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.
"why have public services if they don't help the public"
legal citizens only
If people are paying taxes, they are part of the public. The majority of illegal immigrants do pay income taxes. All people in the US pay sales tax. Also, if they gain amnesty, they would be citizens anyways...
Having documents printed in anything other than english would also seem to be an unnecessary use of taxpayer monies....Lord knows the politicians have a penchant for wasting "our money)
Actually this saves money in the long run. I don't expect you to understand. Accurate projections and accurate censuses are essential for our nation. Why would we want to have an inaccurate census?
As stated, either their family covers the cost or they themselves do, not the taxpayers....
That's ridiculous...simply put. I'm assuming you don't know how much tuition costs. Plus, federal loans are just that...loans. So you want less to go to college, simply due to finances? This is your idea of how to make America better?
Should the taxpayer be responsible for the healthcare of illegals and their children ?
And people who apply for citizenship are required to have meetings with the immigration authorities...and they must have a means of support and are denied certain benefits....and they went through the system.....why not illegals ?
People who apply for citizenship typically are higher on the socio-economic ladder. It is highly cost prohibitve to go via legal means. Again, we need a system that addresses this. We need a system that addresses the immigration market. A black market is thriving due to poor regulation.
Meetings would be another tax burden and just an unneeded layer. It won't serve to accomplish anything. Again, why?
Healthcare really should be universal. It makes no sense that 15% of the United States is not covered, yet we spend more per capita on health than any other nation.
The hope is that we foster and create illegal immigrants to the middle class. Not to create an underclass.
jmo
Oh Well,You know what they say about opinions.....I never expected to change Yours.....
Anyway, time to continue packing and repacking the backpack for our winter survival outing...still too much weight.
Well, You lost me on this one, let me see what I said that I need to clarify.....
Me to. I am still trying to figure out this so-called analogy of the "cash for clonkers" relates to an amnesty that would benefit mostly Hispanic illegals and the choice that we ALL had to buy a new car, not just whites. It has already been pre-determined that amnesty would benefit hispanics mostly but it was never pre-determined that whites would mostly benefit from a cash for clonkers program.
Me to. I am still trying to figure out this so-called analogy of the "cash for clonkers" relates to an amnesty that would benefit mostly Hispanic illegals and the choice that we ALL had to buy a new car, not just whites. It has already been pre-determined that amnesty would benefit hispanics mostly but it was never pre-determined that whites would mostly benefit from a cash for clonkers program.
Okay, I'll go slower. Clearly you don't have a good grasp with analogous situations. Your point is that amnesty wouldn't be fair since the majority of illegal immigrants are Hispanic (demography). That would be analogous to saying that Cash for Clunkers is unfair since the majority of Americans are White, thus Whites would benefit more (again, more a demographic issue). However, we know that Cash for Clunkers is open to all races (implementation issue). Thus, Cash for Clunkers is "fair" (no race is excluded). With amnesty, we know that illegal immigrants regardless of ethnicity or race would be granted amnesty (implementation). Thus we know it's fair (no race is excluded). You are confusing demography and implementation. Simply because the demographics show a higher percentage of a single race/ethnic group, doesn't automatically mean that a program is unfair. The implementation of such a program determines fairness.
It's really an easy concept. Being college educated (I think?) you should be able to understand how analogies work.
Whites have always been the majority of "citizens" in this country. So what? That doesn't mean they would automatically be the ones mostly taking advantage of this program. Your analogy is still ridiculous and makes no sense whatsover. It has already been pre-determined that amnesty would benefit hispanics mostly but it was never pre-determined that whites would mostly benefit from a cash for clonkers program because all ethnic groups had the same option of buying into it. I see more minorities driving clonkers than I do whites here.
Whites have always been the majority of "citizens" in this country. Your analogy is still ridiculous and makes no sense whatsover. I offered up a plan to make an amnesty fair to all ethnic groups (even though I still oppose an amesty).
Okay so maybe you don't understand how analogies work? You need not have two exact items. Otherwise it's not an analogy. You take a parallel and compare. Two public policies that benefit one ethnic group more (in sheer numbers only) but have equality opportunity for use (no exclusion on race). It's REALLY simple. It actually makes a lot of sense. I think you are getting lost in the details. Again, you need not compare an amnesty program to an amnesty program...that's not an analogy. You need two unique, yet similar items.
Refresh my memory, what is your "fair" amnesty plan? I really don't recall one...
Okay so maybe you don't understand how analogies work? You need not have two exact items. Otherwise it's not an analogy. You take a parallel and compare. Two public policies that benefit one ethnic group more (in sheer numbers only) but have equality opportunity for use (no exclusion on race). It's REALLY simple. It actually makes a lot of sense. I think you are getting lost in the details. Again, you need not compare an amnesty program to an amnesty program...that's not an analogy. You need two unique, yet similar items.
Refresh my memory, what is your "fair" amnesty plan? I really don't recall one...
Here, just for you.
"I agree there won't be any amnesty but just for the sake of argument I agree with your criteria for qualifying but I would add this. Yes, determine first what our actual foreign labor needs are. Those who have met the criteria and qualifed we should give amnesty to equally by ethnic group. The rest should go home and if there still is a shortage of American workers then pull equally from the ethnic groups still waiting to come here and can qualify by the same criteria. Sounds fair to me!
'
If we need workers they should be given a work visa, or even put into an extended worker program but we don't need to add to the 1/2 a million LEGAL people we let in a year.
"I agree there won't be any amnesty but just for the sake of argument I agree with your criteria for qualifying but I would add this. Yes, determine first what our actual foreign labor needs are. Those who have met the criteria and qualifed we should give amnesty to equally by ethnic group. The rest should go home and if there still is a shortage of American workers then pull equally from the ethnic groups still waiting to come here and can qualify by the same criteria. Sounds fair to me!
'
That actually wouldn't be fair since it would place quotas and restrictions... That's LESS fair. If you EXCLUDE people that's NOT fair. If you lack exclusions, that's MORE fair.
That actually wouldn't be fair since it would place quotas and restrictions... That's LESS fair. If you EXCLUDE people that's NOT fair. If you lack exclusions, that's MORE fair.
Oh brother, what screwed up rationale is this? I am done with this argument.
Now you are telling me that ethnic quotas are better? That "Oh, too many Hispanics...I like Indians, we need more Indians. Too many Indians now, let's bring in some Asians." Sorry, but is NOT fair.
I'm not the one with screwed up rationale, you might want to look a litte closer to see who that is, check a mirror...
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.
That actually wouldn't be fair since it would place quotas and restrictions... That's LESS fair. If you EXCLUDE people that's NOT fair. If you lack exclusions, that's MORE fair.
