does not care if immigration is legal or not. To have a vibrant economy, you need people to create economic turnover.

If you think about real estate. A house can be just as well built with legal or illegal construction workers. The house itself does not care.

[Hobie]

[quote=briansd1]

Without immigration, there would be no economic growth. Remember that.

[/quote]

LEGAL is the key word missing here. And it does change the argument.

[Hobie]

[quote=briansd1]

Without immigration, there would be no economic growth. Remember that.

[/quote]

LEGAL is the key word missing here. And it does change the argument.

[Hobie]

[quote=briansd1]

Without immigration, there would be no economic growth. Remember that.

[/quote]

LEGAL is the key word missing here. And it does change the argument.

[Hobie]

[quote=briansd1]

Without immigration, there would be no economic growth. Remember that.

[/quote]

LEGAL is the key word missing here. And it does change the argument.

[briansd1]

Get the facts straight.

1) American citizens, and legal residents with restrictions, have access to social services.

2) Illegals are not eligible for the social safety net.

3) A child born in USA (of a illegal or illegal mother) is an American citizen.

Without immigration, there would be no economic growth. Remember that.

Economic growth benefits most the people at the top who control the wealth. That would be rich white men and the class of professionals that support the economic system.

If you’re a working class White person, you really have more in common with Blacks and Hispanics than you would want to believe.

[briansd1]

Get the facts straight.

1) American citizens, and legal residents with restrictions, have access to social services.

2) Illegals are not eligible for the social safety net.

3) A child born in USA (of a illegal or illegal mother) is an American citizen.

Without immigration, there would be no economic growth. Remember that.

Economic growth benefits most the people at the top who control the wealth. That would be rich white men and the class of professionals that support the economic system.

If you’re a working class White person, you really have more in common with Blacks and Hispanics than you would want to believe.

[briansd1]

Get the facts straight.

1) American citizens, and legal residents with restrictions, have access to social services.

2) Illegals are not eligible for the social safety net.

3) A child born in USA (of a illegal or illegal mother) is an American citizen.

Without immigration, there would be no economic growth. Remember that.

Economic growth benefits most the people at the top who control the wealth. That would be rich white men and the class of professionals that support the economic system.

If you’re a working class White person, you really have more in common with Blacks and Hispanics than you would want to believe.

[briansd1]

Get the facts straight.

1) American citizens, and legal residents with restrictions, have access to social services.

2) Illegals are not eligible for the social safety net.

3) A child born in USA (of a illegal or illegal mother) is an American citizen.

Without immigration, there would be no economic growth. Remember that.

Economic growth benefits most the people at the top who control the wealth. That would be rich white men and the class of professionals that support the economic system.

If you’re a working class White person, you really have more in common with Blacks and Hispanics than you would want to believe.

[bobby]

[quote=Jumby]I don’t know how to do math because I posted an email that was sent to me?

Get some logic and then get a life, loser.[/quote]
if I were to post some email saying that the earth is flat then I’m stupid for spreading mindless crap.
you posted some info that is flat out wrong to prove a point. Apparently you believe this info without critically thinking about it.

[Jumby]

[quote=bobby][quote=Jumby]I don’t know how to do math because I posted an email that was sent to me?

Get some logic and then get a life, loser.[/quote]
if I were to post some email saying that the earth is flat then I’m stupid for spreading mindless crap.
you posted some info that is flat out wrong to prove a point. Apparently you believe this info without critically thinking about it.[/quote]

Bobby, Bobby, Bobby…you know what they say about ASSumptions….

I don’t believe it, but I did think of this board and knew I’d get to read some great responses to the debate of illegals and I was proven right…some good stuff was posted, sans you.

[scaredyclassic]

sometimes i think it might be nice to just live ina van by the river.

[scaredyclassic]

sometimes i think it might be nice to just live ina van by the river.

[scaredyclassic]

sometimes i think it might be nice to just live ina van by the river.

[scaredyclassic]

sometimes i think it might be nice to just live ina van by the river.

[scaredyclassic]

sometimes i think it might be nice to just live ina van by the river.

[Jumby]

[quote=bobby][quote=Jumby]I don’t know how to do math because I posted an email that was sent to me?

Get some logic and then get a life, loser.[/quote]
if I were to post some email saying that the earth is flat then I’m stupid for spreading mindless crap.
you posted some info that is flat out wrong to prove a point. Apparently you believe this info without critically thinking about it.[/quote]

Bobby, Bobby, Bobby…you know what they say about ASSumptions….

I don’t believe it, but I did think of this board and knew I’d get to read some great responses to the debate of illegals and I was proven right…some good stuff was posted, sans you.

[Jumby]

[quote=bobby][quote=Jumby]I don’t know how to do math because I posted an email that was sent to me?

Get some logic and then get a life, loser.[/quote]
if I were to post some email saying that the earth is flat then I’m stupid for spreading mindless crap.
you posted some info that is flat out wrong to prove a point. Apparently you believe this info without critically thinking about it.[/quote]

Bobby, Bobby, Bobby…you know what they say about ASSumptions….

I don’t believe it, but I did think of this board and knew I’d get to read some great responses to the debate of illegals and I was proven right…some good stuff was posted, sans you.

[Jumby]

[quote=bobby][quote=Jumby]I don’t know how to do math because I posted an email that was sent to me?

Get some logic and then get a life, loser.[/quote]
if I were to post some email saying that the earth is flat then I’m stupid for spreading mindless crap.
you posted some info that is flat out wrong to prove a point. Apparently you believe this info without critically thinking about it.[/quote]

Bobby, Bobby, Bobby…you know what they say about ASSumptions….

I don’t believe it, but I did think of this board and knew I’d get to read some great responses to the debate of illegals and I was proven right…some good stuff was posted, sans you.

[Jumby]

[quote=bobby][quote=Jumby]I don’t know how to do math because I posted an email that was sent to me?

Get some logic and then get a life, loser.[/quote]
if I were to post some email saying that the earth is flat then I’m stupid for spreading mindless crap.
you posted some info that is flat out wrong to prove a point. Apparently you believe this info without critically thinking about it.[/quote]

Bobby, Bobby, Bobby…you know what they say about ASSumptions….

I don’t believe it, but I did think of this board and knew I’d get to read some great responses to the debate of illegals and I was proven right…some good stuff was posted, sans you.

[bobby]

[quote=Jumby]I don’t know how to do math because I posted an email that was sent to me?

Get some logic and then get a life, loser.[/quote]
if I were to post some email saying that the earth is flat then I’m stupid for spreading mindless crap.
you posted some info that is flat out wrong to prove a point. Apparently you believe this info without critically thinking about it.

[bobby]

[quote=Jumby]I don’t know how to do math because I posted an email that was sent to me?

Get some logic and then get a life, loser.[/quote]
if I were to post some email saying that the earth is flat then I’m stupid for spreading mindless crap.
you posted some info that is flat out wrong to prove a point. Apparently you believe this info without critically thinking about it.

[bobby]

[quote=Jumby]I don’t know how to do math because I posted an email that was sent to me?

Get some logic and then get a life, loser.[/quote]
if I were to post some email saying that the earth is flat then I’m stupid for spreading mindless crap.
you posted some info that is flat out wrong to prove a point. Apparently you believe this info without critically thinking about it.

[bobby]

[quote=Jumby]I don’t know how to do math because I posted an email that was sent to me?

Get some logic and then get a life, loser.[/quote]
if I were to post some email saying that the earth is flat then I’m stupid for spreading mindless crap.
you posted some info that is flat out wrong to prove a point. Apparently you believe this info without critically thinking about it.

[Jumby]

I don’t know how to do math because I posted an email that was sent to me?

Get some logic and then get a life, loser.

[Jumby]

I don’t know how to do math because I posted an email that was sent to me?

Get some logic and then get a life, loser.

[Jumby]

I don’t know how to do math because I posted an email that was sent to me?

Get some logic and then get a life, loser.

[Jumby]

I don’t know how to do math because I posted an email that was sent to me?

Get some logic and then get a life, loser.

[bobby]

[quote=Jumby]instead of me checking my math you need to read…i said i had this email forwarded to me[/quote]

hence my statement of “mindlessly reposting”.
Folks on this board know basic math. You’re the exception.
apparently you don’t know how to do basic reading either.

[bobby]

[quote=Jumby]instead of me checking my math you need to read…i said i had this email forwarded to me[/quote]

hence my statement of “mindlessly reposting”.
Folks on this board know basic math. You’re the exception.
apparently you don’t know how to do basic reading either.

[bobby]

[quote=Jumby]instead of me checking my math you need to read…i said i had this email forwarded to me[/quote]

hence my statement of “mindlessly reposting”.
Folks on this board know basic math. You’re the exception.
apparently you don’t know how to do basic reading either.

[bobby]

[quote=Jumby]instead of me checking my math you need to read…i said i had this email forwarded to me[/quote]

hence my statement of “mindlessly reposting”.
Folks on this board know basic math. You’re the exception.
apparently you don’t know how to do basic reading either.

[Jumby]

instead of me checking my math you need to read…i said i had this email forwarded to me

[Jumby]

instead of me checking my math you need to read…i said i had this email forwarded to me

[Jumby]

instead of me checking my math you need to read…i said i had this email forwarded to me

[Jumby]

instead of me checking my math you need to read…i said i had this email forwarded to me

[bobby]

you really need to check your math.
70% of $52,000 is not $31,231.
then $31,200 – 6000 (for housing) is not $31,200.
people need to stop and think before mindlessly reposting stupid crap.

[bobby]

you really need to check your math.
70% of $52,000 is not $31,231.
then $31,200 – 6000 (for housing) is not $31,200.
people need to stop and think before mindlessly reposting stupid crap.

[bobby]

you really need to check your math.
70% of $52,000 is not $31,231.
then $31,200 – 6000 (for housing) is not $31,200.
people need to stop and think before mindlessly reposting stupid crap.

[bobby]

you really need to check your math.
70% of $52,000 is not $31,231.
then $31,200 – 6000 (for housing) is not $31,200.
people need to stop and think before mindlessly reposting stupid crap.

[Coronita]

Joe legal needs to get a grip and stop complaining

Joe legal needs to stop voting for those steal-a-ticians who are taking 30% away of his pay and fattening city/state/federal worker pensions.

[Coronita]

Joe legal needs to get a grip and stop complaining

Joe legal needs to stop voting for those steal-a-ticians who are taking 30% away of his pay and fattening city/state/federal worker pensions.

[Coronita]

Joe legal needs to get a grip and stop complaining

Joe legal needs to stop voting for those steal-a-ticians who are taking 30% away of his pay and fattening city/state/federal worker pensions.

[Coronita]

Joe legal needs to get a grip and stop complaining

Joe legal needs to stop voting for those steal-a-ticians who are taking 30% away of his pay and fattening city/state/federal worker pensions.

[Anonymous]

If Jose is illegal, how is he eligible for food stamps or federal rent subsidy? If all illegals were actually getting all of the benefits depicted in this email, then why would there be such a cry for amnesty? Obviously they are not getting access to all of the federal welfare programs.

[ucodegen]

If Jose is illegal, how is he eligible for food stamps or federal rent subsidy?

If Jose has a child with ‘Miranda’ in the U.S., they are now eligible because the child is a citizen by birth — Anchor baby..

[Eugene]

There’s absolutely no way a family with a $52,000 income would pay 30% in taxes. They’d pay $2000, tops (4%), in federal and state taxes combined.

This whole calculation assumes that the illegal guy works full time at $15/hour under the table (very few of them do) and somehow manages to get full benefits.

In reality, Jose Illegal will get $6/hour under the table working full time (if he does not want to work for that kind of money – there are lots out there who do). His alternative is to try to find work as a day-laborer, he’ll be paid $10/hour, but he’s not guaranteed to find any work at all.

With regard to benefits, his children will get free lunches at school, and Jose himself might be able to get food stamps. He most definitely does not qualify for state-sponsored medical insurance (though his citizen children, if any, might qualify). As of one year ago, Medi-Cal does not provide dental coverage at all, even to bona fide citizens.

[SK in CV]

Very good point Eugene

[quote=Eugene]There’s absolutely no way a family with a $52,000 income would pay 30% in taxes. They’d pay $2000, tops (4%), in federal and state taxes combined.
[/quote]

Exact numbers for 2009 would be:

Federal Income Tax: $1,069
California Income Tax: 0
Social Security: $3,069
SDI: $572

Total Tax: $5,619

Just under 11% total taxes.

[SK in CV]

Very good point Eugene

[quote=Eugene]There’s absolutely no way a family with a $52,000 income would pay 30% in taxes. They’d pay $2000, tops (4%), in federal and state taxes combined.
[/quote]

Exact numbers for 2009 would be:

Federal Income Tax: $1,069
California Income Tax: 0
Social Security: $3,069
SDI: $572

Total Tax: $5,619

Just under 11% total taxes.

[SK in CV]

Very good point Eugene

[quote=Eugene]There’s absolutely no way a family with a $52,000 income would pay 30% in taxes. They’d pay $2000, tops (4%), in federal and state taxes combined.
[/quote]

Exact numbers for 2009 would be:

Federal Income Tax: $1,069
California Income Tax: 0
Social Security: $3,069
SDI: $572

Total Tax: $5,619

Just under 11% total taxes.

[SK in CV]

Very good point Eugene

[quote=Eugene]There’s absolutely no way a family with a $52,000 income would pay 30% in taxes. They’d pay $2000, tops (4%), in federal and state taxes combined.
[/quote]

Exact numbers for 2009 would be:

Federal Income Tax: $1,069
California Income Tax: 0
Social Security: $3,069
SDI: $572

Total Tax: $5,619

Just under 11% total taxes.

[SK in CV]

Very good point Eugene

[quote=Eugene]There’s absolutely no way a family with a $52,000 income would pay 30% in taxes. They’d pay $2000, tops (4%), in federal and state taxes combined.
[/quote]

Exact numbers for 2009 would be:

Federal Income Tax: $1,069
California Income Tax: 0
Social Security: $3,069
SDI: $572

Total Tax: $5,619

Just under 11% total taxes.

[ucodegen]

There’s absolutely no way a family with a $52,000 income would pay 30% in taxes. They’d pay $2000, tops (4%), in federal and state taxes combined.

Wrong:
Social Security = 6.2% for both employer and employee (total 12.4%)
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html
Fed Income tax rate @ 52k = 15%(on amount above 16,700) + $802.5 = 13.39% – I used married filing jointly @ 2009, but did not place deductions.
http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm
California state marginal tax rate for $52K is 9.3%. Total tax is $2531.35 = 4.9%
http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layouthtmls/swzl_statetaxrate_ca.html

Total tax rate is 6.2% + 13.39% + 4.9% = 24.49% (not including San Diego local tax (about 1%), not including property tax (about 1%) and health insurance. It also does not account for AGI adjustment for deductions – largest is mortgage interest deduction (which may drop him a state bracket but not a fed tax bracket, you can only deduct the interest not the principal) Nor does this take into account sales tax on virtually everything that Joe Legal buys (varying from location to location, but generally around 8%).

In reality, Jose Illegal will get $6/hour under the table working full time (if he does not want to work for that kind of money – there are lots out there who do).

During the real estate bubble – the illegals were getting more than $15/hour. In 1976, apprentice carpenters were making $15/hour, and journeymen were making a lot more.

[SK in CV]

[quote=ucodegen]

There’s absolutely no way a family with a $52,000 income would pay 30% in taxes. They’d pay $2000, tops (4%), in federal and state taxes combined.

Wrong:
Social Security = 6.2% for both employer and employee (total 12.4%)
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html
Fed Income tax rate @ 52k = 15%(on amount above 16,700) + $802.5 = 13.39% – I used married filing jointly @ 2009, but did not place deductions.
http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm
California state marginal tax rate for $52K is 9.3%. Total tax is $2531.35 = 4.9%
http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layouthtmls/swzl_statetaxrate_ca.html

Total tax rate is 6.2% + 13.39% + 4.9% = 24.49% (not including San Diego local tax (about 1%), not including property tax (about 1%) and health insurance. It also does not account for AGI adjustment for deductions – largest is mortgage interest deduction (which may drop him a state bracket but not a fed tax bracket, you can only deduct the interest not the principal) Nor does this take into account sales tax on virtually everything that Joe Legal buys (varying from location to location, but generally around 8%).

In reality, Jose Illegal will get $6/hour under the table working full time (if he does not want to work for that kind of money – there are lots out there who do).

During the real estate bubble – the illegals were getting more than $15/hour. In 1976, apprentice carpenters were making $15/hour, and journeymen were making a lot more.[/quote]

See my numbers above. I computed the tax based on the 2009 rates.

Joe Legal wouldn’t pay the employers share of SS (which is actually 7.65% not 6.2%).

There is no local San Diego income tax. (You may be confused by SDI, which is state disability insurance. Currently 1.1%)

You didn’t take into consideration the standard deduction or personal exemptions or child tax credit on the federal, which would have greatly reduced their taxes to just over 2%. And the standard deduction and expemption credits on the state which would have eliminated any state income tax.

Sales taxes would have been paid equally both both Joes.

If they were renters or homeowners, they would have effectivly paid similar property taxes either through their landlord or directly.

[ucodegen]

Joe Legal wouldn’t pay the employers share of SS (which is actually 7.65% not 6.2%).

Where do you get your numbers? I got mine from social security admin. 6.2% is the employee’s haircut, 6.2% is the employers haircut. If you look on your W-2, it is box #4. See also linky, notice it says employee and employees each. OASDI is social security and medicare. The self employed show what the total rate is, which is 12.4%. Your employer takes half and the employee takes half. HI is medicare hospital insurance which brings it to 7.65% each to the employer and employee.

You didn’t take into consideration the standard deduction or personal exemptions or child tax credit on the federal, which would have greatly reduced their taxes to just over 2%.

It doesn’t reduce it that much. How many child credits were you taking for Joe Legal? Standard deductions apply to income not the tax, so they reduce the AGI.

Sales taxes would have been paid equally both both Joes.

You mean Joe and Jose. True, though Jose would probably be spending more in Mexico by sending money home.

[SK in CV]

[quote=ucodegen]

Joe Legal wouldn’t pay the employers share of SS (which is actually 7.65% not 6.2%).

Where do you get your numbers? I got mine from social security admin. 6.2% is the employee’s haircut, 6.2% is the employers haircut. If you look on your W-2, it is box #4. See also linky, notice it says employee and employees each. OASDI is social security and medicare. The self employed show what the total rate is, which is 12.4%. Your employer takes half and the employee takes half. HI is medicare hospital insurance which brings it to 7.65% each to the employer and employee.

You didn’t take into consideration the standard deduction or personal exemptions or child tax credit on the federal, which would have greatly reduced their taxes to just over 2%.

It doesn’t reduce it that much. How many child credits were you taking for Joe Legal? Standard deductions apply to income not the tax, so they reduce the AGI.

Sales taxes would have been paid equally both both Joes.

You mean Joe and Jose. True, though Jose would probably be spending more in Mexico by sending money home.[/quote]

One at at time.

In the old days it was commonly known as FICA. That’s social security. Currently 7.65% for both employee and employer. 6.2% for OASDI and 1.45 for Medicare.

Standard deduction is $11,400. Exemption for joe, mrs. joe, and the two little joes total $14,600. bringing taxable income down to $26,000. 2 child care credits of 41,000 each brings fed tax down to $1,069.

If Jose is sending money home, that means that Joe could be saving too, and not paying sales tax.

[ucodegen]

In the old days it was commonly known as FICA. That’s social security. Currently 7.65% for both employee and employer. 6.2% for OASDI and 1.45 for Medicare.

Which is my point with this one. The employee kicks in 6.2% (7.65% including Medicare Hospital Insurance) and the employer kicks in another 7.65%. The employer does not cover both. The illegal kicks in nothing as does the employer of the illegal.

Standard deduction is $11,400. Exemption for joe, mrs. joe, and the two little joes total $14,600. bringing taxable income down to $26,000. 2 child care credits of 41,000 each brings fed tax down to $1,069.

Are you sure you can take the child care credit when the wife is not working? Otherwise we will have to factor in her wage which up to now has not been included. We have also not considered children and the cost to the system of Jose Illegal’s kids (which would get educated in the US school system at the cost of over $8000 per kid per year) and not mentioning the likeliness that any health issues with the Jose Illegal’s children will be handled by Medicaid. Child care and deductions for children are out unless we consider costs to the system of children on both sides.

[SK in CV]

[quote=ucodegen]

In the old days it was commonly known as FICA. That’s social security. Currently 7.65% for both employee and employer. 6.2% for OASDI and 1.45 for Medicare.

Which is my point with this one. The employee kicks in 6.2% (7.65% including Medicare Hospital Insurance) and the employer kicks in another 7.65%. The employer does not cover both. The illegal kicks in nothing as does the employer of the illegal.

Standard deduction is $11,400. Exemption for joe, mrs. joe, and the two little joes total $14,600. bringing taxable income down to $26,000. 2 child care credits of 41,000 each brings fed tax down to $1,069.

Are you sure you can take the child care credit when the wife is not working? Otherwise we will have to factor in her wage which up to now has not been included. We have also not considered children and the cost to the system of Jose Illegal’s kids (which would get educated in the US school system at the cost of over $8000 per kid per year) and not mentioning the likeliness that any health issues with the Jose Illegal’s children will be handled by Medicaid. Child care and deductions for children are out unless we consider costs to the system of children on both sides.[/quote]

On the first point, no, it wasn’t your point. It was mine. You started out claiming it was just the 6.2%, not 7.65%. If we’re comparing how much money Joe and Jose have to live on, the employer’s share is incidental.

And yes, I’m sure on the calculation. If my masters in tax and 20 years as a CPA didn’t make me confident enough, my tax software did.

No need to even address the rest of your long debunked racist screed. But please answer me this. Do you really think that Jose’s 8 year old son really deserves less of an education than Joe’s son simply because of where his parents were born?

[ucodegen]

On the first point, no, it wasn’t your point. It was mine. You started out claiming it was just the 6.2%, not 7.65%. If we’re comparing how much money Joe and Jose have to live on, the employer’s share is incidental.

Actually it was mine.. take a look at the statements where I said it was to ‘each’ in response to the person claiming only 4% tax. True, I initially left out the 1.45%. That was because I was checking what it was for. As for the employers amount being incidental, its a yes and no. It is part of what drives employers to hire and illegal at the same wage as a legal. Employers can actually hire an illegal and pay 7.65% more and come out even compared to a citizen.

No need to even address the rest of your long debunked racist screed. But please answer me this. Do you really think that Jose’s 8 year old son really deserves less of an education than Joe’s son simply because of where his parents were born?

When logic fails, resort to name calling (ie racist screed). If you really knew me, you would know that this comment is so far off that it is laughable.
As for the issues of education, YES! I don’t like it but I do understand that when a culture is allowed to ‘offload’ its costs onto another.. it will. The support of Jose’s son potentially denies money to someone who took the legal path. The funds are finite. One of my parents was a teacher in the LA City School District. She saw the costs of this activity and the resulting problems. If Jose was legal, he would be paying income tax which would be, in part, covering the costs for schooling. To me, it is not an issue of race. It is an issue of illegal vs legal. In the last amnesty w/ respect to citizen, many illegals didn’t petition to become citizens for a simple monetary reason. If they were a citizen; they would have to pay income taxes(illegals just get deported, a citizen would have to pay back taxes on undeclared income), it would be easier to track them if they skipped on a loan, it would be harder to skip on judgment(its hard enough to extradite a non Mexican citizen from Mexico. Imagine how hard it is to extradite a Mexican from Mexico).. besides, they are already getting many services for free. Why add costs and risks by becoming a citizen?

My personal belief is that there should be some form of ‘work visa’, with adjustments to taxes (ie. no social security taxes, but possibly a reduced Medicaid tax). I also think that the citizen by birth location needs to be removed. It creates too much of a problem with Anchor babies (sometimes the mother returns back to Mexico with the baby, and is able to draw on US welfare in support of her new dual citizen child – both Mexican because parents are, and U.S. by birth location). I have seen the opposite side of the US birth policy. The nightmare that comes from children of US citizens born abroad (read military and military contractors). Trying to get them cert. as a US citizen is a real pain (DNA tests sometimes required). This doesn’t even cover issues like ability to be President and whether they can hold a clearance.

Why take the effort on getting your country back under the control of the citizens when all you have to do is go north? The Mexican government is exporting its problems north instead of dealing with them, and their citizens are heading north instead of dealing with their government.

[SK in CV]

I’ll just respond to this one little thing.

[quote=ucodegen]When logic fails, resort to name calling (ie racist screed). If you really knew me, you would know that this comment is so far off that it is laughable.
[/quote]

There was no name calling. I think you have adopted a racist screed. That doesn’t make you a racist.

The argument that undocumented aliens are a huge drain on the system has long been debunked. In some counties and states their contributions are less than associated costs. In others they are more. Nationwide, there are no conclusive studies, though in more recent years the contribution of the undocumented has risen with better enforcement of employment laws. The “under the table” payments, as described in the original post have dropped dramatically in the last 10 years. They’re not gone, but they’re nowhere near where they were. As previously mentioned by at least one other poster, payment of social security and medicare taxes by those who will never receive any benefits is a huge gain for the system. It extends the solvency of both programs.

On education, if I understand you to be saying that you believe that children of citizens are more worthy of an education than those of non-citizens, solely based upon where their parents were born, I am simply dumbfounded by your sense of superiority, arrogance and entitlement. Hopefully I misunderstand you.

[ucodegen]

, I am simply dumbfounded by your sense of superiority, arrogance and entitlement. Hopefully I misunderstand you.

Ah, another personal attack. Lets try dealing with the facts instead of using emotionally charged words and phrases in an attempt to tilt the discussion.. followed by a ‘naw, you couldn’t be that bad a person, I must be misunderstanding you’ type of phrase.

In your previous post, what was the point of even bringing up ‘racists screed’? Emotionally charged words, yes.. and it attempts to shut down discussion by trying to associate my position with that of a racist (something commonly viewed untenable). Thereby in that mechanism, it is also ‘name calling’ through association.

The argument that undocumented aliens are a huge drain on the system has long been debunked. In some counties and states their contributions are less than associated costs. In others they are more.

No it hasn’t been debunked. The supposed ‘debunk’ was through a straw man argument. The taxes that the illegal would owe on income would flow back to the state through sales taxes. What exposes the straw man is that the U.S. operates as an income tax not a VAT tax system. If it were VAT, we would see sales taxes of 15% and higher. The attempted ‘debunkers’ closed off the argument to the effect that the drop in agricultural costs and resulting drop in food prices more than offsets any cost to the U.S. and that most people in the U.S. don’t want those type of jobs anyway. This attempted diversion ignores the simple fact that introduction of the illegals to the labor pool depresses the lower wage range at a cost to the lower and lower middle classes and that some people actually would take that job.

As previously mentioned by at least one other poster, payment of social security and medicare taxes by those who will never receive any benefits is a huge gain for the system.

Red Herring. Answer me this: How can they pay into the system without a Social Security Number (legal citizen) or Taxpayer ID Number(green card). There is not mechanism for the social security system to accept such money without either associated IDs.. which an illegal does not have. There is also no mechanism to collect income taxes without either Social Security ID or Taxpayer ID.

On education, if I understand you to be saying that you believe that children of citizens are more worthy of an education than those of non-citizens,

Yes.

solely based upon where their parents were born,

No. Remember, many citizens are legal immigrants. Heck, unless you are American Indian, we all are immigrants or descended from immigrants. Lets make it easier for you. Lets change Joe to Juan in the above example. Juan Legal (from Mexico) took the legal path to citizenship; including the tests, waiting period, not being a felon etc. Jose is still Jose Illegal. Would it be right to force Juan to sacrifice some of the quality in his kids education to help improve the education quality of Jose Illegal’s kids? even considering that Jose could have taken the legal path to citizenship like Juan Legal?

[CA renter]

[quote=ucodegen]

, I am simply dumbfounded by your sense of superiority, arrogance and entitlement. Hopefully I misunderstand you.

Ah, another personal attack. Lets try dealing with the facts instead of using emotionally charged words and phrases in an attempt to tilt the discussion.. followed by a ‘naw, you couldn’t be that bad a person, I must be misunderstanding you’ type of phrase.

In your previous post, what was the point of even bringing up ‘racists screed’? Emotionally charged words, yes.. and it attempts to shut down discussion by trying to associate my position with that of a racist (something commonly viewed untenable). Thereby in that mechanism, it is also ‘name calling’ through association.

The argument that undocumented aliens are a huge drain on the system has long been debunked. In some counties and states their contributions are less than associated costs. In others they are more.

No it hasn’t been debunked. The supposed ‘debunk’ was through a straw man argument. The taxes that the illegal would owe on income would flow back to the state through sales taxes. What exposes the straw man is that the U.S. operates as an income tax not a VAT tax system. If it were VAT, we would see sales taxes of 15% and higher. The attempted ‘debunkers’ closed off the argument to the effect that the drop in agricultural costs and resulting drop in food prices more than offsets any cost to the U.S. and that most people in the U.S. don’t want those type of jobs anyway. This attempted diversion ignores the simple fact that introduction of the illegals to the labor pool depresses the lower wage range at a cost to the lower and lower middle classes and that some people actually would take that job.

As previously mentioned by at least one other poster, payment of social security and medicare taxes by those who will never receive any benefits is a huge gain for the system.

Red Herring. Answer me this: How can they pay into the system without a Social Security Number (legal citizen) or Taxpayer ID Number(green card). There is not mechanism for the social security system to accept such money without either associated IDs.. which an illegal does not have. There is also no mechanism to collect income taxes without either Social Security ID or Taxpayer ID.

On education, if I understand you to be saying that you believe that children of citizens are more worthy of an education than those of non-citizens,

Yes.

solely based upon where their parents were born,

No. Remember, many citizens are legal immigrants. Heck, unless you are American Indian, we all are immigrants or descended from immigrants. Lets make it easier for you. Lets change Joe to Juan in the above example. Juan Legal (from Mexico) took the legal path to citizenship; including the tests, waiting period, not being a felon etc. Jose is still Jose Illegal. Would it be right to force Juan to sacrifice some of the quality in his kids education to help improve the education quality of Jose Illegal’s kids? even considering that Jose could have taken the legal path to citizenship like Juan Legal?[/quote]

ucodegen,

Your posts are spot-on. Don’t let the emotional and personal attacks bother you. It simply means they don’t have a valid, logical argument.

Keep up the good work.

——————

BTW, I’d much prefer paying $3.00 per head of lettuce than $.50, if it meant the worker who picked it was legal and earning a livable wage and good benefits; but that’s just me.

I will never fall for the argument that cheaper produce (and we really don’t **know** that, do we?) is worth overwhelming our physical, financial, and social infrastructure with people who are paying less in taxes than they take out **and don’t have the legal right to be here.**

The Mexicans need to fix the problems in their own country, and I think most Americans would be much more open to supporting that goal (with financial and military assistance, if need be) instead of shipping all of Mexico’s burdens to us.

[CA renter]

[quote=ucodegen]

, I am simply dumbfounded by your sense of superiority, arrogance and entitlement. Hopefully I misunderstand you.

Ah, another personal attack. Lets try dealing with the facts instead of using emotionally charged words and phrases in an attempt to tilt the discussion.. followed by a ‘naw, you couldn’t be that bad a person, I must be misunderstanding you’ type of phrase.

In your previous post, what was the point of even bringing up ‘racists screed’? Emotionally charged words, yes.. and it attempts to shut down discussion by trying to associate my position with that of a racist (something commonly viewed untenable). Thereby in that mechanism, it is also ‘name calling’ through association.

The argument that undocumented aliens are a huge drain on the system has long been debunked. In some counties and states their contributions are less than associated costs. In others they are more.

No it hasn’t been debunked. The supposed ‘debunk’ was through a straw man argument. The taxes that the illegal would owe on income would flow back to the state through sales taxes. What exposes the straw man is that the U.S. operates as an income tax not a VAT tax system. If it were VAT, we would see sales taxes of 15% and higher. The attempted ‘debunkers’ closed off the argument to the effect that the drop in agricultural costs and resulting drop in food prices more than offsets any cost to the U.S. and that most people in the U.S. don’t want those type of jobs anyway. This attempted diversion ignores the simple fact that introduction of the illegals to the labor pool depresses the lower wage range at a cost to the lower and lower middle classes and that some people actually would take that job.

As previously mentioned by at least one other poster, payment of social security and medicare taxes by those who will never receive any benefits is a huge gain for the system.

Red Herring. Answer me this: How can they pay into the system without a Social Security Number (legal citizen) or Taxpayer ID Number(green card). There is not mechanism for the social security system to accept such money without either associated IDs.. which an illegal does not have. There is also no mechanism to collect income taxes without either Social Security ID or Taxpayer ID.

On education, if I understand you to be saying that you believe that children of citizens are more worthy of an education than those of non-citizens,

Yes.

solely based upon where their parents were born,

No. Remember, many citizens are legal immigrants. Heck, unless you are American Indian, we all are immigrants or descended from immigrants. Lets make it easier for you. Lets change Joe to Juan in the above example. Juan Legal (from Mexico) took the legal path to citizenship; including the tests, waiting period, not being a felon etc. Jose is still Jose Illegal. Would it be right to force Juan to sacrifice some of the quality in his kids education to help improve the education quality of Jose Illegal’s kids? even considering that Jose could have taken the legal path to citizenship like Juan Legal?[/quote]

ucodegen,

Your posts are spot-on. Don’t let the emotional and personal attacks bother you. It simply means they don’t have a valid, logical argument.

Keep up the good work.

——————

BTW, I’d much prefer paying $3.00 per head of lettuce than $.50, if it meant the worker who picked it was legal and earning a livable wage and good benefits; but that’s just me.

I will never fall for the argument that cheaper produce (and we really don’t **know** that, do we?) is worth overwhelming our physical, financial, and social infrastructure with people who are paying less in taxes than they take out **and don’t have the legal right to be here.**

The Mexicans need to fix the problems in their own country, and I think most Americans would be much more open to supporting that goal (with financial and military assistance, if need be) instead of shipping all of Mexico’s burdens to us.

[CA renter]

[quote=ucodegen]

, I am simply dumbfounded by your sense of superiority, arrogance and entitlement. Hopefully I misunderstand you.

Ah, another personal attack. Lets try dealing with the facts instead of using emotionally charged words and phrases in an attempt to tilt the discussion.. followed by a ‘naw, you couldn’t be that bad a person, I must be misunderstanding you’ type of phrase.

In your previous post, what was the point of even bringing up ‘racists screed’? Emotionally charged words, yes.. and it attempts to shut down discussion by trying to associate my position with that of a racist (something commonly viewed untenable). Thereby in that mechanism, it is also ‘name calling’ through association.

The argument that undocumented aliens are a huge drain on the system has long been debunked. In some counties and states their contributions are less than associated costs. In others they are more.

No it hasn’t been debunked. The supposed ‘debunk’ was through a straw man argument. The taxes that the illegal would owe on income would flow back to the state through sales taxes. What exposes the straw man is that the U.S. operates as an income tax not a VAT tax system. If it were VAT, we would see sales taxes of 15% and higher. The attempted ‘debunkers’ closed off the argument to the effect that the drop in agricultural costs and resulting drop in food prices more than offsets any cost to the U.S. and that most people in the U.S. don’t want those type of jobs anyway. This attempted diversion ignores the simple fact that introduction of the illegals to the labor pool depresses the lower wage range at a cost to the lower and lower middle classes and that some people actually would take that job.

As previously mentioned by at least one other poster, payment of social security and medicare taxes by those who will never receive any benefits is a huge gain for the system.

Red Herring. Answer me this: How can they pay into the system without a Social Security Number (legal citizen) or Taxpayer ID Number(green card). There is not mechanism for the social security system to accept such money without either associated IDs.. which an illegal does not have. There is also no mechanism to collect income taxes without either Social Security ID or Taxpayer ID.

On education, if I understand you to be saying that you believe that children of citizens are more worthy of an education than those of non-citizens,

Yes.

solely based upon where their parents were born,

No. Remember, many citizens are legal immigrants. Heck, unless you are American Indian, we all are immigrants or descended from immigrants. Lets make it easier for you. Lets change Joe to Juan in the above example. Juan Legal (from Mexico) took the legal path to citizenship; including the tests, waiting period, not being a felon etc. Jose is still Jose Illegal. Would it be right to force Juan to sacrifice some of the quality in his kids education to help improve the education quality of Jose Illegal’s kids? even considering that Jose could have taken the legal path to citizenship like Juan Legal?[/quote]

ucodegen,

Your posts are spot-on. Don’t let the emotional and personal attacks bother you. It simply means they don’t have a valid, logical argument.

Keep up the good work.

——————

BTW, I’d much prefer paying $3.00 per head of lettuce than $.50, if it meant the worker who picked it was legal and earning a livable wage and good benefits; but that’s just me.

I will never fall for the argument that cheaper produce (and we really don’t **know** that, do we?) is worth overwhelming our physical, financial, and social infrastructure with people who are paying less in taxes than they take out **and don’t have the legal right to be here.**

The Mexicans need to fix the problems in their own country, and I think most Americans would be much more open to supporting that goal (with financial and military assistance, if need be) instead of shipping all of Mexico’s burdens to us.

[CA renter]

[quote=ucodegen]

, I am simply dumbfounded by your sense of superiority, arrogance and entitlement. Hopefully I misunderstand you.

Ah, another personal attack. Lets try dealing with the facts instead of using emotionally charged words and phrases in an attempt to tilt the discussion.. followed by a ‘naw, you couldn’t be that bad a person, I must be misunderstanding you’ type of phrase.

In your previous post, what was the point of even bringing up ‘racists screed’? Emotionally charged words, yes.. and it attempts to shut down discussion by trying to associate my position with that of a racist (something commonly viewed untenable). Thereby in that mechanism, it is also ‘name calling’ through association.

The argument that undocumented aliens are a huge drain on the system has long been debunked. In some counties and states their contributions are less than associated costs. In others they are more.

No it hasn’t been debunked. The supposed ‘debunk’ was through a straw man argument. The taxes that the illegal would owe on income would flow back to the state through sales taxes. What exposes the straw man is that the U.S. operates as an income tax not a VAT tax system. If it were VAT, we would see sales taxes of 15% and higher. The attempted ‘debunkers’ closed off the argument to the effect that the drop in agricultural costs and resulting drop in food prices more than offsets any cost to the U.S. and that most people in the U.S. don’t want those type of jobs anyway. This attempted diversion ignores the simple fact that introduction of the illegals to the labor pool depresses the lower wage range at a cost to the lower and lower middle classes and that some people actually would take that job.

As previously mentioned by at least one other poster, payment of social security and medicare taxes by those who will never receive any benefits is a huge gain for the system.

Red Herring. Answer me this: How can they pay into the system without a Social Security Number (legal citizen) or Taxpayer ID Number(green card). There is not mechanism for the social security system to accept such money without either associated IDs.. which an illegal does not have. There is also no mechanism to collect income taxes without either Social Security ID or Taxpayer ID.

On education, if I understand you to be saying that you believe that children of citizens are more worthy of an education than those of non-citizens,

Yes.

solely based upon where their parents were born,

No. Remember, many citizens are legal immigrants. Heck, unless you are American Indian, we all are immigrants or descended from immigrants. Lets make it easier for you. Lets change Joe to Juan in the above example. Juan Legal (from Mexico) took the legal path to citizenship; including the tests, waiting period, not being a felon etc. Jose is still Jose Illegal. Would it be right to force Juan to sacrifice some of the quality in his kids education to help improve the education quality of Jose Illegal’s kids? even considering that Jose could have taken the legal path to citizenship like Juan Legal?[/quote]

ucodegen,

Your posts are spot-on. Don’t let the emotional and personal attacks bother you. It simply means they don’t have a valid, logical argument.

Keep up the good work.

——————

BTW, I’d much prefer paying $3.00 per head of lettuce than $.50, if it meant the worker who picked it was legal and earning a livable wage and good benefits; but that’s just me.

I will never fall for the argument that cheaper produce (and we really don’t **know** that, do we?) is worth overwhelming our physical, financial, and social infrastructure with people who are paying less in taxes than they take out **and don’t have the legal right to be here.**

The Mexicans need to fix the problems in their own country, and I think most Americans would be much more open to supporting that goal (with financial and military assistance, if need be) instead of shipping all of Mexico’s burdens to us.

[CA renter]

[quote=ucodegen]

, I am simply dumbfounded by your sense of superiority, arrogance and entitlement. Hopefully I misunderstand you.

Ah, another personal attack. Lets try dealing with the facts instead of using emotionally charged words and phrases in an attempt to tilt the discussion.. followed by a ‘naw, you couldn’t be that bad a person, I must be misunderstanding you’ type of phrase.

In your previous post, what was the point of even bringing up ‘racists screed’? Emotionally charged words, yes.. and it attempts to shut down discussion by trying to associate my position with that of a racist (something commonly viewed untenable). Thereby in that mechanism, it is also ‘name calling’ through association.

The argument that undocumented aliens are a huge drain on the system has long been debunked. In some counties and states their contributions are less than associated costs. In others they are more.

No it hasn’t been debunked. The supposed ‘debunk’ was through a straw man argument. The taxes that the illegal would owe on income would flow back to the state through sales taxes. What exposes the straw man is that the U.S. operates as an income tax not a VAT tax system. If it were VAT, we would see sales taxes of 15% and higher. The attempted ‘debunkers’ closed off the argument to the effect that the drop in agricultural costs and resulting drop in food prices more than offsets any cost to the U.S. and that most people in the U.S. don’t want those type of jobs anyway. This attempted diversion ignores the simple fact that introduction of the illegals to the labor pool depresses the lower wage range at a cost to the lower and lower middle classes and that some people actually would take that job.

As previously mentioned by at least one other poster, payment of social security and medicare taxes by those who will never receive any benefits is a huge gain for the system.

Red Herring. Answer me this: How can they pay into the system without a Social Security Number (legal citizen) or Taxpayer ID Number(green card). There is not mechanism for the social security system to accept such money without either associated IDs.. which an illegal does not have. There is also no mechanism to collect income taxes without either Social Security ID or Taxpayer ID.

On education, if I understand you to be saying that you believe that children of citizens are more worthy of an education than those of non-citizens,

Yes.

solely based upon where their parents were born,

No. Remember, many citizens are legal immigrants. Heck, unless you are American Indian, we all are immigrants or descended from immigrants. Lets make it easier for you. Lets change Joe to Juan in the above example. Juan Legal (from Mexico) took the legal path to citizenship; including the tests, waiting period, not being a felon etc. Jose is still Jose Illegal. Would it be right to force Juan to sacrifice some of the quality in his kids education to help improve the education quality of Jose Illegal’s kids? even considering that Jose could have taken the legal path to citizenship like Juan Legal?[/quote]

ucodegen,

Your posts are spot-on. Don’t let the emotional and personal attacks bother you. It simply means they don’t have a valid, logical argument.

Keep up the good work.

——————

BTW, I’d much prefer paying $3.00 per head of lettuce than $.50, if it meant the worker who picked it was legal and earning a livable wage and good benefits; but that’s just me.

I will never fall for the argument that cheaper produce (and we really don’t **know** that, do we?) is worth overwhelming our physical, financial, and social infrastructure with people who are paying less in taxes than they take out **and don’t have the legal right to be here.**

The Mexicans need to fix the problems in their own country, and I think most Americans would be much more open to supporting that goal (with financial and military assistance, if need be) instead of shipping all of Mexico’s burdens to us.

[SK in CV]

[quote=ucodegen]

, I am simply dumbfounded by your sense of superiority, arrogance and entitlement. Hopefully I misunderstand you.

Ah, another personal attack. Lets try dealing with the facts instead of using emotionally charged words and phrases in an attempt to tilt the discussion.. followed by a ‘naw, you couldn’t be that bad a person, I must be misunderstanding you’ type of phrase.

In your previous post, what was the point of even bringing up ‘racists screed’? Emotionally charged words, yes.. and it attempts to shut down discussion by trying to associate my position with that of a racist (something commonly viewed untenable). Thereby in that mechanism, it is also ‘name calling’ through association.

[/quote]

The first time (racist screed) was not a personal attack. This one was. You can address it as you wish. But if you think that children, bearing no responsibility as to the situation they find themselves in, are less worthy than other children simply because of the legal status of their parents, then all three (arrogance, sense of superiority and entitlement) apply. There really is no getting around that.

As to the rest, yeah, if you ignore some of the evidence, and only accept that which supports your position, you’ll probably win every argument.

And shutting down discussion? We’re still talking. Stop your whining. You chose your words. If they lead to logical conclusions, don’t complain when those conclusions are exposed.

[Arraya]

The Great Depression of the 1930s hit Mexican immigrants especially hard. Along with the job crisis and food shortages that affected all U.S. workers, Mexicans and Mexican Americans had to face an additional threat: deportation. As unemployment swept the U.S., hostility to immigrant workers grew, and the government began a program of repatriating immigrants to Mexico. Immigrants were offered free train rides to Mexico, and some went voluntarily, but many were either tricked or coerced into repatriation, and some U.S. citizens were deported simply on suspicion of being Mexican. All in all, hundreds of thousands of Mexican immigrants, especially farmworkers, were sent out of the country during the 1930s–many of them the same workers who had been eagerly recruited a decade before.

The farmworkers who remained struggled to survive in desperate conditions. Bank foreclosures drove small farmers from their land, and large landholders cut back on their permanent workforce. As with many Southwestern farm families, a great number of Mexican American farmers discovered they had to take on a migratory existence and traveled the highways in search of work.

El Rio – Mexican FSA Camp – 1940.
Many found temporary stability in the migrant work camps established by the U.S. Farm Security Administration, or FSA. The FSA camps provided housing, food, and medicine for migrant farm families, as well as protection from criminal elements that often took advantage of vulnerable migrants. The FSA set up several camps specifically for Mexican Americans in an attempt to create safe havens from violent attacks.

[Arraya]

The Great Depression of the 1930s hit Mexican immigrants especially hard. Along with the job crisis and food shortages that affected all U.S. workers, Mexicans and Mexican Americans had to face an additional threat: deportation. As unemployment swept the U.S., hostility to immigrant workers grew, and the government began a program of repatriating immigrants to Mexico. Immigrants were offered free train rides to Mexico, and some went voluntarily, but many were either tricked or coerced into repatriation, and some U.S. citizens were deported simply on suspicion of being Mexican. All in all, hundreds of thousands of Mexican immigrants, especially farmworkers, were sent out of the country during the 1930s–many of them the same workers who had been eagerly recruited a decade before.

The farmworkers who remained struggled to survive in desperate conditions. Bank foreclosures drove small farmers from their land, and large landholders cut back on their permanent workforce. As with many Southwestern farm families, a great number of Mexican American farmers discovered they had to take on a migratory existence and traveled the highways in search of work.

El Rio – Mexican FSA Camp – 1940.
Many found temporary stability in the migrant work camps established by the U.S. Farm Security Administration, or FSA. The FSA camps provided housing, food, and medicine for migrant farm families, as well as protection from criminal elements that often took advantage of vulnerable migrants. The FSA set up several camps specifically for Mexican Americans in an attempt to create safe havens from violent attacks.

[Arraya]

The Great Depression of the 1930s hit Mexican immigrants especially hard. Along with the job crisis and food shortages that affected all U.S. workers, Mexicans and Mexican Americans had to face an additional threat: deportation. As unemployment swept the U.S., hostility to immigrant workers grew, and the government began a program of repatriating immigrants to Mexico. Immigrants were offered free train rides to Mexico, and some went voluntarily, but many were either tricked or coerced into repatriation, and some U.S. citizens were deported simply on suspicion of being Mexican. All in all, hundreds of thousands of Mexican immigrants, especially farmworkers, were sent out of the country during the 1930s–many of them the same workers who had been eagerly recruited a decade before.

The farmworkers who remained struggled to survive in desperate conditions. Bank foreclosures drove small farmers from their land, and large landholders cut back on their permanent workforce. As with many Southwestern farm families, a great number of Mexican American farmers discovered they had to take on a migratory existence and traveled the highways in search of work.

El Rio – Mexican FSA Camp – 1940.
Many found temporary stability in the migrant work camps established by the U.S. Farm Security Administration, or FSA. The FSA camps provided housing, food, and medicine for migrant farm families, as well as protection from criminal elements that often took advantage of vulnerable migrants. The FSA set up several camps specifically for Mexican Americans in an attempt to create safe havens from violent attacks.

[Arraya]

The Great Depression of the 1930s hit Mexican immigrants especially hard. Along with the job crisis and food shortages that affected all U.S. workers, Mexicans and Mexican Americans had to face an additional threat: deportation. As unemployment swept the U.S., hostility to immigrant workers grew, and the government began a program of repatriating immigrants to Mexico. Immigrants were offered free train rides to Mexico, and some went voluntarily, but many were either tricked or coerced into repatriation, and some U.S. citizens were deported simply on suspicion of being Mexican. All in all, hundreds of thousands of Mexican immigrants, especially farmworkers, were sent out of the country during the 1930s–many of them the same workers who had been eagerly recruited a decade before.

The farmworkers who remained struggled to survive in desperate conditions. Bank foreclosures drove small farmers from their land, and large landholders cut back on their permanent workforce. As with many Southwestern farm families, a great number of Mexican American farmers discovered they had to take on a migratory existence and traveled the highways in search of work.

El Rio – Mexican FSA Camp – 1940.
Many found temporary stability in the migrant work camps established by the U.S. Farm Security Administration, or FSA. The FSA camps provided housing, food, and medicine for migrant farm families, as well as protection from criminal elements that often took advantage of vulnerable migrants. The FSA set up several camps specifically for Mexican Americans in an attempt to create safe havens from violent attacks.

[Arraya]

The Great Depression of the 1930s hit Mexican immigrants especially hard. Along with the job crisis and food shortages that affected all U.S. workers, Mexicans and Mexican Americans had to face an additional threat: deportation. As unemployment swept the U.S., hostility to immigrant workers grew, and the government began a program of repatriating immigrants to Mexico. Immigrants were offered free train rides to Mexico, and some went voluntarily, but many were either tricked or coerced into repatriation, and some U.S. citizens were deported simply on suspicion of being Mexican. All in all, hundreds of thousands of Mexican immigrants, especially farmworkers, were sent out of the country during the 1930s–many of them the same workers who had been eagerly recruited a decade before.

The farmworkers who remained struggled to survive in desperate conditions. Bank foreclosures drove small farmers from their land, and large landholders cut back on their permanent workforce. As with many Southwestern farm families, a great number of Mexican American farmers discovered they had to take on a migratory existence and traveled the highways in search of work.

El Rio – Mexican FSA Camp – 1940.
Many found temporary stability in the migrant work camps established by the U.S. Farm Security Administration, or FSA. The FSA camps provided housing, food, and medicine for migrant farm families, as well as protection from criminal elements that often took advantage of vulnerable migrants. The FSA set up several camps specifically for Mexican Americans in an attempt to create safe havens from violent attacks.

[ucodegen]

And shutting down discussion? We’re still talking. Stop your whining. You chose your words.

I said ‘attempts’. Whether it is successful or not depends upon the personality of the person being targeted.

But if you think that children, bearing no responsibility as to the situation they find themselves in, are less worthy than other children simply because of the legal status of their parents, then all three (arrogance, sense of superiority and entitlement) apply.

You still have not answered my question as to Juan and Jose. Is it right to demand that Juan Legal sacrifice some of the quality of the education to his kids so that Jose Illegal can get the same quality education?

My position has nothing to do with arrogance, sense of superiority and entitlement. It is arrogant and displays a sense of entitlement to be illegally within a country and to expect to be served with all of the ‘entitlements’ that a legal citizen pays for, while at the same time, paying for none if it.

If they lead to logical conclusions, don’t complain when those conclusions are exposed.

So far, it looks like your conclusions are being exposed as being weakly supported or just plain wrong.

Here are some things to ponder:
In Mexico, if you are in the country illegally, you are imprisoned in a Mexican jail. After you have served your term, you are deported.
In Mexico, if you have a health problem and are not a citizen, you have to pay cash up front or the hospital will not even see you. This is even true if you are critically injured.

[SK in CV]

[quote=ucodegen]

But if you think that children, bearing no responsibility as to the situation they find themselves in, are less worthy than other children simply because of the legal status of their parents, then all three (arrogance, sense of superiority and entitlement) apply.

You still have not answered my question as to Juan and Jose. Is it right to demand that Juan Legal sacrifice some of the quality of the education to his kids so that Jose Illegal can get the same quality education?[/quote]

No, I haven’t answered the question. Straw man argument. You’ll also note I haven’t expressed any opinion on any immigration issues. Indeed it begs the question. Your question is based on an unsubstantiated premise.

My position has nothing to do with arrogance, sense of superiority and entitlement. It is arrogant and displays a sense of entitlement to be illegally within a country and to expect to be served with all of the ‘entitlements’ that a legal citizen pays for, while at the same time, paying for none if it.

Two entirely different issues. And more straw. Another conclusion based on an unsupported premise.

[quote]

If they lead to logical conclusions, don’t complain when those conclusions are exposed.

So far, it looks like your conclusions are being exposed as being weakly supported or just plain wrong.[/quote]

See here from the Tax Foundation:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1424.html

You only “know” that illegal immigrants don’t pay their fair share if you ignore the facts.

[quote]
Here are some things to ponder:
In Mexico, if you are in the country illegally, you are imprisoned in a Mexican jail. After you have served your term, you are deported.
In Mexico, if you have a health problem and are not a citizen, you have to pay cash up front or the hospital will not even see you. This is even true if you are critically injured.[/quote]

More straw. I’m not a resident of Mexico. I’m not a resident of the Sudan or Saudi Arabia or Israel. I have problems with some of all those countries’ practices. But my opinion has no effect on their policies. What they do wrong has no bearing on what I think is right for this country.

[ucodegen]

More straw. I’m not a resident of Mexico. I’m not a resident of the Sudan or Saudi Arabia or Israel. I have problems with some of all those countries’ practices. But my opinion has no effect on their policies. What they do wrong has no bearing on what I think is right for this country.

In part true.. but while we continually worry of how we treat Mexican citizens when they are in the U.S., we also have to be conscious of how they treat U.S. citizens when we are in their country. It is not a straw man argument though. This is why I mentioned it as something to ponder. It is not supportive of, or contradictory to either of our positions, which is why I labeled it as some things to ponder.

[rnen]

As an employer that hires only legal workers I agree that the laws and fines on the books to deal with the hiring of illegals needs to be enforced.
I run an above board operation totally by the book and have to compete with others who gain a huge advantage by employing illegals at half the cost. Local, state and federal governments do little to enforce EXISTING laws. In a very real sense I get punished for doing the right thing.

Another thing to consider is that the abundance of cheap illegal labor has decimated the wage base of most blue collar work.The illegals wages have not risen to that of legal workers but brought the legals down to their rate of pay. I see it in my industry and have heard first hand from numerous construction related workers. Good for the economy my ass.

I would bet the farm that if illegals were teaching, on the police force, in the fire department or almost any other white collar job in the same numbers that are in the labor market the laws would be enforced to the letter. Very easy for those with a “protected” work environment to get all high and mighty about the plight of the illegal while not giving a rats ass that they have destroyed the earning power of millions.

I would just love to hear the reaction of union employees if their employers hired a bunch of illegals then dropped everyones pay to their level.

[rnen]

As an employer that hires only legal workers I agree that the laws and fines on the books to deal with the hiring of illegals needs to be enforced.
I run an above board operation totally by the book and have to compete with others who gain a huge advantage by employing illegals at half the cost. Local, state and federal governments do little to enforce EXISTING laws. In a very real sense I get punished for doing the right thing.

Another thing to consider is that the abundance of cheap illegal labor has decimated the wage base of most blue collar work.The illegals wages have not risen to that of legal workers but brought the legals down to their rate of pay. I see it in my industry and have heard first hand from numerous construction related workers. Good for the economy my ass.

I would bet the farm that if illegals were teaching, on the police force, in the fire department or almost any other white collar job in the same numbers that are in the labor market the laws would be enforced to the letter. Very easy for those with a “protected” work environment to get all high and mighty about the plight of the illegal while not giving a rats ass that they have destroyed the earning power of millions.

I would just love to hear the reaction of union employees if their employers hired a bunch of illegals then dropped everyones pay to their level.

[rnen]

As an employer that hires only legal workers I agree that the laws and fines on the books to deal with the hiring of illegals needs to be enforced.
I run an above board operation totally by the book and have to compete with others who gain a huge advantage by employing illegals at half the cost. Local, state and federal governments do little to enforce EXISTING laws. In a very real sense I get punished for doing the right thing.

Another thing to consider is that the abundance of cheap illegal labor has decimated the wage base of most blue collar work.The illegals wages have not risen to that of legal workers but brought the legals down to their rate of pay. I see it in my industry and have heard first hand from numerous construction related workers. Good for the economy my ass.

I would bet the farm that if illegals were teaching, on the police force, in the fire department or almost any other white collar job in the same numbers that are in the labor market the laws would be enforced to the letter. Very easy for those with a “protected” work environment to get all high and mighty about the plight of the illegal while not giving a rats ass that they have destroyed the earning power of millions.

I would just love to hear the reaction of union employees if their employers hired a bunch of illegals then dropped everyones pay to their level.

[rnen]

As an employer that hires only legal workers I agree that the laws and fines on the books to deal with the hiring of illegals needs to be enforced.
I run an above board operation totally by the book and have to compete with others who gain a huge advantage by employing illegals at half the cost. Local, state and federal governments do little to enforce EXISTING laws. In a very real sense I get punished for doing the right thing.

Another thing to consider is that the abundance of cheap illegal labor has decimated the wage base of most blue collar work.The illegals wages have not risen to that of legal workers but brought the legals down to their rate of pay. I see it in my industry and have heard first hand from numerous construction related workers. Good for the economy my ass.

I would bet the farm that if illegals were teaching, on the police force, in the fire department or almost any other white collar job in the same numbers that are in the labor market the laws would be enforced to the letter. Very easy for those with a “protected” work environment to get all high and mighty about the plight of the illegal while not giving a rats ass that they have destroyed the earning power of millions.

I would just love to hear the reaction of union employees if their employers hired a bunch of illegals then dropped everyones pay to their level.

[rnen]

As an employer that hires only legal workers I agree that the laws and fines on the books to deal with the hiring of illegals needs to be enforced.
I run an above board operation totally by the book and have to compete with others who gain a huge advantage by employing illegals at half the cost. Local, state and federal governments do little to enforce EXISTING laws. In a very real sense I get punished for doing the right thing.

Another thing to consider is that the abundance of cheap illegal labor has decimated the wage base of most blue collar work.The illegals wages have not risen to that of legal workers but brought the legals down to their rate of pay. I see it in my industry and have heard first hand from numerous construction related workers. Good for the economy my ass.

I would bet the farm that if illegals were teaching, on the police force, in the fire department or almost any other white collar job in the same numbers that are in the labor market the laws would be enforced to the letter. Very easy for those with a “protected” work environment to get all high and mighty about the plight of the illegal while not giving a rats ass that they have destroyed the earning power of millions.

I would just love to hear the reaction of union employees if their employers hired a bunch of illegals then dropped everyones pay to their level.

[ucodegen]

More straw. I’m not a resident of Mexico. I’m not a resident of the Sudan or Saudi Arabia or Israel. I have problems with some of all those countries’ practices. But my opinion has no effect on their policies. What they do wrong has no bearing on what I think is right for this country.

In part true.. but while we continually worry of how we treat Mexican citizens when they are in the U.S., we also have to be conscious of how they treat U.S. citizens when we are in their country. It is not a straw man argument though. This is why I mentioned it as something to ponder. It is not supportive of, or contradictory to either of our positions, which is why I labeled it as some things to ponder.

[ucodegen]

More straw. I’m not a resident of Mexico. I’m not a resident of the Sudan or Saudi Arabia or Israel. I have problems with some of all those countries’ practices. But my opinion has no effect on their policies. What they do wrong has no bearing on what I think is right for this country.

In part true.. but while we continually worry of how we treat Mexican citizens when they are in the U.S., we also have to be conscious of how they treat U.S. citizens when we are in their country. It is not a straw man argument though. This is why I mentioned it as something to ponder. It is not supportive of, or contradictory to either of our positions, which is why I labeled it as some things to ponder.

[ucodegen]

More straw. I’m not a resident of Mexico. I’m not a resident of the Sudan or Saudi Arabia or Israel. I have problems with some of all those countries’ practices. But my opinion has no effect on their policies. What they do wrong has no bearing on what I think is right for this country.

In part true.. but while we continually worry of how we treat Mexican citizens when they are in the U.S., we also have to be conscious of how they treat U.S. citizens when we are in their country. It is not a straw man argument though. This is why I mentioned it as something to ponder. It is not supportive of, or contradictory to either of our positions, which is why I labeled it as some things to ponder.

[ucodegen]

More straw. I’m not a resident of Mexico. I’m not a resident of the Sudan or Saudi Arabia or Israel. I have problems with some of all those countries’ practices. But my opinion has no effect on their policies. What they do wrong has no bearing on what I think is right for this country.

In part true.. but while we continually worry of how we treat Mexican citizens when they are in the U.S., we also have to be conscious of how they treat U.S. citizens when we are in their country. It is not a straw man argument though. This is why I mentioned it as something to ponder. It is not supportive of, or contradictory to either of our positions, which is why I labeled it as some things to ponder.

[ucodegen]

No, I haven’t answered the question. Straw man argument. You’ll also note I haven’t expressed any opinion on any immigration issues. Indeed it begs the question. Your question is based on an unsubstantiated premise.

Sorry, but asking about Jose vs Juan is not a straw man argument. It just points to what I feel is the hypocrisy of your position because you seem to believe that it is ok to take from Joe’s kids to fund Jose’s.. but not to take from Juan’s. The answer is a simple yes or no. Either way, the available funds for education are effectively finite. Something has to give.. lower quality education or more income taxes. Illegals don’t pay income taxes.
Straw Man argument
The only difference between Juan and Joe is just their ethnic origins, therefore using Juan is not a distorted version of Joe.

My position has nothing to do with arrogance, sense of superiority and entitlement. It is arrogant and displays a sense of entitlement to be illegally within a country and to expect to be served with all of the ‘entitlements’ that a legal citizen pays for, while at the same time, paying for none if it.

Two entirely different issues. And more straw. Another conclusion based on an unsupported premise.

Huh? do you even know what a Straw man argument is? My second sentence is almost the definition for an abnormal sense of entitlement. I have also supported that they do not pay for it.

The following is a much better argument on your part, but if you read your reference all the way to the end, you will find that it does not support your contention. It also echoes what I said about articles that supposedly debunk the cost of illegal aliens within the U.S.

See here from the Tax Foundation:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1424.html

You only “know” that illegal immigrants don’t pay their fair share if you ignore the facts.

See the last paragraph of your own link reference for the answer on this.

BTW:
To have a TIN, which I mentioned earlier, requires a greencard. If you have a greencard in this country, you are a ‘legal’ alien.. not illegally in this country. SS numbers are only issued to citizens. This is the issue I pointed out earlier. I have no problem with foreigners admitted to this country and working under a greencard/TIN. This is much different than a person within this country illegally– and without a greencard and thereby without a TIN.

The only part of this that could point to possible payment of taxes on the part of illegals is the use of invalid SS or TINs (there is actually another problem hiding here with illegals stealing identities of citizens and using their SS to apply for loans – then defaulting., also this). An invalid SS/TIN gets kicked back pretty quickly to the employer… and here is the ‘sidestep’ I mentioned earlier about the debunkers:

But even if one is paid “under the table” where neither the employer nor employee report the income to the IRS, other taxes are paid by illegal immigrants. This would include mainly sales taxes on items purchased in most states and localities.

As I mentioned before, the US is not a VAT tax system. It is an income tax. If it was a VAT system, our sales taxes would be north of 15%.
Additional proof that this doc does not support your contention (last paragraph):

While some argue that illegal immigrants do not pay their fair share of taxes compared to the value of government services they receive, this is partially a normative question that needs to be accompanied by more empirical evidence to support or refute.

I never said that illegals don’t pay some taxes, just not in proportion to their general cost to the U.S..

[all]

[quote=ucodegen]
To have a TIN, which I mentioned earlier, requires a greencard.
[/quote]
Not true. H4’s get TIN.

[quote=ucodegen]
SS numbers are only issued to citizens.
[/quote]

Not true. H1B’s get SSN.

[all]

[quote=ucodegen]
To have a TIN, which I mentioned earlier, requires a greencard.
[/quote]
Not true. H4’s get TIN.

[quote=ucodegen]
SS numbers are only issued to citizens.
[/quote]

Not true. H1B’s get SSN.

[all]

[quote=ucodegen]
To have a TIN, which I mentioned earlier, requires a greencard.
[/quote]
Not true. H4’s get TIN.

[quote=ucodegen]
SS numbers are only issued to citizens.
[/quote]

Not true. H1B’s get SSN.

[all]

[quote=ucodegen]
To have a TIN, which I mentioned earlier, requires a greencard.
[/quote]
Not true. H4’s get TIN.

[quote=ucodegen]
SS numbers are only issued to citizens.
[/quote]

Not true. H1B’s get SSN.

[all]

[quote=ucodegen]
To have a TIN, which I mentioned earlier, requires a greencard.
[/quote]
Not true. H4’s get TIN.

[quote=ucodegen]
SS numbers are only issued to citizens.
[/quote]

Not true. H1B’s get SSN.

[ucodegen]

No, I haven’t answered the question. Straw man argument. You’ll also note I haven’t expressed any opinion on any immigration issues. Indeed it begs the question. Your question is based on an unsubstantiated premise.

Sorry, but asking about Jose vs Juan is not a straw man argument. It just points to what I feel is the hypocrisy of your position because you seem to believe that it is ok to take from Joe’s kids to fund Jose’s.. but not to take from Juan’s. The answer is a simple yes or no. Either way, the available funds for education are effectively finite. Something has to give.. lower quality education or more income taxes. Illegals don’t pay income taxes.
Straw Man argument
The only difference between Juan and Joe is just their ethnic origins, therefore using Juan is not a distorted version of Joe.

My position has nothing to do with arrogance, sense of superiority and entitlement. It is arrogant and displays a sense of entitlement to be illegally within a country and to expect to be served with all of the ‘entitlements’ that a legal citizen pays for, while at the same time, paying for none if it.

Two entirely different issues. And more straw. Another conclusion based on an unsupported premise.

Huh? do you even know what a Straw man argument is? My second sentence is almost the definition for an abnormal sense of entitlement. I have also supported that they do not pay for it.

The following is a much better argument on your part, but if you read your reference all the way to the end, you will find that it does not support your contention. It also echoes what I said about articles that supposedly debunk the cost of illegal aliens within the U.S.

See here from the Tax Foundation:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1424.html

You only “know” that illegal immigrants don’t pay their fair share if you ignore the facts.

See the last paragraph of your own link reference for the answer on this.

BTW:
To have a TIN, which I mentioned earlier, requires a greencard. If you have a greencard in this country, you are a ‘legal’ alien.. not illegally in this country. SS numbers are only issued to citizens. This is the issue I pointed out earlier. I have no problem with foreigners admitted to this country and working under a greencard/TIN. This is much different than a person within this country illegally– and without a greencard and thereby without a TIN.

The only part of this that could point to possible payment of taxes on the part of illegals is the use of invalid SS or TINs (there is actually another problem hiding here with illegals stealing identities of citizens and using their SS to apply for loans – then defaulting., also this). An invalid SS/TIN gets kicked back pretty quickly to the employer… and here is the ‘sidestep’ I mentioned earlier about the debunkers:

But even if one is paid “under the table” where neither the employer nor employee report the income to the IRS, other taxes are paid by illegal immigrants. This would include mainly sales taxes on items purchased in most states and localities.

As I mentioned before, the US is not a VAT tax system. It is an income tax. If it was a VAT system, our sales taxes would be north of 15%.
Additional proof that this doc does not support your contention (last paragraph):

While some argue that illegal immigrants do not pay their fair share of taxes compared to the value of government services they receive, this is partially a normative question that needs to be accompanied by more empirical evidence to support or refute.

I never said that illegals don’t pay some taxes, just not in proportion to their general cost to the U.S..

[ucodegen]

No, I haven’t answered the question. Straw man argument. You’ll also note I haven’t expressed any opinion on any immigration issues. Indeed it begs the question. Your question is based on an unsubstantiated premise.

Sorry, but asking about Jose vs Juan is not a straw man argument. It just points to what I feel is the hypocrisy of your position because you seem to believe that it is ok to take from Joe’s kids to fund Jose’s.. but not to take from Juan’s. The answer is a simple yes or no. Either way, the available funds for education are effectively finite. Something has to give.. lower quality education or more income taxes. Illegals don’t pay income taxes.
Straw Man argument
The only difference between Juan and Joe is just their ethnic origins, therefore using Juan is not a distorted version of Joe.

My position has nothing to do with arrogance, sense of superiority and entitlement. It is arrogant and displays a sense of entitlement to be illegally within a country and to expect to be served with all of the ‘entitlements’ that a legal citizen pays for, while at the same time, paying for none if it.

Two entirely different issues. And more straw. Another conclusion based on an unsupported premise.

Huh? do you even know what a Straw man argument is? My second sentence is almost the definition for an abnormal sense of entitlement. I have also supported that they do not pay for it.

The following is a much better argument on your part, but if you read your reference all the way to the end, you will find that it does not support your contention. It also echoes what I said about articles that supposedly debunk the cost of illegal aliens within the U.S.

See here from the Tax Foundation:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1424.html

You only “know” that illegal immigrants don’t pay their fair share if you ignore the facts.

See the last paragraph of your own link reference for the answer on this.

BTW:
To have a TIN, which I mentioned earlier, requires a greencard. If you have a greencard in this country, you are a ‘legal’ alien.. not illegally in this country. SS numbers are only issued to citizens. This is the issue I pointed out earlier. I have no problem with foreigners admitted to this country and working under a greencard/TIN. This is much different than a person within this country illegally– and without a greencard and thereby without a TIN.

The only part of this that could point to possible payment of taxes on the part of illegals is the use of invalid SS or TINs (there is actually another problem hiding here with illegals stealing identities of citizens and using their SS to apply for loans – then defaulting., also this). An invalid SS/TIN gets kicked back pretty quickly to the employer… and here is the ‘sidestep’ I mentioned earlier about the debunkers:

But even if one is paid “under the table” where neither the employer nor employee report the income to the IRS, other taxes are paid by illegal immigrants. This would include mainly sales taxes on items purchased in most states and localities.

As I mentioned before, the US is not a VAT tax system. It is an income tax. If it was a VAT system, our sales taxes would be north of 15%.
Additional proof that this doc does not support your contention (last paragraph):

While some argue that illegal immigrants do not pay their fair share of taxes compared to the value of government services they receive, this is partially a normative question that needs to be accompanied by more empirical evidence to support or refute.

I never said that illegals don’t pay some taxes, just not in proportion to their general cost to the U.S..

[ucodegen]

No, I haven’t answered the question. Straw man argument. You’ll also note I haven’t expressed any opinion on any immigration issues. Indeed it begs the question. Your question is based on an unsubstantiated premise.

Sorry, but asking about Jose vs Juan is not a straw man argument. It just points to what I feel is the hypocrisy of your position because you seem to believe that it is ok to take from Joe’s kids to fund Jose’s.. but not to take from Juan’s. The answer is a simple yes or no. Either way, the available funds for education are effectively finite. Something has to give.. lower quality education or more income taxes. Illegals don’t pay income taxes.
Straw Man argument
The only difference between Juan and Joe is just their ethnic origins, therefore using Juan is not a distorted version of Joe.

My position has nothing to do with arrogance, sense of superiority and entitlement. It is arrogant and displays a sense of entitlement to be illegally within a country and to expect to be served with all of the ‘entitlements’ that a legal citizen pays for, while at the same time, paying for none if it.

Two entirely different issues. And more straw. Another conclusion based on an unsupported premise.

Huh? do you even know what a Straw man argument is? My second sentence is almost the definition for an abnormal sense of entitlement. I have also supported that they do not pay for it.

The following is a much better argument on your part, but if you read your reference all the way to the end, you will find that it does not support your contention. It also echoes what I said about articles that supposedly debunk the cost of illegal aliens within the U.S.

See here from the Tax Foundation:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1424.html

You only “know” that illegal immigrants don’t pay their fair share if you ignore the facts.

See the last paragraph of your own link reference for the answer on this.

BTW:
To have a TIN, which I mentioned earlier, requires a greencard. If you have a greencard in this country, you are a ‘legal’ alien.. not illegally in this country. SS numbers are only issued to citizens. This is the issue I pointed out earlier. I have no problem with foreigners admitted to this country and working under a greencard/TIN. This is much different than a person within this country illegally– and without a greencard and thereby without a TIN.

The only part of this that could point to possible payment of taxes on the part of illegals is the use of invalid SS or TINs (there is actually another problem hiding here with illegals stealing identities of citizens and using their SS to apply for loans – then defaulting., also this). An invalid SS/TIN gets kicked back pretty quickly to the employer… and here is the ‘sidestep’ I mentioned earlier about the debunkers:

But even if one is paid “under the table” where neither the employer nor employee report the income to the IRS, other taxes are paid by illegal immigrants. This would include mainly sales taxes on items purchased in most states and localities.

As I mentioned before, the US is not a VAT tax system. It is an income tax. If it was a VAT system, our sales taxes would be north of 15%.
Additional proof that this doc does not support your contention (last paragraph):

While some argue that illegal immigrants do not pay their fair share of taxes compared to the value of government services they receive, this is partially a normative question that needs to be accompanied by more empirical evidence to support or refute.

I never said that illegals don’t pay some taxes, just not in proportion to their general cost to the U.S..

[ucodegen]

No, I haven’t answered the question. Straw man argument. You’ll also note I haven’t expressed any opinion on any immigration issues. Indeed it begs the question. Your question is based on an unsubstantiated premise.

Sorry, but asking about Jose vs Juan is not a straw man argument. It just points to what I feel is the hypocrisy of your position because you seem to believe that it is ok to take from Joe’s kids to fund Jose’s.. but not to take from Juan’s. The answer is a simple yes or no. Either way, the available funds for education are effectively finite. Something has to give.. lower quality education or more income taxes. Illegals don’t pay income taxes.
Straw Man argument
The only difference between Juan and Joe is just their ethnic origins, therefore using Juan is not a distorted version of Joe.

My position has nothing to do with arrogance, sense of superiority and entitlement. It is arrogant and displays a sense of entitlement to be illegally within a country and to expect to be served with all of the ‘entitlements’ that a legal citizen pays for, while at the same time, paying for none if it.

Two entirely different issues. And more straw. Another conclusion based on an unsupported premise.

Huh? do you even know what a Straw man argument is? My second sentence is almost the definition for an abnormal sense of entitlement. I have also supported that they do not pay for it.

The following is a much better argument on your part, but if you read your reference all the way to the end, you will find that it does not support your contention. It also echoes what I said about articles that supposedly debunk the cost of illegal aliens within the U.S.

See here from the Tax Foundation:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1424.html

You only “know” that illegal immigrants don’t pay their fair share if you ignore the facts.

See the last paragraph of your own link reference for the answer on this.

BTW:
To have a TIN, which I mentioned earlier, requires a greencard. If you have a greencard in this country, you are a ‘legal’ alien.. not illegally in this country. SS numbers are only issued to citizens. This is the issue I pointed out earlier. I have no problem with foreigners admitted to this country and working under a greencard/TIN. This is much different than a person within this country illegally– and without a greencard and thereby without a TIN.

The only part of this that could point to possible payment of taxes on the part of illegals is the use of invalid SS or TINs (there is actually another problem hiding here with illegals stealing identities of citizens and using their SS to apply for loans – then defaulting., also this). An invalid SS/TIN gets kicked back pretty quickly to the employer… and here is the ‘sidestep’ I mentioned earlier about the debunkers:

But even if one is paid “under the table” where neither the employer nor employee report the income to the IRS, other taxes are paid by illegal immigrants. This would include mainly sales taxes on items purchased in most states and localities.

As I mentioned before, the US is not a VAT tax system. It is an income tax. If it was a VAT system, our sales taxes would be north of 15%.
Additional proof that this doc does not support your contention (last paragraph):

While some argue that illegal immigrants do not pay their fair share of taxes compared to the value of government services they receive, this is partially a normative question that needs to be accompanied by more empirical evidence to support or refute.

I never said that illegals don’t pay some taxes, just not in proportion to their general cost to the U.S..

[SK in CV]

[quote=ucodegen]

But if you think that children, bearing no responsibility as to the situation they find themselves in, are less worthy than other children simply because of the legal status of their parents, then all three (arrogance, sense of superiority and entitlement) apply.

You still have not answered my question as to Juan and Jose. Is it right to demand that Juan Legal sacrifice some of the quality of the education to his kids so that Jose Illegal can get the same quality education?[/quote]

No, I haven’t answered the question. Straw man argument. You’ll also note I haven’t expressed any opinion on any immigration issues. Indeed it begs the question. Your question is based on an unsubstantiated premise.

My position has nothing to do with arrogance, sense of superiority and entitlement. It is arrogant and displays a sense of entitlement to be illegally within a country and to expect to be served with all of the ‘entitlements’ that a legal citizen pays for, while at the same time, paying for none if it.

Two entirely different issues. And more straw. Another conclusion based on an unsupported premise.

[quote]

If they lead to logical conclusions, don’t complain when those conclusions are exposed.

So far, it looks like your conclusions are being exposed as being weakly supported or just plain wrong.[/quote]

See here from the Tax Foundation:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1424.html

You only “know” that illegal immigrants don’t pay their fair share if you ignore the facts.

[quote]
Here are some things to ponder:
In Mexico, if you are in the country illegally, you are imprisoned in a Mexican jail. After you have served your term, you are deported.
In Mexico, if you have a health problem and are not a citizen, you have to pay cash up front or the hospital will not even see you. This is even true if you are critically injured.[/quote]

More straw. I’m not a resident of Mexico. I’m not a resident of the Sudan or Saudi Arabia or Israel. I have problems with some of all those countries’ practices. But my opinion has no effect on their policies. What they do wrong has no bearing on what I think is right for this country.

[SK in CV]

[quote=ucodegen]

But if you think that children, bearing no responsibility as to the situation they find themselves in, are less worthy than other children simply because of the legal status of their parents, then all three (arrogance, sense of superiority and entitlement) apply.

You still have not answered my question as to Juan and Jose. Is it right to demand that Juan Legal sacrifice some of the quality of the education to his kids so that Jose Illegal can get the same quality education?[/quote]

No, I haven’t answered the question. Straw man argument. You’ll also note I haven’t expressed any opinion on any immigration issues. Indeed it begs the question. Your question is based on an unsubstantiated premise.

My position has nothing to do with arrogance, sense of superiority and entitlement. It is arrogant and displays a sense of entitlement to be illegally within a country and to expect to be served with all of the ‘entitlements’ that a legal citizen pays for, while at the same time, paying for none if it.

Two entirely different issues. And more straw. Another conclusion based on an unsupported premise.

[quote]

If they lead to logical conclusions, don’t complain when those conclusions are exposed.

So far, it looks like your conclusions are being exposed as being weakly supported or just plain wrong.[/quote]

See here from the Tax Foundation:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1424.html

You only “know” that illegal immigrants don’t pay their fair share if you ignore the facts.

[quote]
Here are some things to ponder:
In Mexico, if you are in the country illegally, you are imprisoned in a Mexican jail. After you have served your term, you are deported.
In Mexico, if you have a health problem and are not a citizen, you have to pay cash up front or the hospital will not even see you. This is even true if you are critically injured.[/quote]

More straw. I’m not a resident of Mexico. I’m not a resident of the Sudan or Saudi Arabia or Israel. I have problems with some of all those countries’ practices. But my opinion has no effect on their policies. What they do wrong has no bearing on what I think is right for this country.

[SK in CV]

[quote=ucodegen]

But if you think that children, bearing no responsibility as to the situation they find themselves in, are less worthy than other children simply because of the legal status of their parents, then all three (arrogance, sense of superiority and entitlement) apply.

You still have not answered my question as to Juan and Jose. Is it right to demand that Juan Legal sacrifice some of the quality of the education to his kids so that Jose Illegal can get the same quality education?[/quote]

No, I haven’t answered the question. Straw man argument. You’ll also note I haven’t expressed any opinion on any immigration issues. Indeed it begs the question. Your question is based on an unsubstantiated premise.

My position has nothing to do with arrogance, sense of superiority and entitlement. It is arrogant and displays a sense of entitlement to be illegally within a country and to expect to be served with all of the ‘entitlements’ that a legal citizen pays for, while at the same time, paying for none if it.

Two entirely different issues. And more straw. Another conclusion based on an unsupported premise.

[quote]

If they lead to logical conclusions, don’t complain when those conclusions are exposed.

So far, it looks like your conclusions are being exposed as being weakly supported or just plain wrong.[/quote]

See here from the Tax Foundation:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1424.html

You only “know” that illegal immigrants don’t pay their fair share if you ignore the facts.

[quote]
Here are some things to ponder:
In Mexico, if you are in the country illegally, you are imprisoned in a Mexican jail. After you have served your term, you are deported.
In Mexico, if you have a health problem and are not a citizen, you have to pay cash up front or the hospital will not even see you. This is even true if you are critically injured.[/quote]

More straw. I’m not a resident of Mexico. I’m not a resident of the Sudan or Saudi Arabia or Israel. I have problems with some of all those countries’ practices. But my opinion has no effect on their policies. What they do wrong has no bearing on what I think is right for this country.

[SK in CV]

[quote=ucodegen]

But if you think that children, bearing no responsibility as to the situation they find themselves in, are less worthy than other children simply because of the legal status of their parents, then all three (arrogance, sense of superiority and entitlement) apply.

You still have not answered my question as to Juan and Jose. Is it right to demand that Juan Legal sacrifice some of the quality of the education to his kids so that Jose Illegal can get the same quality education?[/quote]

No, I haven’t answered the question. Straw man argument. You’ll also note I haven’t expressed any opinion on any immigration issues. Indeed it begs the question. Your question is based on an unsubstantiated premise.

My position has nothing to do with arrogance, sense of superiority and entitlement. It is arrogant and displays a sense of entitlement to be illegally within a country and to expect to be served with all of the ‘entitlements’ that a legal citizen pays for, while at the same time, paying for none if it.

Two entirely different issues. And more straw. Another conclusion based on an unsupported premise.

[quote]

If they lead to logical conclusions, don’t complain when those conclusions are exposed.

So far, it looks like your conclusions are being exposed as being weakly supported or just plain wrong.[/quote]

See here from the Tax Foundation:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1424.html

You only “know” that illegal immigrants don’t pay their fair share if you ignore the facts.

[quote]
Here are some things to ponder:
In Mexico, if you are in the country illegally, you are imprisoned in a Mexican jail. After you have served your term, you are deported.
In Mexico, if you have a health problem and are not a citizen, you have to pay cash up front or the hospital will not even see you. This is even true if you are critically injured.[/quote]

More straw. I’m not a resident of Mexico. I’m not a resident of the Sudan or Saudi Arabia or Israel. I have problems with some of all those countries’ practices. But my opinion has no effect on their policies. What they do wrong has no bearing on what I think is right for this country.

[ucodegen]

And shutting down discussion? We’re still talking. Stop your whining. You chose your words.

I said ‘attempts’. Whether it is successful or not depends upon the personality of the person being targeted.

But if you think that children, bearing no responsibility as to the situation they find themselves in, are less worthy than other children simply because of the legal status of their parents, then all three (arrogance, sense of superiority and entitlement) apply.

You still have not answered my question as to Juan and Jose. Is it right to demand that Juan Legal sacrifice some of the quality of the education to his kids so that Jose Illegal can get the same quality education?

My position has nothing to do with arrogance, sense of superiority and entitlement. It is arrogant and displays a sense of entitlement to be illegally within a country and to expect to be served with all of the ‘entitlements’ that a legal citizen pays for, while at the same time, paying for none if it.

If they lead to logical conclusions, don’t complain when those conclusions are exposed.

So far, it looks like your conclusions are being exposed as being weakly supported or just plain wrong.

Here are some things to ponder:
In Mexico, if you are in the country illegally, you are imprisoned in a Mexican jail. After you have served your term, you are deported.
In Mexico, if you have a health problem and are not a citizen, you have to pay cash up front or the hospital will not even see you. This is even true if you are critically injured.

[ucodegen]

And shutting down discussion? We’re still talking. Stop your whining. You chose your words.

I said ‘attempts’. Whether it is successful or not depends upon the personality of the person being targeted.

But if you think that children, bearing no responsibility as to the situation they find themselves in, are less worthy than other children simply because of the legal status of their parents, then all three (arrogance, sense of superiority and entitlement) apply.

You still have not answered my question as to Juan and Jose. Is it right to demand that Juan Legal sacrifice some of the quality of the education to his kids so that Jose Illegal can get the same quality education?

My position has nothing to do with arrogance, sense of superiority and entitlement. It is arrogant and displays a sense of entitlement to be illegally within a country and to expect to be served with all of the ‘entitlements’ that a legal citizen pays for, while at the same time, paying for none if it.

If they lead to logical conclusions, don’t complain when those conclusions are exposed.

So far, it looks like your conclusions are being exposed as being weakly supported or just plain wrong.

Here are some things to ponder:
In Mexico, if you are in the country illegally, you are imprisoned in a Mexican jail. After you have served your term, you are deported.
In Mexico, if you have a health problem and are not a citizen, you have to pay cash up front or the hospital will not even see you. This is even true if you are critically injured.

[ucodegen]

And shutting down discussion? We’re still talking. Stop your whining. You chose your words.

I said ‘attempts’. Whether it is successful or not depends upon the personality of the person being targeted.

But if you think that children, bearing no responsibility as to the situation they find themselves in, are less worthy than other children simply because of the legal status of their parents, then all three (arrogance, sense of superiority and entitlement) apply.

You still have not answered my question as to Juan and Jose. Is it right to demand that Juan Legal sacrifice some of the quality of the education to his kids so that Jose Illegal can get the same quality education?

My position has nothing to do with arrogance, sense of superiority and entitlement. It is arrogant and displays a sense of entitlement to be illegally within a country and to expect to be served with all of the ‘entitlements’ that a legal citizen pays for, while at the same time, paying for none if it.

If they lead to logical conclusions, don’t complain when those conclusions are exposed.

So far, it looks like your conclusions are being exposed as being weakly supported or just plain wrong.

Here are some things to ponder:
In Mexico, if you are in the country illegally, you are imprisoned in a Mexican jail. After you have served your term, you are deported.
In Mexico, if you have a health problem and are not a citizen, you have to pay cash up front or the hospital will not even see you. This is even true if you are critically injured.

[ucodegen]

And shutting down discussion? We’re still talking. Stop your whining. You chose your words.

I said ‘attempts’. Whether it is successful or not depends upon the personality of the person being targeted.

But if you think that children, bearing no responsibility as to the situation they find themselves in, are less worthy than other children simply because of the legal status of their parents, then all three (arrogance, sense of superiority and entitlement) apply.

You still have not answered my question as to Juan and Jose. Is it right to demand that Juan Legal sacrifice some of the quality of the education to his kids so that Jose Illegal can get the same quality education?

My position has nothing to do with arrogance, sense of superiority and entitlement. It is arrogant and displays a sense of entitlement to be illegally within a country and to expect to be served with all of the ‘entitlements’ that a legal citizen pays for, while at the same time, paying for none if it.

If they lead to logical conclusions, don’t complain when those conclusions are exposed.

So far, it looks like your conclusions are being exposed as being weakly supported or just plain wrong.

Here are some things to ponder:
In Mexico, if you are in the country illegally, you are imprisoned in a Mexican jail. After you have served your term, you are deported.
In Mexico, if you have a health problem and are not a citizen, you have to pay cash up front or the hospital will not even see you. This is even true if you are critically injured.

[SK in CV]

[quote=ucodegen]

, I am simply dumbfounded by your sense of superiority, arrogance and entitlement. Hopefully I misunderstand you.

Ah, another personal attack. Lets try dealing with the facts instead of using emotionally charged words and phrases in an attempt to tilt the discussion.. followed by a ‘naw, you couldn’t be that bad a person, I must be misunderstanding you’ type of phrase.

In your previous post, what was the point of even bringing up ‘racists screed’? Emotionally charged words, yes.. and it attempts to shut down discussion by trying to associate my position with that of a racist (something commonly viewed untenable). Thereby in that mechanism, it is also ‘name calling’ through association.

[/quote]

The first time (racist screed) was not a personal attack. This one was. You can address it as you wish. But if you think that children, bearing no responsibility as to the situation they find themselves in, are less worthy than other children simply because of the legal status of their parents, then all three (arrogance, sense of superiority and entitlement) apply. There really is no getting around that.

As to the rest, yeah, if you ignore some of the evidence, and only accept that which supports your position, you’ll probably win every argument.

And shutting down discussion? We’re still talking. Stop your whining. You chose your words. If they lead to logical conclusions, don’t complain when those conclusions are exposed.

[SK in CV]

[quote=ucodegen]

, I am simply dumbfounded by your sense of superiority, arrogance and entitlement. Hopefully I misunderstand you.

Ah, another personal attack. Lets try dealing with the facts instead of using emotionally charged words and phrases in an attempt to tilt the discussion.. followed by a ‘naw, you couldn’t be that bad a person, I must be misunderstanding you’ type of phrase.

In your previous post, what was the point of even bringing up ‘racists screed’? Emotionally charged words, yes.. and it attempts to shut down discussion by trying to associate my position with that of a racist (something commonly viewed untenable). Thereby in that mechanism, it is also ‘name calling’ through association.

[/quote]

The first time (racist screed) was not a personal attack. This one was. You can address it as you wish. But if you think that children, bearing no responsibility as to the situation they find themselves in, are less worthy than other children simply because of the legal status of their parents, then all three (arrogance, sense of superiority and entitlement) apply. There really is no getting around that.

As to the rest, yeah, if you ignore some of the evidence, and only accept that which supports your position, you’ll probably win every argument.

And shutting down discussion? We’re still talking. Stop your whining. You chose your words. If they lead to logical conclusions, don’t complain when those conclusions are exposed.

[SK in CV]

[quote=ucodegen]

, I am simply dumbfounded by your sense of superiority, arrogance and entitlement. Hopefully I misunderstand you.

Ah, another personal attack. Lets try dealing with the facts instead of using emotionally charged words and phrases in an attempt to tilt the discussion.. followed by a ‘naw, you couldn’t be that bad a person, I must be misunderstanding you’ type of phrase.

In your previous post, what was the point of even bringing up ‘racists screed’? Emotionally charged words, yes.. and it attempts to shut down discussion by trying to associate my position with that of a racist (something commonly viewed untenable). Thereby in that mechanism, it is also ‘name calling’ through association.

[/quote]

The first time (racist screed) was not a personal attack. This one was. You can address it as you wish. But if you think that children, bearing no responsibility as to the situation they find themselves in, are less worthy than other children simply because of the legal status of their parents, then all three (arrogance, sense of superiority and entitlement) apply. There really is no getting around that.

As to the rest, yeah, if you ignore some of the evidence, and only accept that which supports your position, you’ll probably win every argument.

And shutting down discussion? We’re still talking. Stop your whining. You chose your words. If they lead to logical conclusions, don’t complain when those conclusions are exposed.

[SK in CV]

[quote=ucodegen]

, I am simply dumbfounded by your sense of superiority, arrogance and entitlement. Hopefully I misunderstand you.

Ah, another personal attack. Lets try dealing with the facts instead of using emotionally charged words and phrases in an attempt to tilt the discussion.. followed by a ‘naw, you couldn’t be that bad a person, I must be misunderstanding you’ type of phrase.

In your previous post, what was the point of even bringing up ‘racists screed’? Emotionally charged words, yes.. and it attempts to shut down discussion by trying to associate my position with that of a racist (something commonly viewed untenable). Thereby in that mechanism, it is also ‘name calling’ through association.

[/quote]

The first time (racist screed) was not a personal attack. This one was. You can address it as you wish. But if you think that children, bearing no responsibility as to the situation they find themselves in, are less worthy than other children simply because of the legal status of their parents, then all three (arrogance, sense of superiority and entitlement) apply. There really is no getting around that.

As to the rest, yeah, if you ignore some of the evidence, and only accept that which supports your position, you’ll probably win every argument.

And shutting down discussion? We’re still talking. Stop your whining. You chose your words. If they lead to logical conclusions, don’t complain when those conclusions are exposed.

[ucodegen]

, I am simply dumbfounded by your sense of superiority, arrogance and entitlement. Hopefully I misunderstand you.

Ah, another personal attack. Lets try dealing with the facts instead of using emotionally charged words and phrases in an attempt to tilt the discussion.. followed by a ‘naw, you couldn’t be that bad a person, I must be misunderstanding you’ type of phrase.

In your previous post, what was the point of even bringing up ‘racists screed’? Emotionally charged words, yes.. and it attempts to shut down discussion by trying to associate my position with that of a racist (something commonly viewed untenable). Thereby in that mechanism, it is also ‘name calling’ through association.

The argument that undocumented aliens are a huge drain on the system has long been debunked. In some counties and states their contributions are less than associated costs. In others they are more.

No it hasn’t been debunked. The supposed ‘debunk’ was through a straw man argument. The taxes that the illegal would owe on income would flow back to the state through sales taxes. What exposes the straw man is that the U.S. operates as an income tax not a VAT tax system. If it were VAT, we would see sales taxes of 15% and higher. The attempted ‘debunkers’ closed off the argument to the effect that the drop in agricultural costs and resulting drop in food prices more than offsets any cost to the U.S. and that most people in the U.S. don’t want those type of jobs anyway. This attempted diversion ignores the simple fact that introduction of the illegals to the labor pool depresses the lower wage range at a cost to the lower and lower middle classes and that some people actually would take that job.

As previously mentioned by at least one other poster, payment of social security and medicare taxes by those who will never receive any benefits is a huge gain for the system.

Red Herring. Answer me this: How can they pay into the system without a Social Security Number (legal citizen) or Taxpayer ID Number(green card). There is not mechanism for the social security system to accept such money without either associated IDs.. which an illegal does not have. There is also no mechanism to collect income taxes without either Social Security ID or Taxpayer ID.

On education, if I understand you to be saying that you believe that children of citizens are more worthy of an education than those of non-citizens,

Yes.

solely based upon where their parents were born,

No. Remember, many citizens are legal immigrants. Heck, unless you are American Indian, we all are immigrants or descended from immigrants. Lets make it easier for you. Lets change Joe to Juan in the above example. Juan Legal (from Mexico) took the legal path to citizenship; including the tests, waiting period, not being a felon etc. Jose is still Jose Illegal. Would it be right to force Juan to sacrifice some of the quality in his kids education to help improve the education quality of Jose Illegal’s kids? even considering that Jose could have taken the legal path to citizenship like Juan Legal?

[ucodegen]

, I am simply dumbfounded by your sense of superiority, arrogance and entitlement. Hopefully I misunderstand you.

Ah, another personal attack. Lets try dealing with the facts instead of using emotionally charged words and phrases in an attempt to tilt the discussion.. followed by a ‘naw, you couldn’t be that bad a person, I must be misunderstanding you’ type of phrase.

In your previous post, what was the point of even bringing up ‘racists screed’? Emotionally charged words, yes.. and it attempts to shut down discussion by trying to associate my position with that of a racist (something commonly viewed untenable). Thereby in that mechanism, it is also ‘name calling’ through association.

The argument that undocumented aliens are a huge drain on the system has long been debunked. In some counties and states their contributions are less than associated costs. In others they are more.

No it hasn’t been debunked. The supposed ‘debunk’ was through a straw man argument. The taxes that the illegal would owe on income would flow back to the state through sales taxes. What exposes the straw man is that the U.S. operates as an income tax not a VAT tax system. If it were VAT, we would see sales taxes of 15% and higher. The attempted ‘debunkers’ closed off the argument to the effect that the drop in agricultural costs and resulting drop in food prices more than offsets any cost to the U.S. and that most people in the U.S. don’t want those type of jobs anyway. This attempted diversion ignores the simple fact that introduction of the illegals to the labor pool depresses the lower wage range at a cost to the lower and lower middle classes and that some people actually would take that job.

As previously mentioned by at least one other poster, payment of social security and medicare taxes by those who will never receive any benefits is a huge gain for the system.

Red Herring. Answer me this: How can they pay into the system without a Social Security Number (legal citizen) or Taxpayer ID Number(green card). There is not mechanism for the social security system to accept such money without either associated IDs.. which an illegal does not have. There is also no mechanism to collect income taxes without either Social Security ID or Taxpayer ID.

On education, if I understand you to be saying that you believe that children of citizens are more worthy of an education than those of non-citizens,

Yes.

solely based upon where their parents were born,

No. Remember, many citizens are legal immigrants. Heck, unless you are American Indian, we all are immigrants or descended from immigrants. Lets make it easier for you. Lets change Joe to Juan in the above example. Juan Legal (from Mexico) took the legal path to citizenship; including the tests, waiting period, not being a felon etc. Jose is still Jose Illegal. Would it be right to force Juan to sacrifice some of the quality in his kids education to help improve the education quality of Jose Illegal’s kids? even considering that Jose could have taken the legal path to citizenship like Juan Legal?

[ucodegen]

, I am simply dumbfounded by your sense of superiority, arrogance and entitlement. Hopefully I misunderstand you.

Ah, another personal attack. Lets try dealing with the facts instead of using emotionally charged words and phrases in an attempt to tilt the discussion.. followed by a ‘naw, you couldn’t be that bad a person, I must be misunderstanding you’ type of phrase.

In your previous post, what was the point of even bringing up ‘racists screed’? Emotionally charged words, yes.. and it attempts to shut down discussion by trying to associate my position with that of a racist (something commonly viewed untenable). Thereby in that mechanism, it is also ‘name calling’ through association.

The argument that undocumented aliens are a huge drain on the system has long been debunked. In some counties and states their contributions are less than associated costs. In others they are more.

No it hasn’t been debunked. The supposed ‘debunk’ was through a straw man argument. The taxes that the illegal would owe on income would flow back to the state through sales taxes. What exposes the straw man is that the U.S. operates as an income tax not a VAT tax system. If it were VAT, we would see sales taxes of 15% and higher. The attempted ‘debunkers’ closed off the argument to the effect that the drop in agricultural costs and resulting drop in food prices more than offsets any cost to the U.S. and that most people in the U.S. don’t want those type of jobs anyway. This attempted diversion ignores the simple fact that introduction of the illegals to the labor pool depresses the lower wage range at a cost to the lower and lower middle classes and that some people actually would take that job.

As previously mentioned by at least one other poster, payment of social security and medicare taxes by those who will never receive any benefits is a huge gain for the system.

Red Herring. Answer me this: How can they pay into the system without a Social Security Number (legal citizen) or Taxpayer ID Number(green card). There is not mechanism for the social security system to accept such money without either associated IDs.. which an illegal does not have. There is also no mechanism to collect income taxes without either Social Security ID or Taxpayer ID.

On education, if I understand you to be saying that you believe that children of citizens are more worthy of an education than those of non-citizens,

Yes.

solely based upon where their parents were born,

No. Remember, many citizens are legal immigrants. Heck, unless you are American Indian, we all are immigrants or descended from immigrants. Lets make it easier for you. Lets change Joe to Juan in the above example. Juan Legal (from Mexico) took the legal path to citizenship; including the tests, waiting period, not being a felon etc. Jose is still Jose Illegal. Would it be right to force Juan to sacrifice some of the quality in his kids education to help improve the education quality of Jose Illegal’s kids? even considering that Jose could have taken the legal path to citizenship like Juan Legal?

[ucodegen]

, I am simply dumbfounded by your sense of superiority, arrogance and entitlement. Hopefully I misunderstand you.

Ah, another personal attack. Lets try dealing with the facts instead of using emotionally charged words and phrases in an attempt to tilt the discussion.. followed by a ‘naw, you couldn’t be that bad a person, I must be misunderstanding you’ type of phrase.

In your previous post, what was the point of even bringing up ‘racists screed’? Emotionally charged words, yes.. and it attempts to shut down discussion by trying to associate my position with that of a racist (something commonly viewed untenable). Thereby in that mechanism, it is also ‘name calling’ through association.

The argument that undocumented aliens are a huge drain on the system has long been debunked. In some counties and states their contributions are less than associated costs. In others they are more.

No it hasn’t been debunked. The supposed ‘debunk’ was through a straw man argument. The taxes that the illegal would owe on income would flow back to the state through sales taxes. What exposes the straw man is that the U.S. operates as an income tax not a VAT tax system. If it were VAT, we would see sales taxes of 15% and higher. The attempted ‘debunkers’ closed off the argument to the effect that the drop in agricultural costs and resulting drop in food prices more than offsets any cost to the U.S. and that most people in the U.S. don’t want those type of jobs anyway. This attempted diversion ignores the simple fact that introduction of the illegals to the labor pool depresses the lower wage range at a cost to the lower and lower middle classes and that some people actually would take that job.

As previously mentioned by at least one other poster, payment of social security and medicare taxes by those who will never receive any benefits is a huge gain for the system.

Red Herring. Answer me this: How can they pay into the system without a Social Security Number (legal citizen) or Taxpayer ID Number(green card). There is not mechanism for the social security system to accept such money without either associated IDs.. which an illegal does not have. There is also no mechanism to collect income taxes without either Social Security ID or Taxpayer ID.

On education, if I understand you to be saying that you believe that children of citizens are more worthy of an education than those of non-citizens,

Yes.

solely based upon where their parents were born,

No. Remember, many citizens are legal immigrants. Heck, unless you are American Indian, we all are immigrants or descended from immigrants. Lets make it easier for you. Lets change Joe to Juan in the above example. Juan Legal (from Mexico) took the legal path to citizenship; including the tests, waiting period, not being a felon etc. Jose is still Jose Illegal. Would it be right to force Juan to sacrifice some of the quality in his kids education to help improve the education quality of Jose Illegal’s kids? even considering that Jose could have taken the legal path to citizenship like Juan Legal?

[SK in CV]

I’ll just respond to this one little thing.

[quote=ucodegen]When logic fails, resort to name calling (ie racist screed). If you really knew me, you would know that this comment is so far off that it is laughable.
[/quote]

There was no name calling. I think you have adopted a racist screed. That doesn’t make you a racist.

The argument that undocumented aliens are a huge drain on the system has long been debunked. In some counties and states their contributions are less than associated costs. In others they are more. Nationwide, there are no conclusive studies, though in more recent years the contribution of the undocumented has risen with better enforcement of employment laws. The “under the table” payments, as described in the original post have dropped dramatically in the last 10 years. They’re not gone, but they’re nowhere near where they were. As previously mentioned by at least one other poster, payment of social security and medicare taxes by those who will never receive any benefits is a huge gain for the system. It extends the solvency of both programs.

On education, if I understand you to be saying that you believe that children of citizens are more worthy of an education than those of non-citizens, solely based upon where their parents were born, I am simply dumbfounded by your sense of superiority, arrogance and entitlement. Hopefully I misunderstand you.

[SK in CV]

I’ll just respond to this one little thing.

[quote=ucodegen]When logic fails, resort to name calling (ie racist screed). If you really knew me, you would know that this comment is so far off that it is laughable.
[/quote]

There was no name calling. I think you have adopted a racist screed. That doesn’t make you a racist.

The argument that undocumented aliens are a huge drain on the system has long been debunked. In some counties and states their contributions are less than associated costs. In others they are more. Nationwide, there are no conclusive studies, though in more recent years the contribution of the undocumented has risen with better enforcement of employment laws. The “under the table” payments, as described in the original post have dropped dramatically in the last 10 years. They’re not gone, but they’re nowhere near where they were. As previously mentioned by at least one other poster, payment of social security and medicare taxes by those who will never receive any benefits is a huge gain for the system. It extends the solvency of both programs.

On education, if I understand you to be saying that you believe that children of citizens are more worthy of an education than those of non-citizens, solely based upon where their parents were born, I am simply dumbfounded by your sense of superiority, arrogance and entitlement. Hopefully I misunderstand you.

[SK in CV]

I’ll just respond to this one little thing.

[quote=ucodegen]When logic fails, resort to name calling (ie racist screed). If you really knew me, you would know that this comment is so far off that it is laughable.
[/quote]

There was no name calling. I think you have adopted a racist screed. That doesn’t make you a racist.

The argument that undocumented aliens are a huge drain on the system has long been debunked. In some counties and states their contributions are less than associated costs. In others they are more. Nationwide, there are no conclusive studies, though in more recent years the contribution of the undocumented has risen with better enforcement of employment laws. The “under the table” payments, as described in the original post have dropped dramatically in the last 10 years. They’re not gone, but they’re nowhere near where they were. As previously mentioned by at least one other poster, payment of social security and medicare taxes by those who will never receive any benefits is a huge gain for the system. It extends the solvency of both programs.

On education, if I understand you to be saying that you believe that children of citizens are more worthy of an education than those of non-citizens, solely based upon where their parents were born, I am simply dumbfounded by your sense of superiority, arrogance and entitlement. Hopefully I misunderstand you.

[SK in CV]

I’ll just respond to this one little thing.

[quote=ucodegen]When logic fails, resort to name calling (ie racist screed). If you really knew me, you would know that this comment is so far off that it is laughable.
[/quote]

There was no name calling. I think you have adopted a racist screed. That doesn’t make you a racist.

The argument that undocumented aliens are a huge drain on the system has long been debunked. In some counties and states their contributions are less than associated costs. In others they are more. Nationwide, there are no conclusive studies, though in more recent years the contribution of the undocumented has risen with better enforcement of employment laws. The “under the table” payments, as described in the original post have dropped dramatically in the last 10 years. They’re not gone, but they’re nowhere near where they were. As previously mentioned by at least one other poster, payment of social security and medicare taxes by those who will never receive any benefits is a huge gain for the system. It extends the solvency of both programs.

On education, if I understand you to be saying that you believe that children of citizens are more worthy of an education than those of non-citizens, solely based upon where their parents were born, I am simply dumbfounded by your sense of superiority, arrogance and entitlement. Hopefully I misunderstand you.

[ucodegen]

On the first point, no, it wasn’t your point. It was mine. You started out claiming it was just the 6.2%, not 7.65%. If we’re comparing how much money Joe and Jose have to live on, the employer’s share is incidental.

Actually it was mine.. take a look at the statements where I said it was to ‘each’ in response to the person claiming only 4% tax. True, I initially left out the 1.45%. That was because I was checking what it was for. As for the employers amount being incidental, its a yes and no. It is part of what drives employers to hire and illegal at the same wage as a legal. Employers can actually hire an illegal and pay 7.65% more and come out even compared to a citizen.

No need to even address the rest of your long debunked racist screed. But please answer me this. Do you really think that Jose’s 8 year old son really deserves less of an education than Joe’s son simply because of where his parents were born?

When logic fails, resort to name calling (ie racist screed). If you really knew me, you would know that this comment is so far off that it is laughable.
As for the issues of education, YES! I don’t like it but I do understand that when a culture is allowed to ‘offload’ its costs onto another.. it will. The support of Jose’s son potentially denies money to someone who took the legal path. The funds are finite. One of my parents was a teacher in the LA City School District. She saw the costs of this activity and the resulting problems. If Jose was legal, he would be paying income tax which would be, in part, covering the costs for schooling. To me, it is not an issue of race. It is an issue of illegal vs legal. In the last amnesty w/ respect to citizen, many illegals didn’t petition to become citizens for a simple monetary reason. If they were a citizen; they would have to pay income taxes(illegals just get deported, a citizen would have to pay back taxes on undeclared income), it would be easier to track them if they skipped on a loan, it would be harder to skip on judgment(its hard enough to extradite a non Mexican citizen from Mexico. Imagine how hard it is to extradite a Mexican from Mexico).. besides, they are already getting many services for free. Why add costs and risks by becoming a citizen?

My personal belief is that there should be some form of ‘work visa’, with adjustments to taxes (ie. no social security taxes, but possibly a reduced Medicaid tax). I also think that the citizen by birth location needs to be removed. It creates too much of a problem with Anchor babies (sometimes the mother returns back to Mexico with the baby, and is able to draw on US welfare in support of her new dual citizen child – both Mexican because parents are, and U.S. by birth location). I have seen the opposite side of the US birth policy. The nightmare that comes from children of US citizens born abroad (read military and military contractors). Trying to get them cert. as a US citizen is a real pain (DNA tests sometimes required). This doesn’t even cover issues like ability to be President and whether they can hold a clearance.

Why take the effort on getting your country back under the control of the citizens when all you have to do is go north? The Mexican government is exporting its problems north instead of dealing with them, and their citizens are heading north instead of dealing with their government.

[ucodegen]

On the first point, no, it wasn’t your point. It was mine. You started out claiming it was just the 6.2%, not 7.65%. If we’re comparing how much money Joe and Jose have to live on, the employer’s share is incidental.

Actually it was mine.. take a look at the statements where I said it was to ‘each’ in response to the person claiming only 4% tax. True, I initially left out the 1.45%. That was because I was checking what it was for. As for the employers amount being incidental, its a yes and no. It is part of what drives employers to hire and illegal at the same wage as a legal. Employers can actually hire an illegal and pay 7.65% more and come out even compared to a citizen.

No need to even address the rest of your long debunked racist screed. But please answer me this. Do you really think that Jose’s 8 year old son really deserves less of an education than Joe’s son simply because of where his parents were born?

When logic fails, resort to name calling (ie racist screed). If you really knew me, you would know that this comment is so far off that it is laughable.
As for the issues of education, YES! I don’t like it but I do understand that when a culture is allowed to ‘offload’ its costs onto another.. it will. The support of Jose’s son potentially denies money to someone who took the legal path. The funds are finite. One of my parents was a teacher in the LA City School District. She saw the costs of this activity and the resulting problems. If Jose was legal, he would be paying income tax which would be, in part, covering the costs for schooling. To me, it is not an issue of race. It is an issue of illegal vs legal. In the last amnesty w/ respect to citizen, many illegals didn’t petition to become citizens for a simple monetary reason. If they were a citizen; they would have to pay income taxes(illegals just get deported, a citizen would have to pay back taxes on undeclared income), it would be easier to track them if they skipped on a loan, it would be harder to skip on judgment(its hard enough to extradite a non Mexican citizen from Mexico. Imagine how hard it is to extradite a Mexican from Mexico).. besides, they are already getting many services for free. Why add costs and risks by becoming a citizen?

My personal belief is that there should be some form of ‘work visa’, with adjustments to taxes (ie. no social security taxes, but possibly a reduced Medicaid tax). I also think that the citizen by birth location needs to be removed. It creates too much of a problem with Anchor babies (sometimes the mother returns back to Mexico with the baby, and is able to draw on US welfare in support of her new dual citizen child – both Mexican because parents are, and U.S. by birth location). I have seen the opposite side of the US birth policy. The nightmare that comes from children of US citizens born abroad (read military and military contractors). Trying to get them cert. as a US citizen is a real pain (DNA tests sometimes required). This doesn’t even cover issues like ability to be President and whether they can hold a clearance.

Why take the effort on getting your country back under the control of the citizens when all you have to do is go north? The Mexican government is exporting its problems north instead of dealing with them, and their citizens are heading north instead of dealing with their government.

[ucodegen]

On the first point, no, it wasn’t your point. It was mine. You started out claiming it was just the 6.2%, not 7.65%. If we’re comparing how much money Joe and Jose have to live on, the employer’s share is incidental.

Actually it was mine.. take a look at the statements where I said it was to ‘each’ in response to the person claiming only 4% tax. True, I initially left out the 1.45%. That was because I was checking what it was for. As for the employers amount being incidental, its a yes and no. It is part of what drives employers to hire and illegal at the same wage as a legal. Employers can actually hire an illegal and pay 7.65% more and come out even compared to a citizen.

No need to even address the rest of your long debunked racist screed. But please answer me this. Do you really think that Jose’s 8 year old son really deserves less of an education than Joe’s son simply because of where his parents were born?

When logic fails, resort to name calling (ie racist screed). If you really knew me, you would know that this comment is so far off that it is laughable.
As for the issues of education, YES! I don’t like it but I do understand that when a culture is allowed to ‘offload’ its costs onto another.. it will. The support of Jose’s son potentially denies money to someone who took the legal path. The funds are finite. One of my parents was a teacher in the LA City School District. She saw the costs of this activity and the resulting problems. If Jose was legal, he would be paying income tax which would be, in part, covering the costs for schooling. To me, it is not an issue of race. It is an issue of illegal vs legal. In the last amnesty w/ respect to citizen, many illegals didn’t petition to become citizens for a simple monetary reason. If they were a citizen; they would have to pay income taxes(illegals just get deported, a citizen would have to pay back taxes on undeclared income), it would be easier to track them if they skipped on a loan, it would be harder to skip on judgment(its hard enough to extradite a non Mexican citizen from Mexico. Imagine how hard it is to extradite a Mexican from Mexico).. besides, they are already getting many services for free. Why add costs and risks by becoming a citizen?

My personal belief is that there should be some form of ‘work visa’, with adjustments to taxes (ie. no social security taxes, but possibly a reduced Medicaid tax). I also think that the citizen by birth location needs to be removed. It creates too much of a problem with Anchor babies (sometimes the mother returns back to Mexico with the baby, and is able to draw on US welfare in support of her new dual citizen child – both Mexican because parents are, and U.S. by birth location). I have seen the opposite side of the US birth policy. The nightmare that comes from children of US citizens born abroad (read military and military contractors). Trying to get them cert. as a US citizen is a real pain (DNA tests sometimes required). This doesn’t even cover issues like ability to be President and whether they can hold a clearance.

Why take the effort on getting your country back under the control of the citizens when all you have to do is go north? The Mexican government is exporting its problems north instead of dealing with them, and their citizens are heading north instead of dealing with their government.

[ucodegen]

On the first point, no, it wasn’t your point. It was mine. You started out claiming it was just the 6.2%, not 7.65%. If we’re comparing how much money Joe and Jose have to live on, the employer’s share is incidental.

Actually it was mine.. take a look at the statements where I said it was to ‘each’ in response to the person claiming only 4% tax. True, I initially left out the 1.45%. That was because I was checking what it was for. As for the employers amount being incidental, its a yes and no. It is part of what drives employers to hire and illegal at the same wage as a legal. Employers can actually hire an illegal and pay 7.65% more and come out even compared to a citizen.

No need to even address the rest of your long debunked racist screed. But please answer me this. Do you really think that Jose’s 8 year old son really deserves less of an education than Joe’s son simply because of where his parents were born?

When logic fails, resort to name calling (ie racist screed). If you really knew me, you would know that this comment is so far off that it is laughable.
As for the issues of education, YES! I don’t like it but I do understand that when a culture is allowed to ‘offload’ its costs onto another.. it will. The support of Jose’s son potentially denies money to someone who took the legal path. The funds are finite. One of my parents was a teacher in the LA City School District. She saw the costs of this activity and the resulting problems. If Jose was legal, he would be paying income tax which would be, in part, covering the costs for schooling. To me, it is not an issue of race. It is an issue of illegal vs legal. In the last amnesty w/ respect to citizen, many illegals didn’t petition to become citizens for a simple monetary reason. If they were a citizen; they would have to pay income taxes(illegals just get deported, a citizen would have to pay back taxes on undeclared income), it would be easier to track them if they skipped on a loan, it would be harder to skip on judgment(its hard enough to extradite a non Mexican citizen from Mexico. Imagine how hard it is to extradite a Mexican from Mexico).. besides, they are already getting many services for free. Why add costs and risks by becoming a citizen?

My personal belief is that there should be some form of ‘work visa’, with adjustments to taxes (ie. no social security taxes, but possibly a reduced Medicaid tax). I also think that the citizen by birth location needs to be removed. It creates too much of a problem with Anchor babies (sometimes the mother returns back to Mexico with the baby, and is able to draw on US welfare in support of her new dual citizen child – both Mexican because parents are, and U.S. by birth location). I have seen the opposite side of the US birth policy. The nightmare that comes from children of US citizens born abroad (read military and military contractors). Trying to get them cert. as a US citizen is a real pain (DNA tests sometimes required). This doesn’t even cover issues like ability to be President and whether they can hold a clearance.

Why take the effort on getting your country back under the control of the citizens when all you have to do is go north? The Mexican government is exporting its problems north instead of dealing with them, and their citizens are heading north instead of dealing with their government.

[KSMountain]

[quote=SK in CV]Do you really think that Jose’s 8 year old son really deserves less of an education than Joe’s son simply because of where his parents were born?[/quote]

SK in CV: Meet 8 year old Juanita from Paraguay. She is very cute and bright and innocent. She smiles a lot and is very likable.

Do you really think she deserves less of an education than Joe’s son simply because of where SHE was born? How arrogant!

Why should we discriminate based on a criteria as passe as physical location? Why not educate everyone in the whole world?

We can either fly everybody here for 18 or so years or we can just send out say 200 million teachers to do it on location. That’ll give class sizes of about 30 students per teacher. Hope that’s ok with you.

[SK in CV]

[quote=KSMountain][quote=SK in CV]Do you really think that Jose’s 8 year old son really deserves less of an education than Joe’s son simply because of where his parents were born?[/quote]

SK in CV: Meet 8 year old Juanita from Paraguay. She is very cute and bright and innocent. She smiles a lot and is very likable.

Do you really think she deserves less of an education than Joe’s son simply because of where SHE was born? How arrogant!

Why should we discriminate based on a criteria as passe as physical location? Why not educate everyone in the whole world?

We can either fly everybody here for 18 or so years or we can just send out say 200 million teachers to do it on location. That’ll give class sizes of about 30 students per teacher. Hope that’s ok with you.[/quote]

I suppose you’ve made a point here. I have no idea what it is. I think Juanita is as worthy of an education as any other child. Unfortunately, living in Paraguay, with one of the lowest literacy rates on the planet, she’s unlikely to get much of an education. Hopefully her parents will find a way to sneak her across the border so we can provide it.

(And in case you were wondering, I would have no problem with a world without borders. In theory anyway.)

[KSMountain]

[quote=SK in CV]I suppose you’ve made a point here. I have no idea what it is…

Hopefully her parents will find a way to sneak her across the border so we can provide it.

(And in case you were wondering, I would have no problem with a world without borders. In theory anyway.)[/quote]

I’m exploring the limits of your largesse with other people’s tax dollars, SK.

Isn’t Juanita also deserving of quality medical care? Why should American kids have better healthcare than Paraguayan kids? That’s certainly bigoted and unfair. Shouldn’t the taxpayers of the US provide medical care for the children of Paraguay?

Oh, but what about proper nutrition too? Isn’t that fundamental? And clean water. Of course Juanita and her peers deserve that.

But, wait. While we’re helping Paraguay, we can’t neglect Uruguay. And the Ivory Coast. And Liberia. And Bhutan. And Ghana.

Or maybe you’re right. Open borders and all, just bring them here. For the poor in countries not geographically close to us though, I think we’ll have to send planes or boats, don’t you think?

Or are you really so selfish as to limit your compassion and generosity only to folks who are physically able to get within the borders of the U.S.? Please tell me I misunderstand you.

[Anonymous]

I think SK understands that there isn’t enough to go around.

No need to be so callous about it.

[KSMountain]

SK was pretty hard on people earlier in the thread, so I felt a little examination of SK’s position was warranted.

SK also said he/she had no idea what my point was, so I tried to clarify.

I have no issue with generosity and charity. At all. I donate.

I have more of an issue when people’s utopian desires for a world without pain or want, and an inability or unwillingness to consider the practical limits of our budget (which is negative at the moment btw), cause them to advocate policies that aren’t tenable.

Also sometimes people don’t consider the consequences of the full expression of their ideas. For example, it’s easy to want to help Jose’s son. But we gave 20 million amnesty in 1984, and now we’re talking 20 million more (very rough figures).

Would that number be 100 million if we had open borders? Why not?

Would that be a good thing for the U.S.? More workers, for sure. Would the population be evenly distributed, or might the population densities in our largest cities go way way up?

It does become crucial to know whether legal/illegal immigrants are a net financial positive or negative, when you are multiplying by large numbers. I don’t know that that question has been “debunked” or reliably resolved one way or the other. It’s probably not that easy of a question to answer.

[NotCranky]

Amnesty is an interesting term. For all practical purposes these,mostly workers, are invited here. For political reasons it is not admitted that the border is deliberately semi- porous where Mexicans are concerned. If Jose is good enough to come up here and do unhealthy shit work and participate in Federal nation building agendas(including reproducing) with which the state of California is in cahoots, his kid is as deserving as any. I understand people feeling they are hurt by it but I don’t understand for a minute any desire to direct the backlash at Jose himself.

Bringing Juanita from Paraguay into it is too much. Not because it test the limits of someone’s generosity. If there was anyone who could threaten to make that kind of equality nearly universal he would be killed. At least Jose vs. Joe is somewhat real.

[KSMountain]

[quote=Russell]If there was anyone who could threaten to make that kind of equality nearly universal he would be killed.[/quote]

Interesting observation.

[KSMountain]

[quote=Russell]If there was anyone who could threaten to make that kind of equality nearly universal he would be killed.[/quote]

Interesting observation.

[KSMountain]

[quote=Russell]If there was anyone who could threaten to make that kind of equality nearly universal he would be killed.[/quote]

Interesting observation.

[KSMountain]

[quote=Russell]If there was anyone who could threaten to make that kind of equality nearly universal he would be killed.[/quote]

Interesting observation.

[KSMountain]

[quote=Russell]If there was anyone who could threaten to make that kind of equality nearly universal he would be killed.[/quote]

Interesting observation.

[NotCranky]

Amnesty is an interesting term. For all practical purposes these,mostly workers, are invited here. For political reasons it is not admitted that the border is deliberately semi- porous where Mexicans are concerned. If Jose is good enough to come up here and do unhealthy shit work and participate in Federal nation building agendas(including reproducing) with which the state of California is in cahoots, his kid is as deserving as any. I understand people feeling they are hurt by it but I don’t understand for a minute any desire to direct the backlash at Jose himself.

Bringing Juanita from Paraguay into it is too much. Not because it test the limits of someone’s generosity. If there was anyone who could threaten to make that kind of equality nearly universal he would be killed. At least Jose vs. Joe is somewhat real.

[NotCranky]

Amnesty is an interesting term. For all practical purposes these,mostly workers, are invited here. For political reasons it is not admitted that the border is deliberately semi- porous where Mexicans are concerned. If Jose is good enough to come up here and do unhealthy shit work and participate in Federal nation building agendas(including reproducing) with which the state of California is in cahoots, his kid is as deserving as any. I understand people feeling they are hurt by it but I don’t understand for a minute any desire to direct the backlash at Jose himself.

Bringing Juanita from Paraguay into it is too much. Not because it test the limits of someone’s generosity. If there was anyone who could threaten to make that kind of equality nearly universal he would be killed. At least Jose vs. Joe is somewhat real.

[NotCranky]

Amnesty is an interesting term. For all practical purposes these,mostly workers, are invited here. For political reasons it is not admitted that the border is deliberately semi- porous where Mexicans are concerned. If Jose is good enough to come up here and do unhealthy shit work and participate in Federal nation building agendas(including reproducing) with which the state of California is in cahoots, his kid is as deserving as any. I understand people feeling they are hurt by it but I don’t understand for a minute any desire to direct the backlash at Jose himself.

Bringing Juanita from Paraguay into it is too much. Not because it test the limits of someone’s generosity. If there was anyone who could threaten to make that kind of equality nearly universal he would be killed. At least Jose vs. Joe is somewhat real.

[NotCranky]

Amnesty is an interesting term. For all practical purposes these,mostly workers, are invited here. For political reasons it is not admitted that the border is deliberately semi- porous where Mexicans are concerned. If Jose is good enough to come up here and do unhealthy shit work and participate in Federal nation building agendas(including reproducing) with which the state of California is in cahoots, his kid is as deserving as any. I understand people feeling they are hurt by it but I don’t understand for a minute any desire to direct the backlash at Jose himself.

Bringing Juanita from Paraguay into it is too much. Not because it test the limits of someone’s generosity. If there was anyone who could threaten to make that kind of equality nearly universal he would be killed. At least Jose vs. Joe is somewhat real.

[Anonymous]

If you don’t like paying for Jose’s kid, then why are you OK with paying for Joe’s kid?

Lots of people without kids of their own like to make the “why should I pay taxes so your kid can go to school?” argument. (I personally never agreed with this, even before I had kids).

The common argument for public education is that these kids will eventually become adults in the community. And an educated population benefits everyone.

Both Joe’s kids and Jose’s kids are going to end up in US communities as adults (like it or not). So perhaps we should educate them both.

Regrettably, I agree that we can’t afford to help Juanita (outside of personal charity).

[KSMountain]

[quote=pri_dk]Both Joe’s kids and Jose’s kids are going to end up in US communities as adults (like it or not). So perhaps we should educate them both.[/quote]
Now *that* is a persuasive argument, to me.

[KSMountain]

[quote=pri_dk]Both Joe’s kids and Jose’s kids are going to end up in US communities as adults (like it or not). So perhaps we should educate them both.[/quote]
Now *that* is a persuasive argument, to me.

[KSMountain]

[quote=pri_dk]Both Joe’s kids and Jose’s kids are going to end up in US communities as adults (like it or not). So perhaps we should educate them both.[/quote]
Now *that* is a persuasive argument, to me.

[KSMountain]

[quote=pri_dk]Both Joe’s kids and Jose’s kids are going to end up in US communities as adults (like it or not). So perhaps we should educate them both.[/quote]
Now *that* is a persuasive argument, to me.

[KSMountain]

[quote=pri_dk]Both Joe’s kids and Jose’s kids are going to end up in US communities as adults (like it or not). So perhaps we should educate them both.[/quote]
Now *that* is a persuasive argument, to me.

[ucodegen]

If you don’t like paying for Jose’s kid, then why are you OK with paying for Joe’s kid?

Both Joe’s kids and Jose’s kids are going to end up in US communities as adults (like it or not). So perhaps we should educate them both.

The only problem is that to provide for Jose’s kid, we have to take away from Joe’s kid.. or Juan’s kid. Juan being the person who took the legal way in. It create a moral conundrum. You end up punishing someone for doing it right and legal, and rewarding someone for doing it illegally
(Ironically, similar to some of the stuff with real estate mortgages right now). Unfortunately the ones at receiving end are the kids, as proxies for their parents behavior or the behavior of other parents. Kids of legal parents get punished because of class crowding, teachers having to spend extra time bring kids of illegals up to speed. On the other hand, to deny kids of illegals an education, punishes those kids for the behavior of their parents. Either way, a decision has to be made.

[cabal]

[quote=ucodegen]

If you don’t like paying for Jose’s kid, then why are you OK with paying for Joe’s kid?

Both Joe’s kids and Jose’s kids are going to end up in US communities as adults (like it or not). So perhaps we should educate them both.

The only problem is that to provide for Jose’s kid, we have to take away from Joe’s kid.. or Juan’s kid. Juan being the person who took the legal way in. It create a moral conundrum. You end up punishing someone for doing it right and legal, and rewarding someone for doing it illegally
(Ironically, similar to some of the stuff with real estate mortgages right now). Unfortunately the ones at receiving end are the kids, as proxies for their parents behavior or the behavior of other parents. Kids of legal parents get punished because of class crowding, teachers having to spend extra time bring kids of illegals up to speed. On the other hand, to deny kids of illegals an education, punishes those kids for the behavior of their parents. Either way, a decision has to be made.[/quote]

Another entertaining Piggington thread. Under current law, there should be no problem because Joe, Jose or Juan’s children are all US citizens entitled to equal educational benefits . Your issues are with the applicability of the 14th amendment Section 1 and allocation of tax revenues.

Vesting citizenship by birthplace in a constitutional amendment was originally intended to provide guaranteed protection for freed slaves against injustices such as the Dred Scott supreme court decision, specifically protection against deportation and the right to life, liberty and property. I tend to agree the loophole for anchor babies should be closed as illegal immigrants have little analogy to the slave situation, probably. What gives me some pause is the philosophical argument of Deistic “Natural Rights” espoused by our Founding Fathers, or the unalienable right to life, liberty and property vested to all humans outside and above any govt rights. Citizenship by birthplace (Jus Solis), rooted in English common law, was instituted for pragmatic reasons, to facilitate nation building by attaining labor and skillsets via a growing population. If a child born on US soil of illegal parents say in the sparse west late 1800s, I doubt anyone would have an issue recognizing that childs citizenship. It feels odd to me that limited resources is now sufficient grounds to deny this settled right. For me, the question is does an innocent child born of illegal parents who has committed no crime, who if able to speak accepts the jurisdiction of this country, and who grows up to be a productive member of society have the right of citizenship?

As for how Uncle Sam spends/wastes our tax dollars, educating legal children of illegal immigrants doesn’t even crack my worst top ten list. For better or worse, we live in a republic, not a true democracy. This means we don’t decide anything, we elect others to decide for us. I’m not fond of our progressive tax system, or taxation for redistribution since I’m in the highest tax bracket, but consume no more public resources than the average person. Too bad.

I don’t agree Juanitas parents should try to sneak her into this country. But for the record, I admire SK in CVs unconditional love for the well being of innocent children whose circumstances are no fault of their own. Some may call this naïve, I see it as a sign of nobility.

[SK in CV]

I appreciate the comment…

[quote=Cabal]I don’t agree Juanitas parents should try to sneak her into this country. But for the record, I admire SK in CVs unconditional love for the well being of innocent children whose circumstances are no fault of their own. Some may call this naïve, I see it as a sign of nobility.[/quote]

but i think you read more into what i wrote than i intended. I simply asked whether the commenter thought one child was more worthy than another solely based on the birthplace of their parents. I was (and still am) dumbfounded by the response. I can’t even look at my own kids and believe they are more worthy or deserving than others simply because of my good fortune to be born in this country.

[SK in CV]

I appreciate the comment…

[quote=Cabal]I don’t agree Juanitas parents should try to sneak her into this country. But for the record, I admire SK in CVs unconditional love for the well being of innocent children whose circumstances are no fault of their own. Some may call this naïve, I see it as a sign of nobility.[/quote]

but i think you read more into what i wrote than i intended. I simply asked whether the commenter thought one child was more worthy than another solely based on the birthplace of their parents. I was (and still am) dumbfounded by the response. I can’t even look at my own kids and believe they are more worthy or deserving than others simply because of my good fortune to be born in this country.

[SK in CV]

I appreciate the comment…

[quote=Cabal]I don’t agree Juanitas parents should try to sneak her into this country. But for the record, I admire SK in CVs unconditional love for the well being of innocent children whose circumstances are no fault of their own. Some may call this naïve, I see it as a sign of nobility.[/quote]

but i think you read more into what i wrote than i intended. I simply asked whether the commenter thought one child was more worthy than another solely based on the birthplace of their parents. I was (and still am) dumbfounded by the response. I can’t even look at my own kids and believe they are more worthy or deserving than others simply because of my good fortune to be born in this country.

[SK in CV]

I appreciate the comment…

[quote=Cabal]I don’t agree Juanitas parents should try to sneak her into this country. But for the record, I admire SK in CVs unconditional love for the well being of innocent children whose circumstances are no fault of their own. Some may call this naïve, I see it as a sign of nobility.[/quote]

but i think you read more into what i wrote than i intended. I simply asked whether the commenter thought one child was more worthy than another solely based on the birthplace of their parents. I was (and still am) dumbfounded by the response. I can’t even look at my own kids and believe they are more worthy or deserving than others simply because of my good fortune to be born in this country.

[SK in CV]

I appreciate the comment…

[quote=Cabal]I don’t agree Juanitas parents should try to sneak her into this country. But for the record, I admire SK in CVs unconditional love for the well being of innocent children whose circumstances are no fault of their own. Some may call this naïve, I see it as a sign of nobility.[/quote]

but i think you read more into what i wrote than i intended. I simply asked whether the commenter thought one child was more worthy than another solely based on the birthplace of their parents. I was (and still am) dumbfounded by the response. I can’t even look at my own kids and believe they are more worthy or deserving than others simply because of my good fortune to be born in this country.

[cabal]

[quote=ucodegen]

If you don’t like paying for Jose’s kid, then why are you OK with paying for Joe’s kid?

Both Joe’s kids and Jose’s kids are going to end up in US communities as adults (like it or not). So perhaps we should educate them both.

The only problem is that to provide for Jose’s kid, we have to take away from Joe’s kid.. or Juan’s kid. Juan being the person who took the legal way in. It create a moral conundrum. You end up punishing someone for doing it right and legal, and rewarding someone for doing it illegally
(Ironically, similar to some of the stuff with real estate mortgages right now). Unfortunately the ones at receiving end are the kids, as proxies for their parents behavior or the behavior of other parents. Kids of legal parents get punished because of class crowding, teachers having to spend extra time bring kids of illegals up to speed. On the other hand, to deny kids of illegals an education, punishes those kids for the behavior of their parents. Either way, a decision has to be made.[/quote]

Another entertaining Piggington thread. Under current law, there should be no problem because Joe, Jose or Juan’s children are all US citizens entitled to equal educational benefits . Your issues are with the applicability of the 14th amendment Section 1 and allocation of tax revenues.

Vesting citizenship by birthplace in a constitutional amendment was originally intended to provide guaranteed protection for freed slaves against injustices such as the Dred Scott supreme court decision, specifically protection against deportation and the right to life, liberty and property. I tend to agree the loophole for anchor babies should be closed as illegal immigrants have little analogy to the slave situation, probably. What gives me some pause is the philosophical argument of Deistic “Natural Rights” espoused by our Founding Fathers, or the unalienable right to life, liberty and property vested to all humans outside and above any govt rights. Citizenship by birthplace (Jus Solis), rooted in English common law, was instituted for pragmatic reasons, to facilitate nation building by attaining labor and skillsets via a growing population. If a child born on US soil of illegal parents say in the sparse west late 1800s, I doubt anyone would have an issue recognizing that childs citizenship. It feels odd to me that limited resources is now sufficient grounds to deny this settled right. For me, the question is does an innocent child born of illegal parents who has committed no crime, who if able to speak accepts the jurisdiction of this country, and who grows up to be a productive member of society have the right of citizenship?

As for how Uncle Sam spends/wastes our tax dollars, educating legal children of illegal immigrants doesn’t even crack my worst top ten list. For better or worse, we live in a republic, not a true democracy. This means we don’t decide anything, we elect others to decide for us. I’m not fond of our progressive tax system, or taxation for redistribution since I’m in the highest tax bracket, but consume no more public resources than the average person. Too bad.

I don’t agree Juanitas parents should try to sneak her into this country. But for the record, I admire SK in CVs unconditional love for the well being of innocent children whose circumstances are no fault of their own. Some may call this naïve, I see it as a sign of nobility.

[cabal]

[quote=ucodegen]

If you don’t like paying for Jose’s kid, then why are you OK with paying for Joe’s kid?

Both Joe’s kids and Jose’s kids are going to end up in US communities as adults (like it or not). So perhaps we should educate them both.

The only problem is that to provide for Jose’s kid, we have to take away from Joe’s kid.. or Juan’s kid. Juan being the person who took the legal way in. It create a moral conundrum. You end up punishing someone for doing it right and legal, and rewarding someone for doing it illegally
(Ironically, similar to some of the stuff with real estate mortgages right now). Unfortunately the ones at receiving end are the kids, as proxies for their parents behavior or the behavior of other parents. Kids of legal parents get punished because of class crowding, teachers having to spend extra time bring kids of illegals up to speed. On the other hand, to deny kids of illegals an education, punishes those kids for the behavior of their parents. Either way, a decision has to be made.[/quote]

Another entertaining Piggington thread. Under current law, there should be no problem because Joe, Jose or Juan’s children are all US citizens entitled to equal educational benefits . Your issues are with the applicability of the 14th amendment Section 1 and allocation of tax revenues.

Vesting citizenship by birthplace in a constitutional amendment was originally intended to provide guaranteed protection for freed slaves against injustices such as the Dred Scott supreme court decision, specifically protection against deportation and the right to life, liberty and property. I tend to agree the loophole for anchor babies should be closed as illegal immigrants have little analogy to the slave situation, probably. What gives me some pause is the philosophical argument of Deistic “Natural Rights” espoused by our Founding Fathers, or the unalienable right to life, liberty and property vested to all humans outside and above any govt rights. Citizenship by birthplace (Jus Solis), rooted in English common law, was instituted for pragmatic reasons, to facilitate nation building by attaining labor and skillsets via a growing population. If a child born on US soil of illegal parents say in the sparse west late 1800s, I doubt anyone would have an issue recognizing that childs citizenship. It feels odd to me that limited resources is now sufficient grounds to deny this settled right. For me, the question is does an innocent child born of illegal parents who has committed no crime, who if able to speak accepts the jurisdiction of this country, and who grows up to be a productive member of society have the right of citizenship?

As for how Uncle Sam spends/wastes our tax dollars, educating legal children of illegal immigrants doesn’t even crack my worst top ten list. For better or worse, we live in a republic, not a true democracy. This means we don’t decide anything, we elect others to decide for us. I’m not fond of our progressive tax system, or taxation for redistribution since I’m in the highest tax bracket, but consume no more public resources than the average person. Too bad.

I don’t agree Juanitas parents should try to sneak her into this country. But for the record, I admire SK in CVs unconditional love for the well being of innocent children whose circumstances are no fault of their own. Some may call this naïve, I see it as a sign of nobility.

[cabal]

[quote=ucodegen]

If you don’t like paying for Jose’s kid, then why are you OK with paying for Joe’s kid?

Both Joe’s kids and Jose’s kids are going to end up in US communities as adults (like it or not). So perhaps we should educate them both.

The only problem is that to provide for Jose’s kid, we have to take away from Joe’s kid.. or Juan’s kid. Juan being the person who took the legal way in. It create a moral conundrum. You end up punishing someone for doing it right and legal, and rewarding someone for doing it illegally
(Ironically, similar to some of the stuff with real estate mortgages right now). Unfortunately the ones at receiving end are the kids, as proxies for their parents behavior or the behavior of other parents. Kids of legal parents get punished because of class crowding, teachers having to spend extra time bring kids of illegals up to speed. On the other hand, to deny kids of illegals an education, punishes those kids for the behavior of their parents. Either way, a decision has to be made.[/quote]

Another entertaining Piggington thread. Under current law, there should be no problem because Joe, Jose or Juan’s children are all US citizens entitled to equal educational benefits . Your issues are with the applicability of the 14th amendment Section 1 and allocation of tax revenues.

Vesting citizenship by birthplace in a constitutional amendment was originally intended to provide guaranteed protection for freed slaves against injustices such as the Dred Scott supreme court decision, specifically protection against deportation and the right to life, liberty and property. I tend to agree the loophole for anchor babies should be closed as illegal immigrants have little analogy to the slave situation, probably. What gives me some pause is the philosophical argument of Deistic “Natural Rights” espoused by our Founding Fathers, or the unalienable right to life, liberty and property vested to all humans outside and above any govt rights. Citizenship by birthplace (Jus Solis), rooted in English common law, was instituted for pragmatic reasons, to facilitate nation building by attaining labor and skillsets via a growing population. If a child born on US soil of illegal parents say in the sparse west late 1800s, I doubt anyone would have an issue recognizing that childs citizenship. It feels odd to me that limited resources is now sufficient grounds to deny this settled right. For me, the question is does an innocent child born of illegal parents who has committed no crime, who if able to speak accepts the jurisdiction of this country, and who grows up to be a productive member of society have the right of citizenship?

As for how Uncle Sam spends/wastes our tax dollars, educating legal children of illegal immigrants doesn’t even crack my worst top ten list. For better or worse, we live in a republic, not a true democracy. This means we don’t decide anything, we elect others to decide for us. I’m not fond of our progressive tax system, or taxation for redistribution since I’m in the highest tax bracket, but consume no more public resources than the average person. Too bad.

I don’t agree Juanitas parents should try to sneak her into this country. But for the record, I admire SK in CVs unconditional love for the well being of innocent children whose circumstances are no fault of their own. Some may call this naïve, I see it as a sign of nobility.

[cabal]

[quote=ucodegen]

If you don’t like paying for Jose’s kid, then why are you OK with paying for Joe’s kid?

Both Joe’s kids and Jose’s kids are going to end up in US communities as adults (like it or not). So perhaps we should educate them both.

The only problem is that to provide for Jose’s kid, we have to take away from Joe’s kid.. or Juan’s kid. Juan being the person who took the legal way in. It create a moral conundrum. You end up punishing someone for doing it right and legal, and rewarding someone for doing it illegally
(Ironically, similar to some of the stuff with real estate mortgages right now). Unfortunately the ones at receiving end are the kids, as proxies for their parents behavior or the behavior of other parents. Kids of legal parents get punished because of class crowding, teachers having to spend extra time bring kids of illegals up to speed. On the other hand, to deny kids of illegals an education, punishes those kids for the behavior of their parents. Either way, a decision has to be made.[/quote]

Another entertaining Piggington thread. Under current law, there should be no problem because Joe, Jose or Juan’s children are all US citizens entitled to equal educational benefits . Your issues are with the applicability of the 14th amendment Section 1 and allocation of tax revenues.

Vesting citizenship by birthplace in a constitutional amendment was originally intended to provide guaranteed protection for freed slaves against injustices such as the Dred Scott supreme court decision, specifically protection against deportation and the right to life, liberty and property. I tend to agree the loophole for anchor babies should be closed as illegal immigrants have little analogy to the slave situation, probably. What gives me some pause is the philosophical argument of Deistic “Natural Rights” espoused by our Founding Fathers, or the unalienable right to life, liberty and property vested to all humans outside and above any govt rights. Citizenship by birthplace (Jus Solis), rooted in English common law, was instituted for pragmatic reasons, to facilitate nation building by attaining labor and skillsets via a growing population. If a child born on US soil of illegal parents say in the sparse west late 1800s, I doubt anyone would have an issue recognizing that childs citizenship. It feels odd to me that limited resources is now sufficient grounds to deny this settled right. For me, the question is does an innocent child born of illegal parents who has committed no crime, who if able to speak accepts the jurisdiction of this country, and who grows up to be a productive member of society have the right of citizenship?

As for how Uncle Sam spends/wastes our tax dollars, educating legal children of illegal immigrants doesn’t even crack my worst top ten list. For better or worse, we live in a republic, not a true democracy. This means we don’t decide anything, we elect others to decide for us. I’m not fond of our progressive tax system, or taxation for redistribution since I’m in the highest tax bracket, but consume no more public resources than the average person. Too bad.

I don’t agree Juanitas parents should try to sneak her into this country. But for the record, I admire SK in CVs unconditional love for the well being of innocent children whose circumstances are no fault of their own. Some may call this naïve, I see it as a sign of nobility.

[ucodegen]

If you don’t like paying for Jose’s kid, then why are you OK with paying for Joe’s kid?

Both Joe’s kids and Jose’s kids are going to end up in US communities as adults (like it or not). So perhaps we should educate them both.

The only problem is that to provide for Jose’s kid, we have to take away from Joe’s kid.. or Juan’s kid. Juan being the person who took the legal way in. It create a moral conundrum. You end up punishing someone for doing it right and legal, and rewarding someone for doing it illegally
(Ironically, similar to some of the stuff with real estate mortgages right now). Unfortunately the ones at receiving end are the kids, as proxies for their parents behavior or the behavior of other parents. Kids of legal parents get punished because of class crowding, teachers having to spend extra time bring kids of illegals up to speed. On the other hand, to deny kids of illegals an education, punishes those kids for the behavior of their parents. Either way, a decision has to be made.

[ucodegen]

If you don’t like paying for Jose’s kid, then why are you OK with paying for Joe’s kid?

Both Joe’s kids and Jose’s kids are going to end up in US communities as adults (like it or not). So perhaps we should educate them both.

The only problem is that to provide for Jose’s kid, we have to take away from Joe’s kid.. or Juan’s kid. Juan being the person who took the legal way in. It create a moral conundrum. You end up punishing someone for doing it right and legal, and rewarding someone for doing it illegally
(Ironically, similar to some of the stuff with real estate mortgages right now). Unfortunately the ones at receiving end are the kids, as proxies for their parents behavior or the behavior of other parents. Kids of legal parents get punished because of class crowding, teachers having to spend extra time bring kids of illegals up to speed. On the other hand, to deny kids of illegals an education, punishes those kids for the behavior of their parents. Either way, a decision has to be made.

[ucodegen]

If you don’t like paying for Jose’s kid, then why are you OK with paying for Joe’s kid?

Both Joe’s kids and Jose’s kids are going to end up in US communities as adults (like it or not). So perhaps we should educate them both.

The only problem is that to provide for Jose’s kid, we have to take away from Joe’s kid.. or Juan’s kid. Juan being the person who took the legal way in. It create a moral conundrum. You end up punishing someone for doing it right and legal, and rewarding someone for doing it illegally
(Ironically, similar to some of the stuff with real estate mortgages right now). Unfortunately the ones at receiving end are the kids, as proxies for their parents behavior or the behavior of other parents. Kids of legal parents get punished because of class crowding, teachers having to spend extra time bring kids of illegals up to speed. On the other hand, to deny kids of illegals an education, punishes those kids for the behavior of their parents. Either way, a decision has to be made.

[ucodegen]

If you don’t like paying for Jose’s kid, then why are you OK with paying for Joe’s kid?

Both Joe’s kids and Jose’s kids are going to end up in US communities as adults (like it or not). So perhaps we should educate them both.

The only problem is that to provide for Jose’s kid, we have to take away from Joe’s kid.. or Juan’s kid. Juan being the person who took the legal way in. It create a moral conundrum. You end up punishing someone for doing it right and legal, and rewarding someone for doing it illegally
(Ironically, similar to some of the stuff with real estate mortgages right now). Unfortunately the ones at receiving end are the kids, as proxies for their parents behavior or the behavior of other parents. Kids of legal parents get punished because of class crowding, teachers having to spend extra time bring kids of illegals up to speed. On the other hand, to deny kids of illegals an education, punishes those kids for the behavior of their parents. Either way, a decision has to be made.

[CA renter]

[quote=pri_dk]If you don’t like paying for Jose’s kid, then why are you OK with paying for Joe’s kid?

Lots of people without kids of their own like to make the “why should I pay taxes so your kid can go to school?” argument. (I personally never agreed with this, even before I had kids).

The common argument for public education is that these kids will eventually become adults in the community. And an educated population benefits everyone.

Both Joe’s kids and Jose’s kids are going to end up in US communities as adults (like it or not). So perhaps we should educate them both.

Regrettably, I agree that we can’t afford to help Juanita (outside of personal charity).[/quote]
——————–

So where do we draw the line? There are a limited number of resources. One of the main reasons California is having financial difficulties is because the cost of educating all of these kids is skyrocketing (it’s the state’s largest expense). I used to work for LAUSD, and can attest to the extra expenses required (by law and by practice) to educate illegal immigrants and their children.

It’s not a personal issue (like Russel and SK keep trying to make it). It’s a practical issue. We have finite physical and financial resources. If we agree to educate every poor kid who comes here from Mexico (and how does one justify discriminating against kids from other foreign countries?), then we have to agree to educate everyone who comes here from any poor country. You think we have immigration/cultural problems now? Imagine what it would look like if we opened it up to every poor person who found a way to come here.

We can’t do it. Not because we don’t **want** to, but because we physically and financially cannot afford to do it. That is a fact.

[scaredyclassic]

i don’t really want to pay for white irish illegals either. I’m kind of skeptical about the whole public schools system; why not have parallel online schools available for illegals? That’s gotta be pretty low cost, and it provides at least some humanitarian assistance. I vote online. I know people whoa re doing online public schooling and they say it’s pretty good

[ucodegen]

i don’t really want to pay for white irish illegals either.

Neither do I. For me, it has nothing to do with race.. Mexican, White Irish, Chinese are all the same to me.

I’m kind of skeptical about the whole public schools system; why not have parallel online schools available for illegals?

That is an interesting idea, though I do see a potential problem with internet access and motivation to do the coursework on the part of the illegals. If a person has taken the online coursework, they can ‘test into’ a high school diploma.

By the way, MIT.. yes the MIT, has put a lot of their coursework online.
http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/home/home/index.htm

man, that SPAM filter must like me.. I keep getting CAPTCHAs..

[scaredyclassic]

i really don’t think things are much about race anymore. it was always kind of about money. now it’s pretty much only about money.

[scaredyclassic]

i really don’t think things are much about race anymore. it was always kind of about money. now it’s pretty much only about money.

[scaredyclassic]

i really don’t think things are much about race anymore. it was always kind of about money. now it’s pretty much only about money.

[scaredyclassic]

i really don’t think things are much about race anymore. it was always kind of about money. now it’s pretty much only about money.

[scaredyclassic]

i really don’t think things are much about race anymore. it was always kind of about money. now it’s pretty much only about money.

[ucodegen]

i don’t really want to pay for white irish illegals either.

Neither do I. For me, it has nothing to do with race.. Mexican, White Irish, Chinese are all the same to me.

I’m kind of skeptical about the whole public schools system; why not have parallel online schools available for illegals?

That is an interesting idea, though I do see a potential problem with internet access and motivation to do the coursework on the part of the illegals. If a person has taken the online coursework, they can ‘test into’ a high school diploma.

By the way, MIT.. yes the MIT, has put a lot of their coursework online.
http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/home/home/index.htm

man, that SPAM filter must like me.. I keep getting CAPTCHAs..

[ucodegen]

i don’t really want to pay for white irish illegals either.

Neither do I. For me, it has nothing to do with race.. Mexican, White Irish, Chinese are all the same to me.

I’m kind of skeptical about the whole public schools system; why not have parallel online schools available for illegals?

That is an interesting idea, though I do see a potential problem with internet access and motivation to do the coursework on the part of the illegals. If a person has taken the online coursework, they can ‘test into’ a high school diploma.

By the way, MIT.. yes the MIT, has put a lot of their coursework online.
http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/home/home/index.htm

man, that SPAM filter must like me.. I keep getting CAPTCHAs..

[ucodegen]

i don’t really want to pay for white irish illegals either.

Neither do I. For me, it has nothing to do with race.. Mexican, White Irish, Chinese are all the same to me.

I’m kind of skeptical about the whole public schools system; why not have parallel online schools available for illegals?

That is an interesting idea, though I do see a potential problem with internet access and motivation to do the coursework on the part of the illegals. If a person has taken the online coursework, they can ‘test into’ a high school diploma.

By the way, MIT.. yes the MIT, has put a lot of their coursework online.
http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/home/home/index.htm

man, that SPAM filter must like me.. I keep getting CAPTCHAs..

[ucodegen]

i don’t really want to pay for white irish illegals either.

Neither do I. For me, it has nothing to do with race.. Mexican, White Irish, Chinese are all the same to me.

I’m kind of skeptical about the whole public schools system; why not have parallel online schools available for illegals?

That is an interesting idea, though I do see a potential problem with internet access and motivation to do the coursework on the part of the illegals. If a person has taken the online coursework, they can ‘test into’ a high school diploma.

By the way, MIT.. yes the MIT, has put a lot of their coursework online.
http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/home/home/index.htm

man, that SPAM filter must like me.. I keep getting CAPTCHAs..

[scaredyclassic]

i don’t really want to pay for white irish illegals either. I’m kind of skeptical about the whole public schools system; why not have parallel online schools available for illegals? That’s gotta be pretty low cost, and it provides at least some humanitarian assistance. I vote online. I know people whoa re doing online public schooling and they say it’s pretty good

[scaredyclassic]

i don’t really want to pay for white irish illegals either. I’m kind of skeptical about the whole public schools system; why not have parallel online schools available for illegals? That’s gotta be pretty low cost, and it provides at least some humanitarian assistance. I vote online. I know people whoa re doing online public schooling and they say it’s pretty good

[scaredyclassic]

i don’t really want to pay for white irish illegals either. I’m kind of skeptical about the whole public schools system; why not have parallel online schools available for illegals? That’s gotta be pretty low cost, and it provides at least some humanitarian assistance. I vote online. I know people whoa re doing online public schooling and they say it’s pretty good

[scaredyclassic]

i don’t really want to pay for white irish illegals either. I’m kind of skeptical about the whole public schools system; why not have parallel online schools available for illegals? That’s gotta be pretty low cost, and it provides at least some humanitarian assistance. I vote online. I know people whoa re doing online public schooling and they say it’s pretty good

[CA renter]

[quote=pri_dk]If you don’t like paying for Jose’s kid, then why are you OK with paying for Joe’s kid?

Lots of people without kids of their own like to make the “why should I pay taxes so your kid can go to school?” argument. (I personally never agreed with this, even before I had kids).

The common argument for public education is that these kids will eventually become adults in the community. And an educated population benefits everyone.

Both Joe’s kids and Jose’s kids are going to end up in US communities as adults (like it or not). So perhaps we should educate them both.

Regrettably, I agree that we can’t afford to help Juanita (outside of personal charity).[/quote]
——————–

So where do we draw the line? There are a limited number of resources. One of the main reasons California is having financial difficulties is because the cost of educating all of these kids is skyrocketing (it’s the state’s largest expense). I used to work for LAUSD, and can attest to the extra expenses required (by law and by practice) to educate illegal immigrants and their children.

It’s not a personal issue (like Russel and SK keep trying to make it). It’s a practical issue. We have finite physical and financial resources. If we agree to educate every poor kid who comes here from Mexico (and how does one justify discriminating against kids from other foreign countries?), then we have to agree to educate everyone who comes here from any poor country. You think we have immigration/cultural problems now? Imagine what it would look like if we opened it up to every poor person who found a way to come here.

We can’t do it. Not because we don’t **want** to, but because we physically and financially cannot afford to do it. That is a fact.

[CA renter]

[quote=pri_dk]If you don’t like paying for Jose’s kid, then why are you OK with paying for Joe’s kid?

Lots of people without kids of their own like to make the “why should I pay taxes so your kid can go to school?” argument. (I personally never agreed with this, even before I had kids).

The common argument for public education is that these kids will eventually become adults in the community. And an educated population benefits everyone.

Both Joe’s kids and Jose’s kids are going to end up in US communities as adults (like it or not). So perhaps we should educate them both.

Regrettably, I agree that we can’t afford to help Juanita (outside of personal charity).[/quote]
——————–

So where do we draw the line? There are a limited number of resources. One of the main reasons California is having financial difficulties is because the cost of educating all of these kids is skyrocketing (it’s the state’s largest expense). I used to work for LAUSD, and can attest to the extra expenses required (by law and by practice) to educate illegal immigrants and their children.

It’s not a personal issue (like Russel and SK keep trying to make it). It’s a practical issue. We have finite physical and financial resources. If we agree to educate every poor kid who comes here from Mexico (and how does one justify discriminating against kids from other foreign countries?), then we have to agree to educate everyone who comes here from any poor country. You think we have immigration/cultural problems now? Imagine what it would look like if we opened it up to every poor person who found a way to come here.

We can’t do it. Not because we don’t **want** to, but because we physically and financially cannot afford to do it. That is a fact.

[CA renter]

[quote=pri_dk]If you don’t like paying for Jose’s kid, then why are you OK with paying for Joe’s kid?

Lots of people without kids of their own like to make the “why should I pay taxes so your kid can go to school?” argument. (I personally never agreed with this, even before I had kids).

The common argument for public education is that these kids will eventually become adults in the community. And an educated population benefits everyone.

Both Joe’s kids and Jose’s kids are going to end up in US communities as adults (like it or not). So perhaps we should educate them both.

Regrettably, I agree that we can’t afford to help Juanita (outside of personal charity).[/quote]
——————–

So where do we draw the line? There are a limited number of resources. One of the main reasons California is having financial difficulties is because the cost of educating all of these kids is skyrocketing (it’s the state’s largest expense). I used to work for LAUSD, and can attest to the extra expenses required (by law and by practice) to educate illegal immigrants and their children.

It’s not a personal issue (like Russel and SK keep trying to make it). It’s a practical issue. We have finite physical and financial resources. If we agree to educate every poor kid who comes here from Mexico (and how does one justify discriminating against kids from other foreign countries?), then we have to agree to educate everyone who comes here from any poor country. You think we have immigration/cultural problems now? Imagine what it would look like if we opened it up to every poor person who found a way to come here.

We can’t do it. Not because we don’t **want** to, but because we physically and financially cannot afford to do it. That is a fact.

[CA renter]

[quote=pri_dk]If you don’t like paying for Jose’s kid, then why are you OK with paying for Joe’s kid?

Lots of people without kids of their own like to make the “why should I pay taxes so your kid can go to school?” argument. (I personally never agreed with this, even before I had kids).

The common argument for public education is that these kids will eventually become adults in the community. And an educated population benefits everyone.

Both Joe’s kids and Jose’s kids are going to end up in US communities as adults (like it or not). So perhaps we should educate them both.

Regrettably, I agree that we can’t afford to help Juanita (outside of personal charity).[/quote]
——————–

So where do we draw the line? There are a limited number of resources. One of the main reasons California is having financial difficulties is because the cost of educating all of these kids is skyrocketing (it’s the state’s largest expense). I used to work for LAUSD, and can attest to the extra expenses required (by law and by practice) to educate illegal immigrants and their children.

It’s not a personal issue (like Russel and SK keep trying to make it). It’s a practical issue. We have finite physical and financial resources. If we agree to educate every poor kid who comes here from Mexico (and how does one justify discriminating against kids from other foreign countries?), then we have to agree to educate everyone who comes here from any poor country. You think we have immigration/cultural problems now? Imagine what it would look like if we opened it up to every poor person who found a way to come here.

We can’t do it. Not because we don’t **want** to, but because we physically and financially cannot afford to do it. That is a fact.

[Anonymous]

If you don’t like paying for Jose’s kid, then why are you OK with paying for Joe’s kid?

Lots of people without kids of their own like to make the “why should I pay taxes so your kid can go to school?” argument. (I personally never agreed with this, even before I had kids).

The common argument for public education is that these kids will eventually become adults in the community. And an educated population benefits everyone.

Both Joe’s kids and Jose’s kids are going to end up in US communities as adults (like it or not). So perhaps we should educate them both.

Regrettably, I agree that we can’t afford to help Juanita (outside of personal charity).

[Anonymous]

If you don’t like paying for Jose’s kid, then why are you OK with paying for Joe’s kid?

Lots of people without kids of their own like to make the “why should I pay taxes so your kid can go to school?” argument. (I personally never agreed with this, even before I had kids).

The common argument for public education is that these kids will eventually become adults in the community. And an educated population benefits everyone.

Both Joe’s kids and Jose’s kids are going to end up in US communities as adults (like it or not). So perhaps we should educate them both.

Regrettably, I agree that we can’t afford to help Juanita (outside of personal charity).

[Anonymous]

If you don’t like paying for Jose’s kid, then why are you OK with paying for Joe’s kid?

Lots of people without kids of their own like to make the “why should I pay taxes so your kid can go to school?” argument. (I personally never agreed with this, even before I had kids).

The common argument for public education is that these kids will eventually become adults in the community. And an educated population benefits everyone.

Both Joe’s kids and Jose’s kids are going to end up in US communities as adults (like it or not). So perhaps we should educate them both.

Regrettably, I agree that we can’t afford to help Juanita (outside of personal charity).

[Anonymous]

If you don’t like paying for Jose’s kid, then why are you OK with paying for Joe’s kid?

Lots of people without kids of their own like to make the “why should I pay taxes so your kid can go to school?” argument. (I personally never agreed with this, even before I had kids).

The common argument for public education is that these kids will eventually become adults in the community. And an educated population benefits everyone.

Both Joe’s kids and Jose’s kids are going to end up in US communities as adults (like it or not). So perhaps we should educate them both.

Regrettably, I agree that we can’t afford to help Juanita (outside of personal charity).

[KSMountain]

SK was pretty hard on people earlier in the thread, so I felt a little examination of SK’s position was warranted.

SK also said he/she had no idea what my point was, so I tried to clarify.

I have no issue with generosity and charity. At all. I donate.

I have more of an issue when people’s utopian desires for a world without pain or want, and an inability or unwillingness to consider the practical limits of our budget (which is negative at the moment btw), cause them to advocate policies that aren’t tenable.

Also sometimes people don’t consider the consequences of the full expression of their ideas. For example, it’s easy to want to help Jose’s son. But we gave 20 million amnesty in 1984, and now we’re talking 20 million more (very rough figures).

Would that number be 100 million if we had open borders? Why not?

Would that be a good thing for the U.S.? More workers, for sure. Would the population be evenly distributed, or might the population densities in our largest cities go way way up?

It does become crucial to know whether legal/illegal immigrants are a net financial positive or negative, when you are multiplying by large numbers. I don’t know that that question has been “debunked” or reliably resolved one way or the other. It’s probably not that easy of a question to answer.

[KSMountain]

SK was pretty hard on people earlier in the thread, so I felt a little examination of SK’s position was warranted.

SK also said he/she had no idea what my point was, so I tried to clarify.

I have no issue with generosity and charity. At all. I donate.

I have more of an issue when people’s utopian desires for a world without pain or want, and an inability or unwillingness to consider the practical limits of our budget (which is negative at the moment btw), cause them to advocate policies that aren’t tenable.

Also sometimes people don’t consider the consequences of the full expression of their ideas. For example, it’s easy to want to help Jose’s son. But we gave 20 million amnesty in 1984, and now we’re talking 20 million more (very rough figures).

Would that number be 100 million if we had open borders? Why not?

Would that be a good thing for the U.S.? More workers, for sure. Would the population be evenly distributed, or might the population densities in our largest cities go way way up?

It does become crucial to know whether legal/illegal immigrants are a net financial positive or negative, when you are multiplying by large numbers. I don’t know that that question has been “debunked” or reliably resolved one way or the other. It’s probably not that easy of a question to answer.

[KSMountain]

SK was pretty hard on people earlier in the thread, so I felt a little examination of SK’s position was warranted.

SK also said he/she had no idea what my point was, so I tried to clarify.

I have no issue with generosity and charity. At all. I donate.

I have more of an issue when people’s utopian desires for a world without pain or want, and an inability or unwillingness to consider the practical limits of our budget (which is negative at the moment btw), cause them to advocate policies that aren’t tenable.

Also sometimes people don’t consider the consequences of the full expression of their ideas. For example, it’s easy to want to help Jose’s son. But we gave 20 million amnesty in 1984, and now we’re talking 20 million more (very rough figures).

Would that number be 100 million if we had open borders? Why not?

Would that be a good thing for the U.S.? More workers, for sure. Would the population be evenly distributed, or might the population densities in our largest cities go way way up?

It does become crucial to know whether legal/illegal immigrants are a net financial positive or negative, when you are multiplying by large numbers. I don’t know that that question has been “debunked” or reliably resolved one way or the other. It’s probably not that easy of a question to answer.

[KSMountain]

SK was pretty hard on people earlier in the thread, so I felt a little examination of SK’s position was warranted.

SK also said he/she had no idea what my point was, so I tried to clarify.

I have no issue with generosity and charity. At all. I donate.

I have more of an issue when people’s utopian desires for a world without pain or want, and an inability or unwillingness to consider the practical limits of our budget (which is negative at the moment btw), cause them to advocate policies that aren’t tenable.

Also sometimes people don’t consider the consequences of the full expression of their ideas. For example, it’s easy to want to help Jose’s son. But we gave 20 million amnesty in 1984, and now we’re talking 20 million more (very rough figures).

Would that number be 100 million if we had open borders? Why not?

Would that be a good thing for the U.S.? More workers, for sure. Would the population be evenly distributed, or might the population densities in our largest cities go way way up?

It does become crucial to know whether legal/illegal immigrants are a net financial positive or negative, when you are multiplying by large numbers. I don’t know that that question has been “debunked” or reliably resolved one way or the other. It’s probably not that easy of a question to answer.

[Anonymous]

I think SK understands that there isn’t enough to go around.

No need to be so callous about it.

[Anonymous]

I think SK understands that there isn’t enough to go around.

No need to be so callous about it.

[Anonymous]

I think SK understands that there isn’t enough to go around.

No need to be so callous about it.

[Anonymous]

I think SK understands that there isn’t enough to go around.

No need to be so callous about it.

[KSMountain]

[quote=SK in CV]I suppose you’ve made a point here. I have no idea what it is…

Hopefully her parents will find a way to sneak her across the border so we can provide it.

(And in case you were wondering, I would have no problem with a world without borders. In theory anyway.)[/quote]

I’m exploring the limits of your largesse with other people’s tax dollars, SK.

Isn’t Juanita also deserving of quality medical care? Why should American kids have better healthcare than Paraguayan kids? That’s certainly bigoted and unfair. Shouldn’t the taxpayers of the US provide medical care for the children of Paraguay?

Oh, but what about proper nutrition too? Isn’t that fundamental? And clean water. Of course Juanita and her peers deserve that.

But, wait. While we’re helping Paraguay, we can’t neglect Uruguay. And the Ivory Coast. And Liberia. And Bhutan. And Ghana.

Or maybe you’re right. Open borders and all, just bring them here. For the poor in countries not geographically close to us though, I think we’ll have to send planes or boats, don’t you think?

Or are you really so selfish as to limit your compassion and generosity only to folks who are physically able to get within the borders of the U.S.? Please tell me I misunderstand you.

[KSMountain]

[quote=SK in CV]I suppose you’ve made a point here. I have no idea what it is…

Hopefully her parents will find a way to sneak her across the border so we can provide it.

(And in case you were wondering, I would have no problem with a world without borders. In theory anyway.)[/quote]

I’m exploring the limits of your largesse with other people’s tax dollars, SK.

Isn’t Juanita also deserving of quality medical care? Why should American kids have better healthcare than Paraguayan kids? That’s certainly bigoted and unfair. Shouldn’t the taxpayers of the US provide medical care for the children of Paraguay?

Oh, but what about proper nutrition too? Isn’t that fundamental? And clean water. Of course Juanita and her peers deserve that.

But, wait. While we’re helping Paraguay, we can’t neglect Uruguay. And the Ivory Coast. And Liberia. And Bhutan. And Ghana.

Or maybe you’re right. Open borders and all, just bring them here. For the poor in countries not geographically close to us though, I think we’ll have to send planes or boats, don’t you think?

Or are you really so selfish as to limit your compassion and generosity only to folks who are physically able to get within the borders of the U.S.? Please tell me I misunderstand you.

[KSMountain]

[quote=SK in CV]I suppose you’ve made a point here. I have no idea what it is…

Hopefully her parents will find a way to sneak her across the border so we can provide it.

(And in case you were wondering, I would have no problem with a world without borders. In theory anyway.)[/quote]

I’m exploring the limits of your largesse with other people’s tax dollars, SK.

Isn’t Juanita also deserving of quality medical care? Why should American kids have better healthcare than Paraguayan kids? That’s certainly bigoted and unfair. Shouldn’t the taxpayers of the US provide medical care for the children of Paraguay?

Oh, but what about proper nutrition too? Isn’t that fundamental? And clean water. Of course Juanita and her peers deserve that.

But, wait. While we’re helping Paraguay, we can’t neglect Uruguay. And the Ivory Coast. And Liberia. And Bhutan. And Ghana.

Or maybe you’re right. Open borders and all, just bring them here. For the poor in countries not geographically close to us though, I think we’ll have to send planes or boats, don’t you think?

Or are you really so selfish as to limit your compassion and generosity only to folks who are physically able to get within the borders of the U.S.? Please tell me I misunderstand you.

[KSMountain]

[quote=SK in CV]I suppose you’ve made a point here. I have no idea what it is…

Hopefully her parents will find a way to sneak her across the border so we can provide it.

(And in case you were wondering, I would have no problem with a world without borders. In theory anyway.)[/quote]

I’m exploring the limits of your largesse with other people’s tax dollars, SK.

Isn’t Juanita also deserving of quality medical care? Why should American kids have better healthcare than Paraguayan kids? That’s certainly bigoted and unfair. Shouldn’t the taxpayers of the US provide medical care for the children of Paraguay?

Oh, but what about proper nutrition too? Isn’t that fundamental? And clean water. Of course Juanita and her peers deserve that.

But, wait. While we’re helping Paraguay, we can’t neglect Uruguay. And the Ivory Coast. And Liberia. And Bhutan. And Ghana.

Or maybe you’re right. Open borders and all, just bring them here. For the poor in countries not geographically close to us though, I think we’ll have to send planes or boats, don’t you think?

Or are you really so selfish as to limit your compassion and generosity only to folks who are physically able to get within the borders of the U.S.? Please tell me I misunderstand you.

[rnen]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=KSMountain][quote=SK in CV]Do you really think that Jose’s 8 year old son really deserves less of an education than Joe’s son simply because of where his parents were born?[/quote]

SK in CV: Meet 8 year old Juanita from Paraguay. She is very cute and bright and innocent. She smiles a lot and is very likable.

Do you really think she deserves less of an education than Joe’s son simply because of where SHE was born? How arrogant!

Why should we discriminate based on a criteria as passe as physical location? Why not educate everyone in the whole world?

We can either fly everybody here for 18 or so years or we can just send out say 200 million teachers to do it on location. That’ll give class sizes of about 30 students per teacher. Hope that’s ok with you.[/quote]

I suppose you’ve made a point here. I have no idea what it is. I think Juanita is as worthy of an education as any other child. Unfortunately, living in Paraguay, with one of the lowest literacy rates on the planet, she’s unlikely to get much of an education. Hopefully her parents will find a way to sneak her across the border so we can provide it.

(And in case you were wondering, I ould have no problem with a world without borders. In theory anyway.)[/quote]

I do not think anyone here would argue that she is not worthy of an education, it is how she gets it is the assue. Life is unfair and and she and millions of others have no say in where or when they are born. I encourage those that feel that everyone should have an education to donate to the many organizations that are in place just for that purpose. I do not want those same people TAKING money from my pocket to satisfy THEIR need to feel like they have done something worthy. There is a big difference between offering help to those less fortunate and having some one take from you to give to others. I donate to the Childrens Heritage Fund every month out of choice. That is how I CHOOSE to help others.

Those that feel they need to TAKE from others and force them to comply with THEIR sense of morality need to get out of others business and do what is right for them.

Personally I think that being forced to pay for the education of illegal children, the welfare of illegals who have kids here and the health care of those who are here illegally pisses me off. Those of you who feel the illegals are entitled to it PONY UP the money then relax at home with light heart knowing you have done some good in this world. Let the rest of us be charitable by means of our own choosing.

[SK in CV]

[quote=rnen]
I do not think anyone here would argue that she is not worthy of an education, it is how she gets it is the assue. [/quote]

I do wish that was true. It was almost exactly the question I asked, and there was, I believe, an unequivocal response. That John’s kids were more worthy than Jose’s kids.

As to your last paragraph, though I’m not pissed off about it, I don’t disagree.

[SK in CV]

[quote=rnen]
I do not think anyone here would argue that she is not worthy of an education, it is how she gets it is the assue. [/quote]

I do wish that was true. It was almost exactly the question I asked, and there was, I believe, an unequivocal response. That John’s kids were more worthy than Jose’s kids.

As to your last paragraph, though I’m not pissed off about it, I don’t disagree.

[SK in CV]

[quote=rnen]
I do not think anyone here would argue that she is not worthy of an education, it is how she gets it is the assue. [/quote]

I do wish that was true. It was almost exactly the question I asked, and there was, I believe, an unequivocal response. That John’s kids were more worthy than Jose’s kids.

As to your last paragraph, though I’m not pissed off about it, I don’t disagree.

[SK in CV]

[quote=rnen]
I do not think anyone here would argue that she is not worthy of an education, it is how she gets it is the assue. [/quote]

I do wish that was true. It was almost exactly the question I asked, and there was, I believe, an unequivocal response. That John’s kids were more worthy than Jose’s kids.

As to your last paragraph, though I’m not pissed off about it, I don’t disagree.

[SK in CV]

[quote=rnen]
I do not think anyone here would argue that she is not worthy of an education, it is how she gets it is the assue. [/quote]

I do wish that was true. It was almost exactly the question I asked, and there was, I believe, an unequivocal response. That John’s kids were more worthy than Jose’s kids.

As to your last paragraph, though I’m not pissed off about it, I don’t disagree.

[rnen]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=KSMountain][quote=SK in CV]Do you really think that Jose’s 8 year old son really deserves less of an education than Joe’s son simply because of where his parents were born?[/quote]

SK in CV: Meet 8 year old Juanita from Paraguay. She is very cute and bright and innocent. She smiles a lot and is very likable.

Do you really think she deserves less of an education than Joe’s son simply because of where SHE was born? How arrogant!

Why should we discriminate based on a criteria as passe as physical location? Why not educate everyone in the whole world?

We can either fly everybody here for 18 or so years or we can just send out say 200 million teachers to do it on location. That’ll give class sizes of about 30 students per teacher. Hope that’s ok with you.[/quote]

I suppose you’ve made a point here. I have no idea what it is. I think Juanita is as worthy of an education as any other child. Unfortunately, living in Paraguay, with one of the lowest literacy rates on the planet, she’s unlikely to get much of an education. Hopefully her parents will find a way to sneak her across the border so we can provide it.

(And in case you were wondering, I ould have no problem with a world without borders. In theory anyway.)[/quote]

I do not think anyone here would argue that she is not worthy of an education, it is how she gets it is the assue. Life is unfair and and she and millions of others have no say in where or when they are born. I encourage those that feel that everyone should have an education to donate to the many organizations that are in place just for that purpose. I do not want those same people TAKING money from my pocket to satisfy THEIR need to feel like they have done something worthy. There is a big difference between offering help to those less fortunate and having some one take from you to give to others. I donate to the Childrens Heritage Fund every month out of choice. That is how I CHOOSE to help others.

Those that feel they need to TAKE from others and force them to comply with THEIR sense of morality need to get out of others business and do what is right for them.

Personally I think that being forced to pay for the education of illegal children, the welfare of illegals who have kids here and the health care of those who are here illegally pisses me off. Those of you who feel the illegals are entitled to it PONY UP the money then relax at home with light heart knowing you have done some good in this world. Let the rest of us be charitable by means of our own choosing.

[rnen]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=KSMountain][quote=SK in CV]Do you really think that Jose’s 8 year old son really deserves less of an education than Joe’s son simply because of where his parents were born?[/quote]

SK in CV: Meet 8 year old Juanita from Paraguay. She is very cute and bright and innocent. She smiles a lot and is very likable.

Do you really think she deserves less of an education than Joe’s son simply because of where SHE was born? How arrogant!

Why should we discriminate based on a criteria as passe as physical location? Why not educate everyone in the whole world?

We can either fly everybody here for 18 or so years or we can just send out say 200 million teachers to do it on location. That’ll give class sizes of about 30 students per teacher. Hope that’s ok with you.[/quote]

I suppose you’ve made a point here. I have no idea what it is. I think Juanita is as worthy of an education as any other child. Unfortunately, living in Paraguay, with one of the lowest literacy rates on the planet, she’s unlikely to get much of an education. Hopefully her parents will find a way to sneak her across the border so we can provide it.

(And in case you were wondering, I ould have no problem with a world without borders. In theory anyway.)[/quote]

I do not think anyone here would argue that she is not worthy of an education, it is how she gets it is the assue. Life is unfair and and she and millions of others have no say in where or when they are born. I encourage those that feel that everyone should have an education to donate to the many organizations that are in place just for that purpose. I do not want those same people TAKING money from my pocket to satisfy THEIR need to feel like they have done something worthy. There is a big difference between offering help to those less fortunate and having some one take from you to give to others. I donate to the Childrens Heritage Fund every month out of choice. That is how I CHOOSE to help others.

Those that feel they need to TAKE from others and force them to comply with THEIR sense of morality need to get out of others business and do what is right for them.

Personally I think that being forced to pay for the education of illegal children, the welfare of illegals who have kids here and the health care of those who are here illegally pisses me off. Those of you who feel the illegals are entitled to it PONY UP the money then relax at home with light heart knowing you have done some good in this world. Let the rest of us be charitable by means of our own choosing.

[rnen]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=KSMountain][quote=SK in CV]Do you really think that Jose’s 8 year old son really deserves less of an education than Joe’s son simply because of where his parents were born?[/quote]

SK in CV: Meet 8 year old Juanita from Paraguay. She is very cute and bright and innocent. She smiles a lot and is very likable.

Do you really think she deserves less of an education than Joe’s son simply because of where SHE was born? How arrogant!

Why should we discriminate based on a criteria as passe as physical location? Why not educate everyone in the whole world?

We can either fly everybody here for 18 or so years or we can just send out say 200 million teachers to do it on location. That’ll give class sizes of about 30 students per teacher. Hope that’s ok with you.[/quote]

I suppose you’ve made a point here. I have no idea what it is. I think Juanita is as worthy of an education as any other child. Unfortunately, living in Paraguay, with one of the lowest literacy rates on the planet, she’s unlikely to get much of an education. Hopefully her parents will find a way to sneak her across the border so we can provide it.

(And in case you were wondering, I ould have no problem with a world without borders. In theory anyway.)[/quote]

I do not think anyone here would argue that she is not worthy of an education, it is how she gets it is the assue. Life is unfair and and she and millions of others have no say in where or when they are born. I encourage those that feel that everyone should have an education to donate to the many organizations that are in place just for that purpose. I do not want those same people TAKING money from my pocket to satisfy THEIR need to feel like they have done something worthy. There is a big difference between offering help to those less fortunate and having some one take from you to give to others. I donate to the Childrens Heritage Fund every month out of choice. That is how I CHOOSE to help others.

Those that feel they need to TAKE from others and force them to comply with THEIR sense of morality need to get out of others business and do what is right for them.

Personally I think that being forced to pay for the education of illegal children, the welfare of illegals who have kids here and the health care of those who are here illegally pisses me off. Those of you who feel the illegals are entitled to it PONY UP the money then relax at home with light heart knowing you have done some good in this world. Let the rest of us be charitable by means of our own choosing.

[rnen]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=KSMountain][quote=SK in CV]Do you really think that Jose’s 8 year old son really deserves less of an education than Joe’s son simply because of where his parents were born?[/quote]

SK in CV: Meet 8 year old Juanita from Paraguay. She is very cute and bright and innocent. She smiles a lot and is very likable.

Do you really think she deserves less of an education than Joe’s son simply because of where SHE was born? How arrogant!

Why should we discriminate based on a criteria as passe as physical location? Why not educate everyone in the whole world?

We can either fly everybody here for 18 or so years or we can just send out say 200 million teachers to do it on location. That’ll give class sizes of about 30 students per teacher. Hope that’s ok with you.[/quote]

I suppose you’ve made a point here. I have no idea what it is. I think Juanita is as worthy of an education as any other child. Unfortunately, living in Paraguay, with one of the lowest literacy rates on the planet, she’s unlikely to get much of an education. Hopefully her parents will find a way to sneak her across the border so we can provide it.

(And in case you were wondering, I ould have no problem with a world without borders. In theory anyway.)[/quote]

I do not think anyone here would argue that she is not worthy of an education, it is how she gets it is the assue. Life is unfair and and she and millions of others have no say in where or when they are born. I encourage those that feel that everyone should have an education to donate to the many organizations that are in place just for that purpose. I do not want those same people TAKING money from my pocket to satisfy THEIR need to feel like they have done something worthy. There is a big difference between offering help to those less fortunate and having some one take from you to give to others. I donate to the Childrens Heritage Fund every month out of choice. That is how I CHOOSE to help others.

Those that feel they need to TAKE from others and force them to comply with THEIR sense of morality need to get out of others business and do what is right for them.

Personally I think that being forced to pay for the education of illegal children, the welfare of illegals who have kids here and the health care of those who are here illegally pisses me off. Those of you who feel the illegals are entitled to it PONY UP the money then relax at home with light heart knowing you have done some good in this world. Let the rest of us be charitable by means of our own choosing.

[SK in CV]

[quote=KSMountain][quote=SK in CV]Do you really think that Jose’s 8 year old son really deserves less of an education than Joe’s son simply because of where his parents were born?[/quote]

SK in CV: Meet 8 year old Juanita from Paraguay. She is very cute and bright and innocent. She smiles a lot and is very likable.

Do you really think she deserves less of an education than Joe’s son simply because of where SHE was born? How arrogant!

Why should we discriminate based on a criteria as passe as physical location? Why not educate everyone in the whole world?

We can either fly everybody here for 18 or so years or we can just send out say 200 million teachers to do it on location. That’ll give class sizes of about 30 students per teacher. Hope that’s ok with you.[/quote]

I suppose you’ve made a point here. I have no idea what it is. I think Juanita is as worthy of an education as any other child. Unfortunately, living in Paraguay, with one of the lowest literacy rates on the planet, she’s unlikely to get much of an education. Hopefully her parents will find a way to sneak her across the border so we can provide it.

(And in case you were wondering, I would have no problem with a world without borders. In theory anyway.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=KSMountain][quote=SK in CV]Do you really think that Jose’s 8 year old son really deserves less of an education than Joe’s son simply because of where his parents were born?[/quote]

SK in CV: Meet 8 year old Juanita from Paraguay. She is very cute and bright and innocent. She smiles a lot and is very likable.

Do you really think she deserves less of an education than Joe’s son simply because of where SHE was born? How arrogant!

Why should we discriminate based on a criteria as passe as physical location? Why not educate everyone in the whole world?

We can either fly everybody here for 18 or so years or we can just send out say 200 million teachers to do it on location. That’ll give class sizes of about 30 students per teacher. Hope that’s ok with you.[/quote]

I suppose you’ve made a point here. I have no idea what it is. I think Juanita is as worthy of an education as any other child. Unfortunately, living in Paraguay, with one of the lowest literacy rates on the planet, she’s unlikely to get much of an education. Hopefully her parents will find a way to sneak her across the border so we can provide it.

(And in case you were wondering, I would have no problem with a world without borders. In theory anyway.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=KSMountain][quote=SK in CV]Do you really think that Jose’s 8 year old son really deserves less of an education than Joe’s son simply because of where his parents were born?[/quote]

SK in CV: Meet 8 year old Juanita from Paraguay. She is very cute and bright and innocent. She smiles a lot and is very likable.

Do you really think she deserves less of an education than Joe’s son simply because of where SHE was born? How arrogant!

Why should we discriminate based on a criteria as passe as physical location? Why not educate everyone in the whole world?

We can either fly everybody here for 18 or so years or we can just send out say 200 million teachers to do it on location. That’ll give class sizes of about 30 students per teacher. Hope that’s ok with you.[/quote]

I suppose you’ve made a point here. I have no idea what it is. I think Juanita is as worthy of an education as any other child. Unfortunately, living in Paraguay, with one of the lowest literacy rates on the planet, she’s unlikely to get much of an education. Hopefully her parents will find a way to sneak her across the border so we can provide it.

(And in case you were wondering, I would have no problem with a world without borders. In theory anyway.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=KSMountain][quote=SK in CV]Do you really think that Jose’s 8 year old son really deserves less of an education than Joe’s son simply because of where his parents were born?[/quote]

SK in CV: Meet 8 year old Juanita from Paraguay. She is very cute and bright and innocent. She smiles a lot and is very likable.

Do you really think she deserves less of an education than Joe’s son simply because of where SHE was born? How arrogant!

Why should we discriminate based on a criteria as passe as physical location? Why not educate everyone in the whole world?

We can either fly everybody here for 18 or so years or we can just send out say 200 million teachers to do it on location. That’ll give class sizes of about 30 students per teacher. Hope that’s ok with you.[/quote]

I suppose you’ve made a point here. I have no idea what it is. I think Juanita is as worthy of an education as any other child. Unfortunately, living in Paraguay, with one of the lowest literacy rates on the planet, she’s unlikely to get much of an education. Hopefully her parents will find a way to sneak her across the border so we can provide it.

(And in case you were wondering, I would have no problem with a world without borders. In theory anyway.)

[KSMountain]

[quote=SK in CV]Do you really think that Jose’s 8 year old son really deserves less of an education than Joe’s son simply because of where his parents were born?[/quote]

SK in CV: Meet 8 year old Juanita from Paraguay. She is very cute and bright and innocent. She smiles a lot and is very likable.

Do you really think she deserves less of an education than Joe’s son simply because of where SHE was born? How arrogant!

Why should we discriminate based on a criteria as passe as physical location? Why not educate everyone in the whole world?

We can either fly everybody here for 18 or so years or we can just send out say 200 million teachers to do it on location. That’ll give class sizes of about 30 students per teacher. Hope that’s ok with you.

[KSMountain]

[quote=SK in CV]Do you really think that Jose’s 8 year old son really deserves less of an education than Joe’s son simply because of where his parents were born?[/quote]

SK in CV: Meet 8 year old Juanita from Paraguay. She is very cute and bright and innocent. She smiles a lot and is very likable.

Do you really think she deserves less of an education than Joe’s son simply because of where SHE was born? How arrogant!

Why should we discriminate based on a criteria as passe as physical location? Why not educate everyone in the whole world?

We can either fly everybody here for 18 or so years or we can just send out say 200 million teachers to do it on location. That’ll give class sizes of about 30 students per teacher. Hope that’s ok with you.

[KSMountain]

[quote=SK in CV]Do you really think that Jose’s 8 year old son really deserves less of an education than Joe’s son simply because of where his parents were born?[/quote]

SK in CV: Meet 8 year old Juanita from Paraguay. She is very cute and bright and innocent. She smiles a lot and is very likable.

Do you really think she deserves less of an education than Joe’s son simply because of where SHE was born? How arrogant!

Why should we discriminate based on a criteria as passe as physical location? Why not educate everyone in the whole world?

We can either fly everybody here for 18 or so years or we can just send out say 200 million teachers to do it on location. That’ll give class sizes of about 30 students per teacher. Hope that’s ok with you.

[KSMountain]

[quote=SK in CV]Do you really think that Jose’s 8 year old son really deserves less of an education than Joe’s son simply because of where his parents were born?[/quote]

SK in CV: Meet 8 year old Juanita from Paraguay. She is very cute and bright and innocent. She smiles a lot and is very likable.

Do you really think she deserves less of an education than Joe’s son simply because of where SHE was born? How arrogant!

Why should we discriminate based on a criteria as passe as physical location? Why not educate everyone in the whole world?

We can either fly everybody here for 18 or so years or we can just send out say 200 million teachers to do it on location. That’ll give class sizes of about 30 students per teacher. Hope that’s ok with you.

[SK in CV]

[quote=ucodegen]

In the old days it was commonly known as FICA. That’s social security. Currently 7.65% for both employee and employer. 6.2% for OASDI and 1.45 for Medicare.

Which is my point with this one. The employee kicks in 6.2% (7.65% including Medicare Hospital Insurance) and the employer kicks in another 7.65%. The employer does not cover both. The illegal kicks in nothing as does the employer of the illegal.

Standard deduction is $11,400. Exemption for joe, mrs. joe, and the two little joes total $14,600. bringing taxable income down to $26,000. 2 child care credits of 41,000 each brings fed tax down to $1,069.

Are you sure you can take the child care credit when the wife is not working? Otherwise we will have to factor in her wage which up to now has not been included. We have also not considered children and the cost to the system of Jose Illegal’s kids (which would get educated in the US school system at the cost of over $8000 per kid per year) and not mentioning the likeliness that any health issues with the Jose Illegal’s children will be handled by Medicaid. Child care and deductions for children are out unless we consider costs to the system of children on both sides.[/quote]

On the first point, no, it wasn’t your point. It was mine. You started out claiming it was just the 6.2%, not 7.65%. If we’re comparing how much money Joe and Jose have to live on, the employer’s share is incidental.

And yes, I’m sure on the calculation. If my masters in tax and 20 years as a CPA didn’t make me confident enough, my tax software did.

No need to even address the rest of your long debunked racist screed. But please answer me this. Do you really think that Jose’s 8 year old son really deserves less of an education than Joe’s son simply because of where his parents were born?

[SK in CV]

[quote=ucodegen]

In the old days it was commonly known as FICA. That’s social security. Currently 7.65% for both employee and employer. 6.2% for OASDI and 1.45 for Medicare.

Which is my point with this one. The employee kicks in 6.2% (7.65% including Medicare Hospital Insurance) and the employer kicks in another 7.65%. The employer does not cover both. The illegal kicks in nothing as does the employer of the illegal.

Standard deduction is $11,400. Exemption for joe, mrs. joe, and the two little joes total $14,600. bringing taxable income down to $26,000. 2 child care credits of 41,000 each brings fed tax down to $1,069.

Are you sure you can take the child care credit when the wife is not working? Otherwise we will have to factor in her wage which up to now has not been included. We have also not considered children and the cost to the system of Jose Illegal’s kids (which would get educated in the US school system at the cost of over $8000 per kid per year) and not mentioning the likeliness that any health issues with the Jose Illegal’s children will be handled by Medicaid. Child care and deductions for children are out unless we consider costs to the system of children on both sides.[/quote]

On the first point, no, it wasn’t your point. It was mine. You started out claiming it was just the 6.2%, not 7.65%. If we’re comparing how much money Joe and Jose have to live on, the employer’s share is incidental.

And yes, I’m sure on the calculation. If my masters in tax and 20 years as a CPA didn’t make me confident enough, my tax software did.

No need to even address the rest of your long debunked racist screed. But please answer me this. Do you really think that Jose’s 8 year old son really deserves less of an education than Joe’s son simply because of where his parents were born?

[SK in CV]

[quote=ucodegen]

In the old days it was commonly known as FICA. That’s social security. Currently 7.65% for both employee and employer. 6.2% for OASDI and 1.45 for Medicare.

Which is my point with this one. The employee kicks in 6.2% (7.65% including Medicare Hospital Insurance) and the employer kicks in another 7.65%. The employer does not cover both. The illegal kicks in nothing as does the employer of the illegal.

Standard deduction is $11,400. Exemption for joe, mrs. joe, and the two little joes total $14,600. bringing taxable income down to $26,000. 2 child care credits of 41,000 each brings fed tax down to $1,069.

Are you sure you can take the child care credit when the wife is not working? Otherwise we will have to factor in her wage which up to now has not been included. We have also not considered children and the cost to the system of Jose Illegal’s kids (which would get educated in the US school system at the cost of over $8000 per kid per year) and not mentioning the likeliness that any health issues with the Jose Illegal’s children will be handled by Medicaid. Child care and deductions for children are out unless we consider costs to the system of children on both sides.[/quote]

On the first point, no, it wasn’t your point. It was mine. You started out claiming it was just the 6.2%, not 7.65%. If we’re comparing how much money Joe and Jose have to live on, the employer’s share is incidental.

And yes, I’m sure on the calculation. If my masters in tax and 20 years as a CPA didn’t make me confident enough, my tax software did.

No need to even address the rest of your long debunked racist screed. But please answer me this. Do you really think that Jose’s 8 year old son really deserves less of an education than Joe’s son simply because of where his parents were born?

[SK in CV]

[quote=ucodegen]

In the old days it was commonly known as FICA. That’s social security. Currently 7.65% for both employee and employer. 6.2% for OASDI and 1.45 for Medicare.

Which is my point with this one. The employee kicks in 6.2% (7.65% including Medicare Hospital Insurance) and the employer kicks in another 7.65%. The employer does not cover both. The illegal kicks in nothing as does the employer of the illegal.

Standard deduction is $11,400. Exemption for joe, mrs. joe, and the two little joes total $14,600. bringing taxable income down to $26,000. 2 child care credits of 41,000 each brings fed tax down to $1,069.

Are you sure you can take the child care credit when the wife is not working? Otherwise we will have to factor in her wage which up to now has not been included. We have also not considered children and the cost to the system of Jose Illegal’s kids (which would get educated in the US school system at the cost of over $8000 per kid per year) and not mentioning the likeliness that any health issues with the Jose Illegal’s children will be handled by Medicaid. Child care and deductions for children are out unless we consider costs to the system of children on both sides.[/quote]

On the first point, no, it wasn’t your point. It was mine. You started out claiming it was just the 6.2%, not 7.65%. If we’re comparing how much money Joe and Jose have to live on, the employer’s share is incidental.

And yes, I’m sure on the calculation. If my masters in tax and 20 years as a CPA didn’t make me confident enough, my tax software did.

No need to even address the rest of your long debunked racist screed. But please answer me this. Do you really think that Jose’s 8 year old son really deserves less of an education than Joe’s son simply because of where his parents were born?

[ucodegen]

In the old days it was commonly known as FICA. That’s social security. Currently 7.65% for both employee and employer. 6.2% for OASDI and 1.45 for Medicare.

Which is my point with this one. The employee kicks in 6.2% (7.65% including Medicare Hospital Insurance) and the employer kicks in another 7.65%. The employer does not cover both. The illegal kicks in nothing as does the employer of the illegal.

Standard deduction is $11,400. Exemption for joe, mrs. joe, and the two little joes total $14,600. bringing taxable income down to $26,000. 2 child care credits of 41,000 each brings fed tax down to $1,069.

Are you sure you can take the child care credit when the wife is not working? Otherwise we will have to factor in her wage which up to now has not been included. We have also not considered children and the cost to the system of Jose Illegal’s kids (which would get educated in the US school system at the cost of over $8000 per kid per year) and not mentioning the likeliness that any health issues with the Jose Illegal’s children will be handled by Medicaid. Child care and deductions for children are out unless we consider costs to the system of children on both sides.

[ucodegen]

In the old days it was commonly known as FICA. That’s social security. Currently 7.65% for both employee and employer. 6.2% for OASDI and 1.45 for Medicare.

Which is my point with this one. The employee kicks in 6.2% (7.65% including Medicare Hospital Insurance) and the employer kicks in another 7.65%. The employer does not cover both. The illegal kicks in nothing as does the employer of the illegal.

Standard deduction is $11,400. Exemption for joe, mrs. joe, and the two little joes total $14,600. bringing taxable income down to $26,000. 2 child care credits of 41,000 each brings fed tax down to $1,069.

Are you sure you can take the child care credit when the wife is not working? Otherwise we will have to factor in her wage which up to now has not been included. We have also not considered children and the cost to the system of Jose Illegal’s kids (which would get educated in the US school system at the cost of over $8000 per kid per year) and not mentioning the likeliness that any health issues with the Jose Illegal’s children will be handled by Medicaid. Child care and deductions for children are out unless we consider costs to the system of children on both sides.

[ucodegen]

In the old days it was commonly known as FICA. That’s social security. Currently 7.65% for both employee and employer. 6.2% for OASDI and 1.45 for Medicare.

Which is my point with this one. The employee kicks in 6.2% (7.65% including Medicare Hospital Insurance) and the employer kicks in another 7.65%. The employer does not cover both. The illegal kicks in nothing as does the employer of the illegal.

Standard deduction is $11,400. Exemption for joe, mrs. joe, and the two little joes total $14,600. bringing taxable income down to $26,000. 2 child care credits of 41,000 each brings fed tax down to $1,069.

Are you sure you can take the child care credit when the wife is not working? Otherwise we will have to factor in her wage which up to now has not been included. We have also not considered children and the cost to the system of Jose Illegal’s kids (which would get educated in the US school system at the cost of over $8000 per kid per year) and not mentioning the likeliness that any health issues with the Jose Illegal’s children will be handled by Medicaid. Child care and deductions for children are out unless we consider costs to the system of children on both sides.

[ucodegen]

In the old days it was commonly known as FICA. That’s social security. Currently 7.65% for both employee and employer. 6.2% for OASDI and 1.45 for Medicare.

Which is my point with this one. The employee kicks in 6.2% (7.65% including Medicare Hospital Insurance) and the employer kicks in another 7.65%. The employer does not cover both. The illegal kicks in nothing as does the employer of the illegal.

Standard deduction is $11,400. Exemption for joe, mrs. joe, and the two little joes total $14,600. bringing taxable income down to $26,000. 2 child care credits of 41,000 each brings fed tax down to $1,069.

Are you sure you can take the child care credit when the wife is not working? Otherwise we will have to factor in her wage which up to now has not been included. We have also not considered children and the cost to the system of Jose Illegal’s kids (which would get educated in the US school system at the cost of over $8000 per kid per year) and not mentioning the likeliness that any health issues with the Jose Illegal’s children will be handled by Medicaid. Child care and deductions for children are out unless we consider costs to the system of children on both sides.

[SK in CV]

[quote=ucodegen]

Joe Legal wouldn’t pay the employers share of SS (which is actually 7.65% not 6.2%).

Where do you get your numbers? I got mine from social security admin. 6.2% is the employee’s haircut, 6.2% is the employers haircut. If you look on your W-2, it is box #4. See also linky, notice it says employee and employees each. OASDI is social security and medicare. The self employed show what the total rate is, which is 12.4%. Your employer takes half and the employee takes half. HI is medicare hospital insurance which brings it to 7.65% each to the employer and employee.

You didn’t take into consideration the standard deduction or personal exemptions or child tax credit on the federal, which would have greatly reduced their taxes to just over 2%.

It doesn’t reduce it that much. How many child credits were you taking for Joe Legal? Standard deductions apply to income not the tax, so they reduce the AGI.

Sales taxes would have been paid equally both both Joes.

You mean Joe and Jose. True, though Jose would probably be spending more in Mexico by sending money home.[/quote]

One at at time.

In the old days it was commonly known as FICA. That’s social security. Currently 7.65% for both employee and employer. 6.2% for OASDI and 1.45 for Medicare.

Standard deduction is $11,400. Exemption for joe, mrs. joe, and the two little joes total $14,600. bringing taxable income down to $26,000. 2 child care credits of 41,000 each brings fed tax down to $1,069.

If Jose is sending money home, that means that Joe could be saving too, and not paying sales tax.

[SK in CV]

[quote=ucodegen]

Joe Legal wouldn’t pay the employers share of SS (which is actually 7.65% not 6.2%).

Where do you get your numbers? I got mine from social security admin. 6.2% is the employee’s haircut, 6.2% is the employers haircut. If you look on your W-2, it is box #4. See also linky, notice it says employee and employees each. OASDI is social security and medicare. The self employed show what the total rate is, which is 12.4%. Your employer takes half and the employee takes half. HI is medicare hospital insurance which brings it to 7.65% each to the employer and employee.

You didn’t take into consideration the standard deduction or personal exemptions or child tax credit on the federal, which would have greatly reduced their taxes to just over 2%.

It doesn’t reduce it that much. How many child credits were you taking for Joe Legal? Standard deductions apply to income not the tax, so they reduce the AGI.

Sales taxes would have been paid equally both both Joes.

You mean Joe and Jose. True, though Jose would probably be spending more in Mexico by sending money home.[/quote]

One at at time.

In the old days it was commonly known as FICA. That’s social security. Currently 7.65% for both employee and employer. 6.2% for OASDI and 1.45 for Medicare.

Standard deduction is $11,400. Exemption for joe, mrs. joe, and the two little joes total $14,600. bringing taxable income down to $26,000. 2 child care credits of 41,000 each brings fed tax down to $1,069.

If Jose is sending money home, that means that Joe could be saving too, and not paying sales tax.

[SK in CV]

[quote=ucodegen]

Joe Legal wouldn’t pay the employers share of SS (which is actually 7.65% not 6.2%).

Where do you get your numbers? I got mine from social security admin. 6.2% is the employee’s haircut, 6.2% is the employers haircut. If you look on your W-2, it is box #4. See also linky, notice it says employee and employees each. OASDI is social security and medicare. The self employed show what the total rate is, which is 12.4%. Your employer takes half and the employee takes half. HI is medicare hospital insurance which brings it to 7.65% each to the employer and employee.

You didn’t take into consideration the standard deduction or personal exemptions or child tax credit on the federal, which would have greatly reduced their taxes to just over 2%.

It doesn’t reduce it that much. How many child credits were you taking for Joe Legal? Standard deductions apply to income not the tax, so they reduce the AGI.

Sales taxes would have been paid equally both both Joes.

You mean Joe and Jose. True, though Jose would probably be spending more in Mexico by sending money home.[/quote]

One at at time.

In the old days it was commonly known as FICA. That’s social security. Currently 7.65% for both employee and employer. 6.2% for OASDI and 1.45 for Medicare.

Standard deduction is $11,400. Exemption for joe, mrs. joe, and the two little joes total $14,600. bringing taxable income down to $26,000. 2 child care credits of 41,000 each brings fed tax down to $1,069.

If Jose is sending money home, that means that Joe could be saving too, and not paying sales tax.

[SK in CV]

[quote=ucodegen]

Joe Legal wouldn’t pay the employers share of SS (which is actually 7.65% not 6.2%).

Where do you get your numbers? I got mine from social security admin. 6.2% is the employee’s haircut, 6.2% is the employers haircut. If you look on your W-2, it is box #4. See also linky, notice it says employee and employees each. OASDI is social security and medicare. The self employed show what the total rate is, which is 12.4%. Your employer takes half and the employee takes half. HI is medicare hospital insurance which brings it to 7.65% each to the employer and employee.

You didn’t take into consideration the standard deduction or personal exemptions or child tax credit on the federal, which would have greatly reduced their taxes to just over 2%.

It doesn’t reduce it that much. How many child credits were you taking for Joe Legal? Standard deductions apply to income not the tax, so they reduce the AGI.

Sales taxes would have been paid equally both both Joes.

You mean Joe and Jose. True, though Jose would probably be spending more in Mexico by sending money home.[/quote]

One at at time.

In the old days it was commonly known as FICA. That’s social security. Currently 7.65% for both employee and employer. 6.2% for OASDI and 1.45 for Medicare.

Standard deduction is $11,400. Exemption for joe, mrs. joe, and the two little joes total $14,600. bringing taxable income down to $26,000. 2 child care credits of 41,000 each brings fed tax down to $1,069.

If Jose is sending money home, that means that Joe could be saving too, and not paying sales tax.

[ucodegen]

Joe Legal wouldn’t pay the employers share of SS (which is actually 7.65% not 6.2%).

Where do you get your numbers? I got mine from social security admin. 6.2% is the employee’s haircut, 6.2% is the employers haircut. If you look on your W-2, it is box #4. See also linky, notice it says employee and employees each. OASDI is social security and medicare. The self employed show what the total rate is, which is 12.4%. Your employer takes half and the employee takes half. HI is medicare hospital insurance which brings it to 7.65% each to the employer and employee.

You didn’t take into consideration the standard deduction or personal exemptions or child tax credit on the federal, which would have greatly reduced their taxes to just over 2%.

It doesn’t reduce it that much. How many child credits were you taking for Joe Legal? Standard deductions apply to income not the tax, so they reduce the AGI.

Sales taxes would have been paid equally both both Joes.

You mean Joe and Jose. True, though Jose would probably be spending more in Mexico by sending money home.

[ucodegen]

Joe Legal wouldn’t pay the employers share of SS (which is actually 7.65% not 6.2%).

Where do you get your numbers? I got mine from social security admin. 6.2% is the employee’s haircut, 6.2% is the employers haircut. If you look on your W-2, it is box #4. See also linky, notice it says employee and employees each. OASDI is social security and medicare. The self employed show what the total rate is, which is 12.4%. Your employer takes half and the employee takes half. HI is medicare hospital insurance which brings it to 7.65% each to the employer and employee.

You didn’t take into consideration the standard deduction or personal exemptions or child tax credit on the federal, which would have greatly reduced their taxes to just over 2%.

It doesn’t reduce it that much. How many child credits were you taking for Joe Legal? Standard deductions apply to income not the tax, so they reduce the AGI.

Sales taxes would have been paid equally both both Joes.

You mean Joe and Jose. True, though Jose would probably be spending more in Mexico by sending money home.

[ucodegen]

Joe Legal wouldn’t pay the employers share of SS (which is actually 7.65% not 6.2%).

Where do you get your numbers? I got mine from social security admin. 6.2% is the employee’s haircut, 6.2% is the employers haircut. If you look on your W-2, it is box #4. See also linky, notice it says employee and employees each. OASDI is social security and medicare. The self employed show what the total rate is, which is 12.4%. Your employer takes half and the employee takes half. HI is medicare hospital insurance which brings it to 7.65% each to the employer and employee.

You didn’t take into consideration the standard deduction or personal exemptions or child tax credit on the federal, which would have greatly reduced their taxes to just over 2%.

It doesn’t reduce it that much. How many child credits were you taking for Joe Legal? Standard deductions apply to income not the tax, so they reduce the AGI.

Sales taxes would have been paid equally both both Joes.

You mean Joe and Jose. True, though Jose would probably be spending more in Mexico by sending money home.

[ucodegen]

Joe Legal wouldn’t pay the employers share of SS (which is actually 7.65% not 6.2%).

Where do you get your numbers? I got mine from social security admin. 6.2% is the employee’s haircut, 6.2% is the employers haircut. If you look on your W-2, it is box #4. See also linky, notice it says employee and employees each. OASDI is social security and medicare. The self employed show what the total rate is, which is 12.4%. Your employer takes half and the employee takes half. HI is medicare hospital insurance which brings it to 7.65% each to the employer and employee.

You didn’t take into consideration the standard deduction or personal exemptions or child tax credit on the federal, which would have greatly reduced their taxes to just over 2%.

It doesn’t reduce it that much. How many child credits were you taking for Joe Legal? Standard deductions apply to income not the tax, so they reduce the AGI.

Sales taxes would have been paid equally both both Joes.

You mean Joe and Jose. True, though Jose would probably be spending more in Mexico by sending money home.

[SK in CV]

[quote=ucodegen]

There’s absolutely no way a family with a $52,000 income would pay 30% in taxes. They’d pay $2000, tops (4%), in federal and state taxes combined.

Wrong:
Social Security = 6.2% for both employer and employee (total 12.4%)
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html
Fed Income tax rate @ 52k = 15%(on amount above 16,700) + $802.5 = 13.39% – I used married filing jointly @ 2009, but did not place deductions.
http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm
California state marginal tax rate for $52K is 9.3%. Total tax is $2531.35 = 4.9%
http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layouthtmls/swzl_statetaxrate_ca.html

Total tax rate is 6.2% + 13.39% + 4.9% = 24.49% (not including San Diego local tax (about 1%), not including property tax (about 1%) and health insurance. It also does not account for AGI adjustment for deductions – largest is mortgage interest deduction (which may drop him a state bracket but not a fed tax bracket, you can only deduct the interest not the principal) Nor does this take into account sales tax on virtually everything that Joe Legal buys (varying from location to location, but generally around 8%).

In reality, Jose Illegal will get $6/hour under the table working full time (if he does not want to work for that kind of money – there are lots out there who do).

During the real estate bubble – the illegals were getting more than $15/hour. In 1976, apprentice carpenters were making $15/hour, and journeymen were making a lot more.[/quote]

See my numbers above. I computed the tax based on the 2009 rates.

Joe Legal wouldn’t pay the employers share of SS (which is actually 7.65% not 6.2%).

There is no local San Diego income tax. (You may be confused by SDI, which is state disability insurance. Currently 1.1%)

You didn’t take into consideration the standard deduction or personal exemptions or child tax credit on the federal, which would have greatly reduced their taxes to just over 2%. And the standard deduction and expemption credits on the state which would have eliminated any state income tax.

Sales taxes would have been paid equally both both Joes.

If they were renters or homeowners, they would have effectivly paid similar property taxes either through their landlord or directly.

[SK in CV]

[quote=ucodegen]

There’s absolutely no way a family with a $52,000 income would pay 30% in taxes. They’d pay $2000, tops (4%), in federal and state taxes combined.

Wrong:
Social Security = 6.2% for both employer and employee (total 12.4%)
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html
Fed Income tax rate @ 52k = 15%(on amount above 16,700) + $802.5 = 13.39% – I used married filing jointly @ 2009, but did not place deductions.
http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm
California state marginal tax rate for $52K is 9.3%. Total tax is $2531.35 = 4.9%
http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layouthtmls/swzl_statetaxrate_ca.html

Total tax rate is 6.2% + 13.39% + 4.9% = 24.49% (not including San Diego local tax (about 1%), not including property tax (about 1%) and health insurance. It also does not account for AGI adjustment for deductions – largest is mortgage interest deduction (which may drop him a state bracket but not a fed tax bracket, you can only deduct the interest not the principal) Nor does this take into account sales tax on virtually everything that Joe Legal buys (varying from location to location, but generally around 8%).

In reality, Jose Illegal will get $6/hour under the table working full time (if he does not want to work for that kind of money – there are lots out there who do).

During the real estate bubble – the illegals were getting more than $15/hour. In 1976, apprentice carpenters were making $15/hour, and journeymen were making a lot more.[/quote]

See my numbers above. I computed the tax based on the 2009 rates.

Joe Legal wouldn’t pay the employers share of SS (which is actually 7.65% not 6.2%).

There is no local San Diego income tax. (You may be confused by SDI, which is state disability insurance. Currently 1.1%)

You didn’t take into consideration the standard deduction or personal exemptions or child tax credit on the federal, which would have greatly reduced their taxes to just over 2%. And the standard deduction and expemption credits on the state which would have eliminated any state income tax.

Sales taxes would have been paid equally both both Joes.

If they were renters or homeowners, they would have effectivly paid similar property taxes either through their landlord or directly.

[SK in CV]

[quote=ucodegen]

There’s absolutely no way a family with a $52,000 income would pay 30% in taxes. They’d pay $2000, tops (4%), in federal and state taxes combined.

Wrong:
Social Security = 6.2% for both employer and employee (total 12.4%)
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html
Fed Income tax rate @ 52k = 15%(on amount above 16,700) + $802.5 = 13.39% – I used married filing jointly @ 2009, but did not place deductions.
http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm
California state marginal tax rate for $52K is 9.3%. Total tax is $2531.35 = 4.9%
http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layouthtmls/swzl_statetaxrate_ca.html

Total tax rate is 6.2% + 13.39% + 4.9% = 24.49% (not including San Diego local tax (about 1%), not including property tax (about 1%) and health insurance. It also does not account for AGI adjustment for deductions – largest is mortgage interest deduction (which may drop him a state bracket but not a fed tax bracket, you can only deduct the interest not the principal) Nor does this take into account sales tax on virtually everything that Joe Legal buys (varying from location to location, but generally around 8%).

In reality, Jose Illegal will get $6/hour under the table working full time (if he does not want to work for that kind of money – there are lots out there who do).

During the real estate bubble – the illegals were getting more than $15/hour. In 1976, apprentice carpenters were making $15/hour, and journeymen were making a lot more.[/quote]

See my numbers above. I computed the tax based on the 2009 rates.

Joe Legal wouldn’t pay the employers share of SS (which is actually 7.65% not 6.2%).

There is no local San Diego income tax. (You may be confused by SDI, which is state disability insurance. Currently 1.1%)

You didn’t take into consideration the standard deduction or personal exemptions or child tax credit on the federal, which would have greatly reduced their taxes to just over 2%. And the standard deduction and expemption credits on the state which would have eliminated any state income tax.

Sales taxes would have been paid equally both both Joes.

If they were renters or homeowners, they would have effectivly paid similar property taxes either through their landlord or directly.

[SK in CV]

[quote=ucodegen]

There’s absolutely no way a family with a $52,000 income would pay 30% in taxes. They’d pay $2000, tops (4%), in federal and state taxes combined.

Wrong:
Social Security = 6.2% for both employer and employee (total 12.4%)
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html
Fed Income tax rate @ 52k = 15%(on amount above 16,700) + $802.5 = 13.39% – I used married filing jointly @ 2009, but did not place deductions.
http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm
California state marginal tax rate for $52K is 9.3%. Total tax is $2531.35 = 4.9%
http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layouthtmls/swzl_statetaxrate_ca.html

Total tax rate is 6.2% + 13.39% + 4.9% = 24.49% (not including San Diego local tax (about 1%), not including property tax (about 1%) and health insurance. It also does not account for AGI adjustment for deductions – largest is mortgage interest deduction (which may drop him a state bracket but not a fed tax bracket, you can only deduct the interest not the principal) Nor does this take into account sales tax on virtually everything that Joe Legal buys (varying from location to location, but generally around 8%).

In reality, Jose Illegal will get $6/hour under the table working full time (if he does not want to work for that kind of money – there are lots out there who do).

During the real estate bubble – the illegals were getting more than $15/hour. In 1976, apprentice carpenters were making $15/hour, and journeymen were making a lot more.[/quote]

See my numbers above. I computed the tax based on the 2009 rates.

Joe Legal wouldn’t pay the employers share of SS (which is actually 7.65% not 6.2%).

There is no local San Diego income tax. (You may be confused by SDI, which is state disability insurance. Currently 1.1%)

You didn’t take into consideration the standard deduction or personal exemptions or child tax credit on the federal, which would have greatly reduced their taxes to just over 2%. And the standard deduction and expemption credits on the state which would have eliminated any state income tax.

Sales taxes would have been paid equally both both Joes.

If they were renters or homeowners, they would have effectivly paid similar property taxes either through their landlord or directly.

[ucodegen]

There’s absolutely no way a family with a $52,000 income would pay 30% in taxes. They’d pay $2000, tops (4%), in federal and state taxes combined.

Wrong:
Social Security = 6.2% for both employer and employee (total 12.4%)
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html
Fed Income tax rate @ 52k = 15%(on amount above 16,700) + $802.5 = 13.39% – I used married filing jointly @ 2009, but did not place deductions.
http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm
California state marginal tax rate for $52K is 9.3%. Total tax is $2531.35 = 4.9%
http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layouthtmls/swzl_statetaxrate_ca.html

Total tax rate is 6.2% + 13.39% + 4.9% = 24.49% (not including San Diego local tax (about 1%), not including property tax (about 1%) and health insurance. It also does not account for AGI adjustment for deductions – largest is mortgage interest deduction (which may drop him a state bracket but not a fed tax bracket, you can only deduct the interest not the principal) Nor does this take into account sales tax on virtually everything that Joe Legal buys (varying from location to location, but generally around 8%).

In reality, Jose Illegal will get $6/hour under the table working full time (if he does not want to work for that kind of money – there are lots out there who do).

During the real estate bubble – the illegals were getting more than $15/hour. In 1976, apprentice carpenters were making $15/hour, and journeymen were making a lot more.

[ucodegen]

There’s absolutely no way a family with a $52,000 income would pay 30% in taxes. They’d pay $2000, tops (4%), in federal and state taxes combined.

Wrong:
Social Security = 6.2% for both employer and employee (total 12.4%)
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html
Fed Income tax rate @ 52k = 15%(on amount above 16,700) + $802.5 = 13.39% – I used married filing jointly @ 2009, but did not place deductions.
http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm
California state marginal tax rate for $52K is 9.3%. Total tax is $2531.35 = 4.9%
http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layouthtmls/swzl_statetaxrate_ca.html

Total tax rate is 6.2% + 13.39% + 4.9% = 24.49% (not including San Diego local tax (about 1%), not including property tax (about 1%) and health insurance. It also does not account for AGI adjustment for deductions – largest is mortgage interest deduction (which may drop him a state bracket but not a fed tax bracket, you can only deduct the interest not the principal) Nor does this take into account sales tax on virtually everything that Joe Legal buys (varying from location to location, but generally around 8%).

In reality, Jose Illegal will get $6/hour under the table working full time (if he does not want to work for that kind of money – there are lots out there who do).

During the real estate bubble – the illegals were getting more than $15/hour. In 1976, apprentice carpenters were making $15/hour, and journeymen were making a lot more.

[ucodegen]

There’s absolutely no way a family with a $52,000 income would pay 30% in taxes. They’d pay $2000, tops (4%), in federal and state taxes combined.

Wrong:
Social Security = 6.2% for both employer and employee (total 12.4%)
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html
Fed Income tax rate @ 52k = 15%(on amount above 16,700) + $802.5 = 13.39% – I used married filing jointly @ 2009, but did not place deductions.
http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm
California state marginal tax rate for $52K is 9.3%. Total tax is $2531.35 = 4.9%
http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layouthtmls/swzl_statetaxrate_ca.html

Total tax rate is 6.2% + 13.39% + 4.9% = 24.49% (not including San Diego local tax (about 1%), not including property tax (about 1%) and health insurance. It also does not account for AGI adjustment for deductions – largest is mortgage interest deduction (which may drop him a state bracket but not a fed tax bracket, you can only deduct the interest not the principal) Nor does this take into account sales tax on virtually everything that Joe Legal buys (varying from location to location, but generally around 8%).

In reality, Jose Illegal will get $6/hour under the table working full time (if he does not want to work for that kind of money – there are lots out there who do).

During the real estate bubble – the illegals were getting more than $15/hour. In 1976, apprentice carpenters were making $15/hour, and journeymen were making a lot more.

[ucodegen]

There’s absolutely no way a family with a $52,000 income would pay 30% in taxes. They’d pay $2000, tops (4%), in federal and state taxes combined.

Wrong:
Social Security = 6.2% for both employer and employee (total 12.4%)
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html
Fed Income tax rate @ 52k = 15%(on amount above 16,700) + $802.5 = 13.39% – I used married filing jointly @ 2009, but did not place deductions.
http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm
California state marginal tax rate for $52K is 9.3%. Total tax is $2531.35 = 4.9%
http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layouthtmls/swzl_statetaxrate_ca.html

Total tax rate is 6.2% + 13.39% + 4.9% = 24.49% (not including San Diego local tax (about 1%), not including property tax (about 1%) and health insurance. It also does not account for AGI adjustment for deductions – largest is mortgage interest deduction (which may drop him a state bracket but not a fed tax bracket, you can only deduct the interest not the principal) Nor does this take into account sales tax on virtually everything that Joe Legal buys (varying from location to location, but generally around 8%).

In reality, Jose Illegal will get $6/hour under the table working full time (if he does not want to work for that kind of money – there are lots out there who do).

During the real estate bubble – the illegals were getting more than $15/hour. In 1976, apprentice carpenters were making $15/hour, and journeymen were making a lot more.

[Eugene]

There’s absolutely no way a family with a $52,000 income would pay 30% in taxes. They’d pay $2000, tops (4%), in federal and state taxes combined.

This whole calculation assumes that the illegal guy works full time at $15/hour under the table (very few of them do) and somehow manages to get full benefits.

In reality, Jose Illegal will get $6/hour under the table working full time (if he does not want to work for that kind of money – there are lots out there who do). His alternative is to try to find work as a day-laborer, he’ll be paid $10/hour, but he’s not guaranteed to find any work at all.

With regard to benefits, his children will get free lunches at school, and Jose himself might be able to get food stamps. He most definitely does not qualify for state-sponsored medical insurance (though his citizen children, if any, might qualify). As of one year ago, Medi-Cal does not provide dental coverage at all, even to bona fide citizens.

[Eugene]

There’s absolutely no way a family with a $52,000 income would pay 30% in taxes. They’d pay $2000, tops (4%), in federal and state taxes combined.

This whole calculation assumes that the illegal guy works full time at $15/hour under the table (very few of them do) and somehow manages to get full benefits.

In reality, Jose Illegal will get $6/hour under the table working full time (if he does not want to work for that kind of money – there are lots out there who do). His alternative is to try to find work as a day-laborer, he’ll be paid $10/hour, but he’s not guaranteed to find any work at all.

With regard to benefits, his children will get free lunches at school, and Jose himself might be able to get food stamps. He most definitely does not qualify for state-sponsored medical insurance (though his citizen children, if any, might qualify). As of one year ago, Medi-Cal does not provide dental coverage at all, even to bona fide citizens.

[Eugene]

There’s absolutely no way a family with a $52,000 income would pay 30% in taxes. They’d pay $2000, tops (4%), in federal and state taxes combined.

This whole calculation assumes that the illegal guy works full time at $15/hour under the table (very few of them do) and somehow manages to get full benefits.

In reality, Jose Illegal will get $6/hour under the table working full time (if he does not want to work for that kind of money – there are lots out there who do). His alternative is to try to find work as a day-laborer, he’ll be paid $10/hour, but he’s not guaranteed to find any work at all.

With regard to benefits, his children will get free lunches at school, and Jose himself might be able to get food stamps. He most definitely does not qualify for state-sponsored medical insurance (though his citizen children, if any, might qualify). As of one year ago, Medi-Cal does not provide dental coverage at all, even to bona fide citizens.

[Eugene]

There’s absolutely no way a family with a $52,000 income would pay 30% in taxes. They’d pay $2000, tops (4%), in federal and state taxes combined.

This whole calculation assumes that the illegal guy works full time at $15/hour under the table (very few of them do) and somehow manages to get full benefits.

In reality, Jose Illegal will get $6/hour under the table working full time (if he does not want to work for that kind of money – there are lots out there who do). His alternative is to try to find work as a day-laborer, he’ll be paid $10/hour, but he’s not guaranteed to find any work at all.

With regard to benefits, his children will get free lunches at school, and Jose himself might be able to get food stamps. He most definitely does not qualify for state-sponsored medical insurance (though his citizen children, if any, might qualify). As of one year ago, Medi-Cal does not provide dental coverage at all, even to bona fide citizens.

[ucodegen]

If Jose is illegal, how is he eligible for food stamps or federal rent subsidy?

If Jose has a child with ‘Miranda’ in the U.S., they are now eligible because the child is a citizen by birth — Anchor baby..

[ucodegen]

If Jose is illegal, how is he eligible for food stamps or federal rent subsidy?

If Jose has a child with ‘Miranda’ in the U.S., they are now eligible because the child is a citizen by birth — Anchor baby..

[ucodegen]

If Jose is illegal, how is he eligible for food stamps or federal rent subsidy?

If Jose has a child with ‘Miranda’ in the U.S., they are now eligible because the child is a citizen by birth — Anchor baby..

[ucodegen]

If Jose is illegal, how is he eligible for food stamps or federal rent subsidy?

If Jose has a child with ‘Miranda’ in the U.S., they are now eligible because the child is a citizen by birth — Anchor baby..

[Anonymous]

If Jose is illegal, how is he eligible for food stamps or federal rent subsidy? If all illegals were actually getting all of the benefits depicted in this email, then why would there be such a cry for amnesty? Obviously they are not getting access to all of the federal welfare programs.

[Anonymous]

If Jose is illegal, how is he eligible for food stamps or federal rent subsidy? If all illegals were actually getting all of the benefits depicted in this email, then why would there be such a cry for amnesty? Obviously they are not getting access to all of the federal welfare programs.

[Anonymous]

If Jose is illegal, how is he eligible for food stamps or federal rent subsidy? If all illegals were actually getting all of the benefits depicted in this email, then why would there be such a cry for amnesty? Obviously they are not getting access to all of the federal welfare programs.

[Anonymous]

If Jose is illegal, how is he eligible for food stamps or federal rent subsidy? If all illegals were actually getting all of the benefits depicted in this email, then why would there be such a cry for amnesty? Obviously they are not getting access to all of the federal welfare programs.

[all]

The focus is misplaced. Paying someone ‘under the table’ is against the law. I’d really like to read more about the payer who is exploiting Jose and impacting Joe, now that I know everything I need to know about Joe and Jose.

[Anonymous]

[quote=captcha]The focus is misplaced. Paying someone ‘under the table’ is against the law.[/quote]

You nailed it.

All of the differences are based upon the fact that one person obeys the labor and tax laws, and the other does not. Immigration status really doesn’t give Jose any sort of advantage. Joe could choose to be “illegal” also, even though he is a citizen. For example, Joe could choose to get paid under the table, or choose not pay for car insurance either. (And lots of Joes do just this.)

Plus, as others have noted, some of the numbers are totally inaccurate.

The whole example is bunk.

[ucodegen]

All of the differences are based upon the fact that one person obeys the labor and tax laws, and the other does not. Immigration status really doesn’t give Jose any sort of advantage. Joe could choose to be “illegal” also, even though he is a citizen. For example, Joe could choose to get paid under the table, or choose not pay for car insurance either. (And lots of Joes do just this.)

Except that being a Mexican citizen, Jose could just head home. No extradition treaty with Mexico. Later Jose could head back over the border as ‘Manuel’, and no ones the wiser.

There is definitely a problem with a lot of Joe(s) taking money under the table. The fact that a lot do, does not make it right nor does it make the problem that Jose causes any less.

[briansd1]

I don’t think that Jose causes the problems. He just operates in the way that allows him to survive. Jose doesn’t know any better and he just takes whatever job is available.

Remember that in our system, the employers are responsible for withholding and remitting taxes. Blame the employers if you want to get to the root causes of our immigration problems.

[briansd1]

I don’t think that Jose causes the problems. He just operates in the way that allows him to survive. Jose doesn’t know any better and he just takes whatever job is available.

Remember that in our system, the employers are responsible for withholding and remitting taxes. Blame the employers if you want to get to the root causes of our immigration problems.

[briansd1]

I don’t think that Jose causes the problems. He just operates in the way that allows him to survive. Jose doesn’t know any better and he just takes whatever job is available.

Remember that in our system, the employers are responsible for withholding and remitting taxes. Blame the employers if you want to get to the root causes of our immigration problems.

[briansd1]

I don’t think that Jose causes the problems. He just operates in the way that allows him to survive. Jose doesn’t know any better and he just takes whatever job is available.

Remember that in our system, the employers are responsible for withholding and remitting taxes. Blame the employers if you want to get to the root causes of our immigration problems.

[briansd1]

I don’t think that Jose causes the problems. He just operates in the way that allows him to survive. Jose doesn’t know any better and he just takes whatever job is available.

Remember that in our system, the employers are responsible for withholding and remitting taxes. Blame the employers if you want to get to the root causes of our immigration problems.

[ucodegen]

All of the differences are based upon the fact that one person obeys the labor and tax laws, and the other does not. Immigration status really doesn’t give Jose any sort of advantage. Joe could choose to be “illegal” also, even though he is a citizen. For example, Joe could choose to get paid under the table, or choose not pay for car insurance either. (And lots of Joes do just this.)

Except that being a Mexican citizen, Jose could just head home. No extradition treaty with Mexico. Later Jose could head back over the border as ‘Manuel’, and no ones the wiser.

There is definitely a problem with a lot of Joe(s) taking money under the table. The fact that a lot do, does not make it right nor does it make the problem that Jose causes any less.

[ucodegen]

All of the differences are based upon the fact that one person obeys the labor and tax laws, and the other does not. Immigration status really doesn’t give Jose any sort of advantage. Joe could choose to be “illegal” also, even though he is a citizen. For example, Joe could choose to get paid under the table, or choose not pay for car insurance either. (And lots of Joes do just this.)

Except that being a Mexican citizen, Jose could just head home. No extradition treaty with Mexico. Later Jose could head back over the border as ‘Manuel’, and no ones the wiser.

There is definitely a problem with a lot of Joe(s) taking money under the table. The fact that a lot do, does not make it right nor does it make the problem that Jose causes any less.

[ucodegen]

All of the differences are based upon the fact that one person obeys the labor and tax laws, and the other does not. Immigration status really doesn’t give Jose any sort of advantage. Joe could choose to be “illegal” also, even though he is a citizen. For example, Joe could choose to get paid under the table, or choose not pay for car insurance either. (And lots of Joes do just this.)

Except that being a Mexican citizen, Jose could just head home. No extradition treaty with Mexico. Later Jose could head back over the border as ‘Manuel’, and no ones the wiser.

There is definitely a problem with a lot of Joe(s) taking money under the table. The fact that a lot do, does not make it right nor does it make the problem that Jose causes any less.

[ucodegen]

All of the differences are based upon the fact that one person obeys the labor and tax laws, and the other does not. Immigration status really doesn’t give Jose any sort of advantage. Joe could choose to be “illegal” also, even though he is a citizen. For example, Joe could choose to get paid under the table, or choose not pay for car insurance either. (And lots of Joes do just this.)

Except that being a Mexican citizen, Jose could just head home. No extradition treaty with Mexico. Later Jose could head back over the border as ‘Manuel’, and no ones the wiser.

There is definitely a problem with a lot of Joe(s) taking money under the table. The fact that a lot do, does not make it right nor does it make the problem that Jose causes any less.

[Anonymous]

[quote=captcha]The focus is misplaced. Paying someone ‘under the table’ is against the law.[/quote]

You nailed it.

All of the differences are based upon the fact that one person obeys the labor and tax laws, and the other does not. Immigration status really doesn’t give Jose any sort of advantage. Joe could choose to be “illegal” also, even though he is a citizen. For example, Joe could choose to get paid under the table, or choose not pay for car insurance either. (And lots of Joes do just this.)

Plus, as others have noted, some of the numbers are totally inaccurate.

The whole example is bunk.

[Anonymous]

[quote=captcha]The focus is misplaced. Paying someone ‘under the table’ is against the law.[/quote]

You nailed it.

All of the differences are based upon the fact that one person obeys the labor and tax laws, and the other does not. Immigration status really doesn’t give Jose any sort of advantage. Joe could choose to be “illegal” also, even though he is a citizen. For example, Joe could choose to get paid under the table, or choose not pay for car insurance either. (And lots of Joes do just this.)

Plus, as others have noted, some of the numbers are totally inaccurate.

The whole example is bunk.

[Anonymous]

[quote=captcha]The focus is misplaced. Paying someone ‘under the table’ is against the law.[/quote]

You nailed it.

All of the differences are based upon the fact that one person obeys the labor and tax laws, and the other does not. Immigration status really doesn’t give Jose any sort of advantage. Joe could choose to be “illegal” also, even though he is a citizen. For example, Joe could choose to get paid under the table, or choose not pay for car insurance either. (And lots of Joes do just this.)

Plus, as others have noted, some of the numbers are totally inaccurate.

The whole example is bunk.

[Anonymous]

[quote=captcha]The focus is misplaced. Paying someone ‘under the table’ is against the law.[/quote]

You nailed it.

All of the differences are based upon the fact that one person obeys the labor and tax laws, and the other does not. Immigration status really doesn’t give Jose any sort of advantage. Joe could choose to be “illegal” also, even though he is a citizen. For example, Joe could choose to get paid under the table, or choose not pay for car insurance either. (And lots of Joes do just this.)

Plus, as others have noted, some of the numbers are totally inaccurate.

The whole example is bunk.

[all]

The focus is misplaced. Paying someone ‘under the table’ is against the law. I’d really like to read more about the payer who is exploiting Jose and impacting Joe, now that I know everything I need to know about Joe and Jose.

[all]

The focus is misplaced. Paying someone ‘under the table’ is against the law. I’d really like to read more about the payer who is exploiting Jose and impacting Joe, now that I know everything I need to know about Joe and Jose.

[all]

The focus is misplaced. Paying someone ‘under the table’ is against the law. I’d really like to read more about the payer who is exploiting Jose and impacting Joe, now that I know everything I need to know about Joe and Jose.

[all]

The focus is misplaced. Paying someone ‘under the table’ is against the law. I’d really like to read more about the payer who is exploiting Jose and impacting Joe, now that I know everything I need to know about Joe and Jose.

[poorgradstudent]

The answer, of course, is to aggressively go after John Buisinessowner. He’s the one who is doing work on the cheap and cheating the system, avoiding paying payroll taxes and insurance by hiring Jose.

John Businessowner is providing the opportunity and incentive for Jose to come over. Going after him closes the holes in the system.

[poorgradstudent]

The answer, of course, is to aggressively go after John Buisinessowner. He’s the one who is doing work on the cheap and cheating the system, avoiding paying payroll taxes and insurance by hiring Jose.

John Businessowner is providing the opportunity and incentive for Jose to come over. Going after him closes the holes in the system.

[poorgradstudent]

The answer, of course, is to aggressively go after John Buisinessowner. He’s the one who is doing work on the cheap and cheating the system, avoiding paying payroll taxes and insurance by hiring Jose.

John Businessowner is providing the opportunity and incentive for Jose to come over. Going after him closes the holes in the system.

[poorgradstudent]

The answer, of course, is to aggressively go after John Buisinessowner. He’s the one who is doing work on the cheap and cheating the system, avoiding paying payroll taxes and insurance by hiring Jose.

John Businessowner is providing the opportunity and incentive for Jose to come over. Going after him closes the holes in the system.

[poorgradstudent]

The answer, of course, is to aggressively go after John Buisinessowner. He’s the one who is doing work on the cheap and cheating the system, avoiding paying payroll taxes and insurance by hiring Jose.

John Businessowner is providing the opportunity and incentive for Jose to come over. Going after him closes the holes in the system.

[Anonymous]

I don’t think the numbers are that off and it is funny you are arguing numbers when it should be argued that Companies that employ illegals should be the problem. See a lot of people complain about living wages and argue against some unions. So let’s privatize some of those local jobs that private companies can do for less. Well, anybody ever ask why they can do it for less? NO! So as I see it you cannot have it both ways. Cheap labor and no immigrants. Go ahead try to run the numbers. So stop with the Joe or Jose makes this or that. Stop the demand for cheap labor and ensure all workers are legal and you stop your problems. Just my 2 cents

[Anonymous]

I don’t think the numbers are that off and it is funny you are arguing numbers when it should be argued that Companies that employ illegals should be the problem. See a lot of people complain about living wages and argue against some unions. So let’s privatize some of those local jobs that private companies can do for less. Well, anybody ever ask why they can do it for less? NO! So as I see it you cannot have it both ways. Cheap labor and no immigrants. Go ahead try to run the numbers. So stop with the Joe or Jose makes this or that. Stop the demand for cheap labor and ensure all workers are legal and you stop your problems. Just my 2 cents

[Anonymous]

I don’t think the numbers are that off and it is funny you are arguing numbers when it should be argued that Companies that employ illegals should be the problem. See a lot of people complain about living wages and argue against some unions. So let’s privatize some of those local jobs that private companies can do for less. Well, anybody ever ask why they can do it for less? NO! So as I see it you cannot have it both ways. Cheap labor and no immigrants. Go ahead try to run the numbers. So stop with the Joe or Jose makes this or that. Stop the demand for cheap labor and ensure all workers are legal and you stop your problems. Just my 2 cents

[Anonymous]

I don’t think the numbers are that off and it is funny you are arguing numbers when it should be argued that Companies that employ illegals should be the problem. See a lot of people complain about living wages and argue against some unions. So let’s privatize some of those local jobs that private companies can do for less. Well, anybody ever ask why they can do it for less? NO! So as I see it you cannot have it both ways. Cheap labor and no immigrants. Go ahead try to run the numbers. So stop with the Joe or Jose makes this or that. Stop the demand for cheap labor and ensure all workers are legal and you stop your problems. Just my 2 cents

[Anonymous]

I don’t think the numbers are that off and it is funny you are arguing numbers when it should be argued that Companies that employ illegals should be the problem. See a lot of people complain about living wages and argue against some unions. So let’s privatize some of those local jobs that private companies can do for less. Well, anybody ever ask why they can do it for less? NO! So as I see it you cannot have it both ways. Cheap labor and no immigrants. Go ahead try to run the numbers. So stop with the Joe or Jose makes this or that. Stop the demand for cheap labor and ensure all workers are legal and you stop your problems. Just my 2 cents

[Coronita]

Joe legal needs to figure out what he needs to do so he’s not Joe 6 pack.

[Coronita]

Joe legal needs to figure out what he needs to do so he’s not Joe 6 pack.

[Coronita]

Joe legal needs to figure out what he needs to do so he’s not Joe 6 pack.

[Coronita]

Joe legal needs to figure out what he needs to do so he’s not Joe 6 pack.

[Coronita]

Joe legal needs to figure out what he needs to do so he’s not Joe 6 pack.

[air_ogi]

Joe Legal can became Joe Illegal whenever he wants.

Is is not like illegal immigrants have monopoly on evading taxes.

[air_ogi]

Joe Legal can became Joe Illegal whenever he wants.

Is is not like illegal immigrants have monopoly on evading taxes.