[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]

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..

[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]

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]

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]

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.

[Author]

Posts