<p>Mini, Social Security benefits are not mainly subsidized by even the entire population of undocumented employees. A huge portion of those employees are <em>non-filers</em>, meaning their individual contributions to Social Security (for example, that which is mandatory on the part of their employers) are miniscule. Another portion are filers, but on the low end. There are not enough undocumented to account for a meaningful percentage of S.Security funds, because there are not enough of them earning significant amounts of money. (One of the few good provisions of the I-bill, i.m.o., was to initiate quotas & incentives for higher-skilled immigrants, which would incidentally have contributed to a healthier tax base.)</p>
<p>I also find it distasteful that anyone would suggest that it’s a healthy economic situation, or justice for the working poor, that we continue to receive ever increasing numbers of low-skilled workers so that they can pay for <em>other</em> people’s social security, but not their own. (Or that anyone would rationalize illegal immigration based on such a scheme – which is essentially what mini is doing.)</p>
<p>Well, katlia, I do put my money where my mouth is, actually, and refuse to shop at Wal-Mart, for a variety of reasons. I guess I travel with an odd set, because similarly no one I know shops at Wal-Mart, and none of us is rich, either.</p>
<p>^^Excellent post, epiph…the first part echos what I was saying above in post #78, and I share your distaste for what you described in the second part.</p>
<p>…as is yours, berurah, but precious few posters (or Senators) will recognize education and health care for the immense “entitlements” that they are.</p>
<p>And btw, when teachers know for a fact that an immigrant’s family is undocumented, if those teachers have the bad luck to teach in a [<em>cough</em>] “sanctuary city,” those teachers will get fired if they report the family. (Not speaking of children born here, but children born elsewhere.) Can you spell (political) e-x-t-o-r-t-i-o-n?</p>
<p>I’ll say the same thing, though, to you, katlia, as I said about mini’s post: that’s a heck of a reason to justify illegal immigration: because lots of Americans enjoy the benefits of underpaid labor (= the basis of cheap goods), which many people interpret as a kind of legalized blackmail (against the illegals).</p>
<p>I don’t know about the rest of Americans, but I loved being controlled by blackmail and extortion.</p>
<p>Thank you b., that is what I would like to see as well. It is unfathomable to me that a male undocumented worker with no education or English proficiency can possibly contribute more to the US than he “takes,” if he has a wife and 3 school-age kids and no medical insurance.</p>
<p>As someone else pointed out, accurate numbers are hard to find. Most available info seems to refer only to the benefit to the federal government (ie. soc.sec tax) and ignores the cost burden to the states for education, free medical care, welfare programs, free school lunches and breakfasts, prisons, court time, pollution, wear and tear on infrastructure and roads, etc.</p>
My favorites are Alice in Wonderland and Peter Pan. If they stay home, our living standard will fall, and so will theirs. It’s so simple, it’s covered in Macroeconomics 101.
Sorry, I was referring to complaints that illegals receive social services, either legally, or illegally using, e.g., a phony SSN. I just wondered which services you meant.</p>
<p>This seems like the abortion debate; we’re firmly on one side or the other, and don’t agree with the other side’s points. In this case, overall, we either feel like the U.S. standard of living is enough above the rest of the world’s such that there’s still more to share, or we feel there’s no more to share.</p>
<p>One way out of the amnesty issue is just to accept that the current law is wrong. We didn’t insist on prosecuting everyone who was drinking before we abolished prohibition; we just changed the law and moved on.</p>
<p>“One way out of the amnesty issue is just to accept that the current law is wrong. We didn’t insist on prosecuting everyone who was drinking before we abolished prohibition; we just changed the law and moved on.”</p>
<p>^^ which is what I’ve been saying. We could start by a rewording of the 14th amendment to ensure citizenship to those born of persons legally qualified to be here. That would begin to reduce the education burden, at the least.</p>
<p>you misunderstand me, epiphany. I’m not justifying illegal immigration, in fact just the opposite: I’m calling for immigration reform across the board.</p>
<p>Everyone (except congress) is for reform, but there are so many versions of reform:</p>
<ul>
<li>Let them stay or kick them out</li>
<li>How many workers are allowed</li>
<li>Bring families or come alone</li>
<li>Minimum wage or lower</li>
<li>Get benefits or not</li>
<li>Force to learn English or not</li>
</ul>
<p>The list goes on and on, and since congress is stalemated, the current situation will not change.</p>
<p>The usual bedfellows are at odds on this one:</p>
<ul>
<li>Ideological conservatives and business</li>
<li>Ideological liberals and labor</li>
</ul>
<p>I grew up on a tobacco farm and it was a good year if my dad made $7k a year. He grew pretty much everything we needed. Working tobacco is just about the nastiest thing a person can do - it is back breaking dirty work and is incredibly labor intensive. When I was very young, my father would just drive through town and men would be out waitiing to be picked up for a day’s work. My mom made a full breakfast with homemade buscuits that was waiting for them when my dad brought them home. She also made a huge home cooked lunch that we called dinner. They claimed they would work for just those meals if they had to. Over the years, my dad came home with fewer and fewer men - they just wouldn’t do the work and they pretty much told him that he couldn’t pay them enough to do it. It was a different generation. Finally, my dad joined the co-op that brought migrant workers in from Mexico. They worked so much harder that his days were shorter by a third and they were always ready to work. They weren’t illegal then but I’m sure plenty of them stayed here when they were supposed to return. Now the barn where I board my horse is in the same situation. I’m not sure what you would have to pay Americans to shovel horse poop all day long every day, but they’re not lined up to do it. The guy who does it has 6 kids in Mexico and he hasn’t seen them in 5 years. He talks to them on the phone every night. I don’t know what the answer is, but my standard is that I don’t begrudge anything of people with whom I would not switch places. I am proud to be a bleeding heart liberal but the sacrifice this man makes for his family is admirable and, above all, so sad. If I had the means, I would make this man a citizen tomorrow and bring all his kids here to live. That’s just how I feel - can’t explain it any better.</p>
<p>“Well, you can hardly blame that on either undocumented immigrants or on employers.”</p>
<p>I don’t blame it on either. But, it plays a part in the argument that "no one else will do the work, if we don’t have these illegals. Many would - if that is the only way they could eat, live, etc. And, I’m not blaming those who chose welfare - rather than unpleasant hard work - they are just taking advantage of the system that allows such. It shouldn’t be an option!</p>
<p>I’m not sure either, but I have seen several vehicles driving around town, advertising a business to “scoop your dog’s poop” on a regular basis for a fee. Obviously, some licensed drivers (thus legal?)/entrepreneurs have found such work to be lucrative.</p>
<p>^oh I see…if you are poor, you somehow are deserving of abridged human rights? BTW…sounds to me like he IS supporting his six kids doing whatever necessary.</p>
<p>No, if you are poor, you have no business bringing children into this world that you cannot support without resorting to illegal activity and be present to raise, as well.</p>
<p>So our servicemen and women shouldn’t be allowed to have children?</p>
<p>Many, many of them cannot be present to raise their children. Many, many of them also live below the poverty line. Though I suspect their kids just do without, since their parents aren’t in a position to resort to illegal activty.</p>
<p>I have actually heard people argue this, you know. That women in the military shouldn’t have children because of the risk that they might get shipped out. Given the length of ready reserve, this would put most women over 30 before they could start have children, and officers well over 40.</p>
<p>Well, that is the choice they make. It is obviously perfectly legal for a person to bring a child into this world that s/he cannot raise either physically or financially, and I am not arguing this point. It is the innocent children who will suffer. If that is fine with you, well that is your right to think so as well.</p>
<p>Wow Bay…I am speechless. I was always taught that until you have walked a mile in another man’s shoes…</p>
<p>I venture to guess that there are some rich fathers who are present in their kids lives that do a worse job in parenting than the poor man who is shoveling manure. Who are we to judge?</p>