Sen. Chuck Schumer tries reviving immigration bill (illegals, Reed, education)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1st. Legal immigration can only help an healthy economy. Our economy is hardly healthy. There are too many Americans out of work that must compete with non Americans.
2nd. These are illegals. They have broken our laws. Many of them are receiving government aid through their children. What use could they be to this economy?
Seriously? Legal immigrants = magically good for economy, but illegal immigrants = magically bad for economy? If that's true, the the solution seems obvious. Why, given YOUR ARGUMENT, would ANYONE oppose waving the magic wand and making all of those immigrants legal?
Seriously? Legal immigrants = magically good for economy, but illegal immigrants = magically bad for economy? If that's true, the the solution seems obvious. Why, given YOUR ARGUMENT, would ANYONE oppose waving the magic wand and making all of those immigrants legal?
Do you WANT to hurt the US economy?
I think the point is that Legal Immigrants have a much higher income rate (thus they actually pay taxes to cover their other costs which are limited for the first five years) vs Illegal Aliens having a lower income rate (usually having a negative tax rate), avg yearly income $31,000 per household, which after tax credits they receive more money back than what was withheld.
Your playing word games with the word immigrant and illegal immigrant treating them as though they are equivalent in all aspects. If you are referring to giving them non-immigrant work visas and having them comply with all requirements of that visa (which needs to be changed) then that may be an option provided that our social welfare programs are denied to them completely and that their children are not assumed, if born here, citizens. They could even be taxed differently, denying them tax credits.
Last edited by Liquid Reigns; 07-20-2011 at 07:43 PM..
I think the point is that Legal Immigrants have a much higher income rate (thus they actually pay taxes to cover their other costs which are limited for the first five years) vs Illegal Aliens having a lower income rate (usually having a negative tax rate), avg yearly income $31,000 per household, which after tax credits they receive more money back than what was withheld.
Your playing word games with the word immigrant and illegal immigrant treating them as though they are equivalent in all aspects. If you are referring to giving them non-immigrant work visas and having them comply with all requirements of that visa (which needs to be changed) then that may be an option provided that our social welfare programs are denied to them completely and that their children are not assumed, if born here, citizens. They could even be taxed differently, denying them tax credits.
We can have that argument separately. I think you can tell what rhymetime was getting at pretty clearly based on the post he is responding to. No one here actually differentiates between TYPES of illegals, but I'd sure like to get into a discussion about that.
Seriously? Legal immigrants = magically good for economy, but illegal immigrants = magically bad for economy? If that's true, the the solution seems obvious. Why, given YOUR ARGUMENT, would ANYONE oppose waving the magic wand and making all of those immigrants legal?
Do you WANT to hurt the US economy?
How are we hurting the U.S economy?
How is the unemployed Americans benefitting from jobs taken by illegals?
Again, the post I was responding to claimed that legal immigrants helped, while illegal immigrants hurt. If that is actually the case, then making the illegal ones legal would obviously make things better, so given that, then anyone opposing making illegal immigrants legal would be in favor of hurting the economy.
The conclusion here is that there must be something more than just "legal" or "illegal" that determines if someone is helpful or hurtful to "the economy".
Again, the post I was responding to claimed that legal immigrants helped, while illegal immigrants hurt. If that is actually the case, then making the illegal ones legal would obviously make things better, so given that, then anyone opposing making illegal immigrants legal would be in favor of hurting the economy.
The conclusion here is that there must be something more than just "legal" or "illegal" that determines if someone is helpful or hurtful to "the economy".
What is the cost of dealing with illegal immigrants versus legal immigrants?
I think it obvious that legals break few laws than illegals and are more likely to be crime free.
Now the argument of lets legalize the illegals and this will allow them to lead a crime free lifestyle although possibly valid in that its likely true does not address the fact that this rewards criminal behavior. Furthermore by rewarding such behavior does this not invite more of the same?
If instead we seek out and punish those who hire illegals cheating the system and we punish the illegals for their crimes???
Bottom line is We should never reward a criminal or a cheat.
Again, the post I was responding to claimed that legal immigrants helped, while illegal immigrants hurt. If that is actually the case, then making the illegal ones legal would obviously make things better, so given that, then anyone opposing making illegal immigrants legal would be in favor of hurting the economy.
The conclusion here is that there must be something more than just "legal" or "illegal" that determines if someone is helpful or hurtful to "the economy".
This is an illegal forum.
We can debate the legal immigrants in another forum.
Illegals damage the economy socially, economically & physically.
lol, you guys should really drop the pretense that you care about THE LAW.
I mean, this is a bill that is specifically about increasing legal immigration, but to you they'd STILL BE CRIMINALS. Because no matter what happens, to people like you they'll ALWAYS be criminals.
There's a word for people like you.
And that word is racist, right?
Schumer is a mediocrity and always has been even when he was a congressman. He and former senator Al D'amato are the Democratic and Republican version of Mutt and Jeff.
You're not going to magically turn unskilled, non-English speakers into productive citizens merely because Senator Pander thinks so.
Schumer is a mediocrity and always has been even when he was a congressman. He and former senator Al D'amato are the Democratic and Republican version of Mutt and Jeff.
You're not going to magically turn unskilled, non-English speakers into productive citizens merely because Senator Pander thinks so.
Your last sentence is technically true. But the fact is those people are ALREADY productive. The proof is in the pudding. People hire them.
When someone ignores facts that contradict their preconceived notions, that is bigotry. You can roll your eyes all you want.
We can have that argument separately. I think you can tell what rhymetime was getting at pretty clearly based on the post he is responding to. No one here actually differentiates between TYPES of illegals, but I'd sure like to get into a discussion about that.
Maybe you should start a thread.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
