Would you be willing to pay more taxes to help pay for cost of immigrants moving to your country, making sure they had a fair chance to make a life for themselves. Lets also assume that these immigrant are emigrating from their home country due to serve social and economic instability.
I’ve left it fairly vague so feel free to leave your deeper rational, and what qualifiers are informant for you.
Withteeth
hessianwithteeth 
February 6th, 2016 at 10:56 am
If we’re talking about immigration into the U.S., really we’d be able to afford it easy if we’d just cut some of our RIDICULOUS military spending, as well as rescinding some of the tax cuts for the 1%. But if it came down to paying higher taxes, yes, I’d be okay with that.
LikeLike
September 6th, 2015 at 8:40 am
The broad brush oversimplified answer is NO
As for asylum anyone who fails to see it as an abused concept is naive at best.
LikeLike
August 25th, 2015 at 12:15 am
I found this book a very worthwhile read on the topic: http://www.amazon.com/Immigrants-Your-Country-Needs-Them/dp/0691134316/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1440483201&sr=8-1&keywords=your+country+needs+immigrants
LikeLike
August 24th, 2015 at 5:31 pm
It is great that you feel that way. More power to you. You are welcome to donate anything you wish. However, don’t force (through taxes) others who don’t share that feeling to pay for UNLIMITED immigration, which will destroy any country which allows it, much less one which encourages it.
LikeLike
August 24th, 2015 at 4:14 pm
Yes. Just yes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
August 23rd, 2015 at 11:41 am
I think it’s weird to see “immigration” as one homogeneous group: immigrants are not uniform.
For the sake of this brief comment, I’m going to split immigration into 3 groups:
(1) Asylum seekers – happy to fund asylum seekers. It’s an ethical thing, no financial or economic thoughts on this.
(2) Economic migrants – Economic migrants I think need certain rules and limits. I like, for example, the idea of not offering governmental benefits and welfare payments until a person has resided in the country for a certain length of time — a length of time that allows them to demonstrate their intention to be a contributor. If they have the intention to be economically active, I think offering a little help is a good economic investment.
(3) Benefit migrants – There are a number of people who enter countries like England because they are entitled to NHS health and housing benefits. If they’ve entered the country with that intention, then I am less happy to pay for them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
August 23rd, 2015 at 1:03 pm
Good division; each can do it legally or illegally. I would say the easiest way to describe that would be to add a 4th division – those who come in illegally for any reason.
I have plenty of sympathy for asylum seekers who are willing and able to come in legally (and would support making that process easier as necessary while keeping fraud to a minimum), as long as they demonstrate continuing assimilation and striving for self sufficiency, and would be willing to help them out.
I don’t have any sympathy for those who come here to work, unless we really are short a particular type, and the people who need that employee should fully fund them and insure they assimiate.
I have no sympathy whatsoever for anyone who comes here to mooch, or comes here illegally for any reason, or comes here and is unwilling or unable to assimilate.
“Assimilate”, in my opinion, includes learning the language, adopting much of the culture, and working for any changes with the agreement of the majority rather than with hysteria and whining. .
LikeLike
August 23rd, 2015 at 5:14 pm
It is always legal to seek asylum. There is no such thing as an illegal asylum seeker.
LikeLike
August 23rd, 2015 at 6:56 pm
It is always legal to APPLY for asylum. If a person sneaks in without applying for asylum or following any other legal process, it is illegal no matter how terrible the situation the person is trying to get away from..
LikeLike
August 24th, 2015 at 1:01 am
There are many places in which there is no process by which to apply. It is perfectly legal for a person to arrive in a country, by any means, and then apply for asylum once there.
If they arrive and then disappear into the population without applying, *that’s* illegal, but they are not actually seeking asylum.
This is a big problem here where our government is illegally incarcerating legal asylum seekers (including children). It’s so important to keep in front of our population that what our government is doing is both illegal and immoral, and that we should be able to respond better than this.
LikeLike
August 24th, 2015 at 5:01 pm
Is it really legal for a person to “arrive in a country by any means”? Let us say that a person validly needing asylum crawls through a tunnel into a country and heads for the nearest place where asylum can be requested. Their need and intent may be acceptable, but have they not broken the law? If they are picked up before reaching their destination, how can a country know their true intention?
I would think the “proper” way to request asylum would be to go to the “edge” of the country (entry point or an embassy) and make the request there.
A country has the absolute right to say “You, can live here. You, can visit here. You, however, must keep out”. As long as the selection criteria used are effective in filtering out those who are likely to significantly negatively affect the country, it is not only a right, but an obligation.
LikeLike
August 24th, 2015 at 8:03 pm
Yes, the means of arrival does not affect the legality. Whether it’s by boat, plane, smuggled in in a shipping container, whatever; the right to do so is protected by international law.
A country which is a signatory to the relevant international legislation does not have the absolute right to turn away an asylum seeker. They have offered that umbrella to protect the world’s most vulnerable people.
I must admit I am not clear on where America is at in regard to that international law, but I would have thought it would be a signatory…?
LikeLike
August 25th, 2015 at 9:19 am
I don’t doubt that an asylum seeker can arrive AT the country by any means. It is the IN I am questioning. Admittedly, I’ve been surprised by the lack of intelligence of some laws before, but it seems to me that a country would insist the immigrant stop at the “border” to be evaluated. In the case of the shipping container, that they would flag customs, again at the “border” legally even though inside the country geographically. As soon as the person starts wandering around in the country without permission, their appropriateness and legality comes into question. It would seem that no matter how a person arrives, they would have the physical opportunity (legal opportunity is a different aspect) to apply for legal entrance before actually stepping “onto” the country’s property.
LikeLike
August 25th, 2015 at 5:03 pm
Well, not all means of transport stop at the “border.” Say you fly in; you don’t get to stop at the edge of a country’s airspace, you have to get to the air port and take it from there. And much of most countries’ borders are unmanned; most of ours is deserted coastline. You’d have to go a long way just to find someone to talk to.
But no, my understanding is that you can cross the border then request asylum.
LikeLike
August 25th, 2015 at 5:49 pm
I can’t speak for any other country, but in the U.S. when an international flight lands, it is sequestered in a blocked off portion of the airport. So, although geographically a person might be located inside the U.S., to get “actually” into the country, one has to go through an immigration and customs checkpoint. Sure there are places where you can walk or swim or skydive or tunnel into the country, but no place you can legally access the country without passing through a checkpoint.
All I can say is, as far as I know, every country has designated points of entry, and if an asylum seeker can’t be bothered to go to one of them, then I question how appropriate granting the asylum is. Yes, there are people out there in terrible circumstances, and a country which can, should help out to the degree they don’t damage themselves. Letting in “anybody” at “any time” is a recipe for disaster, and if someone shows up in the interior of the country saying “hey give me some of that asylum”, I’d be reluctant to give it to them. I’d want to know really good reasons they decided not to go to a port of entry, and if they had a good reason, I’d want to be sure that every effort while in the country was focused on getting to the place of request.
LikeLike
August 25th, 2015 at 9:12 pm
If you have a name for the relevant international treating it would probably be easy to fact check.
LikeLike
August 25th, 2015 at 10:08 pm
There is some basic information here. http://www.geneva-academy.ch/RULAC/international_refugee_law.php
I note that it states that a refugee is a person outside their country of origin or habitual residence
LikeLike
August 25th, 2015 at 10:09 pm
Drat, hit “send” too early. I think this falls under the 1951 Refugee convention, and its governing protocol.
At any rate, it seems to be saying that the point in seeking asylum is not where you are, or how you got there, but that you are outside your own country and unable or unwilling to return due to fear of persecution on specified grounds.
LikeLiked by 1 person
August 25th, 2015 at 10:15 pm
This is a quote from the introductory note to the text of the 1951 Refugee convention:
The Convention further stipulates that, subject to specific exceptions, refugees
should not be penalized for their illegal entry or stay. This recognizes
that the seeking of asylum can require refugees to breach immigration rules.
Prohibited penalties might include being charged with immigration or criminal
offences relating to the seeking of asylum, or being arbitrarily detained
purely on the basis of seeking asylum. Importantly, the Convention contains
various safeguards against the expulsion of refugees. The principle of nonrefoulement
is so fundamental that no reservations or derogations may be
made to it. It provides that no one shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee
against his or her will, in any manner whatsoever, to a territory where he or
she fears threats to life or freedom…
LikeLike
August 26th, 2015 at 11:23 am
A refugee has been granted permission, by the government, and that government is required to follow certain standards of treatment. An asylum seeker only has the right to request asylum, and the individual governments set their own standards on how they treat them before granting the asylum, and under what conditions they can refuse the request. They just can’t penalize them for the illegal entry.
LikeLike
August 26th, 2015 at 11:16 am
You are correct; I talked to my sister who has trained in international law, and it is legal to enter a country without permission and then request asylum. A person can request asylum at the border, but the odds of it being granted are quite low. If a person requests permission before leaving their home location, they are requesting “refugee” status, not asylum.
LikeLike
August 21st, 2015 at 6:45 pm
This conversation is very America-centric.
In Australia, one of the biggest arguments for a higher level of immigration is that our population is aging; we have baby boomers about to retire and the generations coming behind them in the workforce are smaller, so a smaller tax base is going to support a larger number of retirees (with increased associated medical costs etc). Allowing younger immigrants in from elsewhere can address this imbalance.
Where the tension comes in, I think, is that the people who want to come are not necessarily the people Australian citizens would like to have come. This can be a very racist country, and one wary of cultural and religious difference as well.
So it makes me wonder whether people are really worried about “immigrants,” or whether the issue is that the immigrants might not be very much like me, and our society might change as a result (become more diverse, socially, culturally, linguistically, religiously)?
LikeLiked by 1 person
August 22nd, 2015 at 4:07 pm
The purpose of immigration, from the perspective of a country, is to improve the country by importing the people they are short of. Or at least it should be. A wise leadership thinks of its own citizens first, and then looks how they might help deserving foreigners.
If a country is short of young people, then young people should be recruited to immigrate. Young people who seem like they would be a net benefit to the country and not those proven to be a net loss.
To allow racism to be a guide is really stupid; if you focus on race you are guaranteed to keep out some who are exceptional because they are the “wrong” race, and allow in some who are disastrous even though they are the “right” race. As for changes, that can be a good thing. No country is perfect, and wise ones (if there are any 🙂 can learn from other cultures. The trick is to ensure that your immigrants “assimilate”, that is, while the country is learning from them, they are learning from the country. After all, the place they left was not perfect (if it was, why did they leave), so insisting the new place become “the same” or even “mostly similar” seems a really silly desire on the part of the immigrants, and it is suicidal for a country to allow or even support that silliness..
LikeLike
August 21st, 2015 at 2:28 pm
I guess you have to be an immigrant, or part of an immigrant family, to understand the ramifications. Anyone who knows even a little about Western imperialism would realize that immigrants, by and large, do not leave their own country simply to find better opportunities in America or elsewhere. It’s not a free will choice. The severe social conditions they are escaping from are usually if not always, the result of imperial depredation; global corporations raping resources and labour, destroying the environment, the people pushed into impossible conditions from which they cannot escape because of the convenient handshake between corporations, banks and the military – in most case the US military – being the bully boy and policeman enforcing the law of the jungle on behalf of corporations.
Americans should be fully aware of this, but between patriotism, the denial thing, and abysmal lack of knowledge of both, geography and history, they can’t admit to it, so create their own myth about their *nameless* country as a place of opportunity for all. A sad state of self-imposed blindness but the historical fate of all denizens of dying empires.
To touch on the topic again, immigrants aren’t asking for handouts. All they want is an equal opportunity at making a living in “Rome” since the empire has made it impossible to make a living in what was once their own country. If oppressors (aware of it or not) would help so-called immigrants, they could demand that their home-based corporations and military leave those countries alone. Stop robbing them blind, poisoning their lands and waters; stop political destabilization; stop overthrowing legitimate local governments and imposing US corporate friendly dictators; stop creating terrorist groups and organizations.
Then go weed your own beans in your own bean fields. That’s just for a start.
LikeLiked by 1 person
August 21st, 2015 at 3:25 pm
Some immigrants are as you see them. Sadly, some are not.
Moving to somewhere else if the current location is undesirable is a short term solution, particularly if then attempting to make the new place mirror the place left. The result is never any improvement in the old place, and a high probability of a decline in the new place.
LikeLike
August 21st, 2015 at 8:05 pm
Not to sound flippant, but do you have numbers to support such a claim, because in my experience immigrant tend to bring large amount of value via cheap labor into a country. Further the US has continued to be a leader in science not because it breeds the greatest scientist in the world, but because it attracts scientists from all over the world, and those folks are immigrants by in large. I’m not saying immigrants can’t cause problems, but I would suggest that they are more typically used as scapegoats rather then causing serious problems. And why? Because they are politically weak, so have no real means of defending themselves from such claims.
And you know lies repeated often enough…
LikeLike
August 22nd, 2015 at 3:17 pm
Which claim? That some immigrants are not as Sha’Tara says they are?
Numbers? Not so much. First of all, let us separate immigrants into those who went through the annoyance of coming here legally and those who did not.
I suspect, as you say, the first group tends to be above average in value when compared to the American Citizen population, simply because they did have the ability and persistence to get through the process. They show that they are coming here because they approve of the place and want to part of it.
On the other hand, I question the value of most of those who came here or stayed here illegally. Obviously, they don’t have any concern for the law; if one easily breaks one, it is unlikely they will balk much at breaking others. As far as I can tell, about 1/3 of residents in prison are illegal immigrants, mostly for breaking other laws than immigration ones. In many cases, they don’t think much of America, and have no interest in assimilating.
“value of cheap labor”, eh? Yes, it is nice to have people who work cheap and won’t whine about poor or dangerous working conditions. Nice for employers, that is. Gives them the ability to not hire Americans or pay reasonable wages. Explains why we have a REAL unemployment rate of 15% or more. Reminds me of a time in our history when we thought “free” labor was a good thing…
LikeLike
August 21st, 2015 at 10:31 am
Interesting so far, I am reading all the comments, but I want to see a larger diversity of opinions before I drive back in with my thoughts. Thanks to everyone who’s commented so far.
Withteeth
LikeLike
August 21st, 2015 at 8:30 am
If you are to talk about paying taxes, let’s keep in mind that the USA has 4% of the world’s population and spends 50% of the world’s military budget. Wanna cut taxes? Drop your military bases empire. As an immigrant myself I can assure you that we pay way more than our fair share of taxes to our recipient country in one way or another, all info to the contrary being mis, and dis, information. Immigrants work harder, suffer greater discrimination and do the most menial jobs. We don’t get on the social safety net as easily as the “natives” do. In the States and Canada, without immigrants you’d probably have to close most of your hotels, fast foods and entertainment centers. Your offices wouldn’t get cleaned and you’d probably starve to death with nobody taking care of the fields. Just something to think about before we begin talking about who pays for what. Immigrants don’t come to “First world” countries to lounge about on welfare.
LikeLiked by 3 people
August 21st, 2015 at 10:50 am
The primary function of a government is (or at least should be) to protect its inhabitants from outside aggression. Are their improvements which could be made to the U.S. military spending? Probably. Cutting it without analysis is likely to be societal suicide.
It is entirely possible that you pay “your fair share” or more. Not all immigrants do, and certainly not most illegal immigrants. I know Americans who need services, and their experience is that immigrants DID have an easier time getting services than they did.
“Immigrants do the jobs Americans won’t” is a myth, unless you add the phrase “because the immigrants will do them for wages inappropriate in the American environment”.
There are two types of immigrants. Those who want to be Americans because they want to be part of America, and those who want to be in America only because they can get more. If a person wants to become an American because they approve of America, we can talk. If a person wants to make America into the same unfortunate place they came from while grabbing all they can, go away.
Intelligent immigration is a great idea to improve a country. Uncontrolled immigration is a guaranteed way to ruin a country.
LikeLike
August 21st, 2015 at 8:11 am
No. I have no problem with people wanting to come to the US. Despite how we are demonized around the world the US in an amazing country full of opportunities.
I do not know all the laws regarding people becoming citizens of the US, so please excuse my ignorance. Stories I have heard, it is really crazy. I believe it, anything done through the government is a nightmare. I think we can change laws to make it more streamline. BUT, I want strict requirements.
As a mom, I know that I would do all that I could to get to the US so my kids could have a better life, my heart feels their desperation. We should allow these people to come here and see how they contribute to our country! If they are being arrested, dealing drugs, hurting our people, send them back and they can never come to the US again.
The taxes we collect from immigrants, use that money to fund programs that helps other immigrants. Once they are US citizens, that switches over in the tax code, but if they want to voluntarily contribute to the immigrant fund, they can do so. Just as any US citizen can contribute to the fund.
LikeLike
August 21st, 2015 at 7:40 am
I would, in a very general sense. The rationale for me is: some level of immigration is inevitable and brings with it both advantages and disadvantages. We need government policies to maximize the advantage of having a healthy immigration policy and minimizes the negative impacts. Some level of support for immigrants is good for everyone.
LikeLiked by 2 people
August 21st, 2015 at 6:22 am
Yes, I would. But I am an immigrant, and I believe that in the long run we contribute more of value to our adopted country than we might take up in initial support.
LikeLiked by 3 people
August 21st, 2015 at 4:43 am
Asking the AMerican people to pay more taxes will only enhance the racism that already exists, it would create more hostility than anything. Asking the immigrants themselves to pay higher taxes and do community service for a period of time once they enter is a better solution. Speaking from experience, these ‘illegals’ are willing to pay, work, and do whatever they have to to live here, but often times that is not an option. I tried to legalize my husband and father of my kids for @7 years and was told by 5 different lawyers that it was impossible and we should lay low until the laws change. If everyone wants to come here, why not EARN your way in by making the country a better place to live for all of us? If they were given that option they would JUMP at it!
LikeLike
August 21st, 2015 at 10:34 am
I’ve got a niece who didn’t seem to have much trouble legalizing her husband. Perhaps things were different 10 years ago?
LikeLike
August 26th, 2015 at 9:42 am
It really depends on the country you immigrate from, how you entered the U.S. and how much $$ you have. Previous to the Waco Texas tragedy you could come here and marry whoever and become legal immediately, lots of people think that’s the way it still is, its not. I was married to my husband and had 2 kids by the time he was finally granted permission to stay. I have a friend with the same situation, her kids were 3 and 7 by the time dad was allowed to stay in the U.S.
LikeLike
August 21st, 2015 at 1:14 am
A state has a government which makes decisions for its people, the citizens. The citizens, known as society pay taxes to the government to take care of all affairs that they do not want to or can take care of. Often this is summarised in the constitution.
Immigrants are people who are not citizens. If you would introduce an immigrant tax that pays for the initial costs of them being in your country you would ask questions.
1. What about us and our needs?
2. What exactly do the immigrants need?
3. What exactly can we do?
4. What would be the total expected costs for everything the immigrants need?
5. Who is in charge of and responsible for this task (set)?
6. Who checks the financial records and reports back?
Immigrants are people. When they are kind and want to work and live their lives in peace, why refuse them access? It is all in the details…
LikeLike
October 31st, 2015 at 6:59 pm
The Bill of Rights applies to everyone within our borders weather they are citizens or not. Citizenship is important for voting but not otherwise required of people who come to live and work here from other countries. Because we don’t recognize dual citizenship many aliens choose to become legal residents to keep their home country citizenship. Then there are those who are here on various visa programs. There are folks here on various refuge programs. There are those who overstay there visas and those who arrive here undocumented. All who work here pay taxes. All visitors, refugees, legal residents, diplomats, and undocumented fall under our protection under the constitution. It is exactly what we expect when move around other countries ourselves. So what is it you are asking us to do differently?
LikeLike
October 31st, 2015 at 10:42 pm
I’m sorry, but no, not everyone who works here pays taxes. Or pays all the taxes they should. Some citizens cheat; many who are here illegally cheat or don’t pay any. And the tax code helps them cheat. For instance, the ability of an illegal filing a return to get a credit for every child they are “responsible” for, even if that child is in another country. No need to prove they are really responsible for that child, or that the child even exists. Last time I checked (a year or two ago), this ran into a few BILLION dollars in such credits in that year. Many illegals claimed ten or even twenty such children.
LikeLike
October 31st, 2015 at 11:05 pm
They pay state sales tax. They pay property taxes if they rent an apartment. They pay gas taxes and excise taxes. If their employers are honest, they pay income tax and payroll deductions for social security, Medicare, etc. As for the child loophole you mention, can you send me a link so I can look at it?
LikeLiked by 1 person
October 31st, 2015 at 11:36 pm
Not much sales tax. Immigrants tend to not be “consumers”. So, since food tends to be untaxed or taxed at a low rate, sales tax is less than average. They pay into property taxes, but perhaps at a lower rate than average (living in lesser quarters, and/or with more people in each place). Most employers of “illegals” are not honest or they would not hire illegals. Even the honest ones and/or those who hire those who can legally work here pay at a lower rate.
http://cis.org/child-tax-credits
http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/michael-shedlock/irs-refunds-4-billion-child-tax-credits
LikeLike
November 1st, 2015 at 3:17 pm
Regarding the child tax credit, I read the article and followed The link back to the original IRS memorandum. It seems that the problem is with the way the Congress wrote the laws, and the way the various agencies have interpreted those laws. The problem is not with illegal immigrants directly. They are currently able, under Iris code,
LikeLike
November 1st, 2015 at 3:18 pm
Here is a passage directly from the IRS memo.
Nonetheless, IRS management’s view is that the law does not provide sufficient legal authority for the IRS to disallow the ACTC to ITIN filers. In addition, the Internal Revenue Code does not require an SSN to claim the ACTC and does not provide the IRS math error authority to deny the credit without an examination. As such, the IRS continues to pay the ACTC to ITIN filers.
LikeLike
November 1st, 2015 at 3:24 pm
Another obvious point about the child tax credit is this, if four point something million is the amount of fraud alleged, then the amount of income taxes actually paid has to be in the hundreds of billions. This supports my original contention that they pay, or many pay, a lot of income tax. Keep in mind, that with these individual taxpayer identification numbers they also pay into Social Security and Medicaid skews me Medicare without any chance of collecting on those benefits unless and until they become citizens. Social Security and medicare received a great deal of surplus income from undocumented immigrants who can never collect on the money they contribute. This adds billions annually to support the social security system.
LikeLike
November 1st, 2015 at 8:03 pm
Um, I think you missed the point. Many of those who have a ITN claim a bunch of kids in order to not pay all the taxes they “should” (if the law was not hosed) or even pay no taxes and actually get a check.
LikeLike
November 1st, 2015 at 8:06 pm
My comments are on point. They are permitted to do just that from what I read.
LikeLike
November 1st, 2015 at 9:01 pm
??? Of course they are permitted to do that. Just because it is legal does not mean it is “right” or “moral”. And actually, it is not “legal”, just that there is no practical way to prevent those that use it fraudulently.
The whole point was your view that illegal immigrants “pay a lot of taxes” and my view that they don’t pay as much as they “should”; some by not paying any and some others by taking advantage of poorly written or interpreted law. Some, of course, do pay every penny they “should”, but that is not much since such tend to be in low paying positions.
LikeLike
November 1st, 2015 at 9:34 pm
If you really want to talk about avoidance of taxes, talk to your Wall Street investment banksters, your billionaires and their puppet politicians. Look at the real and blatant thieves, not at those trying to survive in a landscape that more and more resembles that portrayed on “The Day After.” There’s a saying, “Look at the beam in your own eye before you say to your neighbour, let me take the straw out of your eye.”
LikeLike
November 1st, 2015 at 11:57 pm
Yes, I’m sure the ITN child credit is not the only part of the tax code which is written or interpreted badly. But any other problem areas have nothing to do with this particular thread of conversation, which is a discussion of the value versus cost of illegal immigration.
LikeLike
November 2nd, 2015 at 11:16 am
This may come across as harsh but the more I read your replies, the more they read like someone trolling. They remind me of conversations I had in the past with members of the Fraser Institute. Why do you have such a problem with “illegal” immigration? Unless you are a bona fide Native American, you too are an illegal alien, or a descendent of illegal aliens. Native Americans never invited Europeans and others to settle in their lands – they were all invaders.
LikeLike
November 2nd, 2015 at 8:58 pm
My problem with illegal immigration is the illegal part, not the immigration part. One, it is a problem to reward people for breaking the law. Two, it is unconstitutional for our officials to ignore laws they disagree with. And three, myself, as well as people I know, have been negatively impacted by illegal immigrants.
Trolling, I doubt it (I’m not even sure what that is). Passionate, certainly.
LikeLike
November 3rd, 2015 at 6:26 am
On balance undocumented aliens have a slightly positive impact on our economy according to several studies conducted by nonpartisan scholars. There is room to debate these findings but the larger point is that undocumented workers are not the big cause of economic harm they are made out to be. Blaming them for our economic woes is a deliberate devised distraction to shift attention away from organized corporate elites who abruptly stopped giving workers a share of productivity gains forty years ago. In a world where public concerns were always proportional to scale it would be the massive tax dodges of wealthy corporations that would warrant such public ire. Yes we have to control our boarders, but people who rage against poor immigrants, or poor people generally, are being deliberately manipulated by the people directly responsible for their financial discomfort.
LikeLike
November 3rd, 2015 at 10:51 am
Ok, how do illegal immigrants provide benefit to the economy?
LikeLike
November 3rd, 2015 at 11:18 am
You should try Googling answers to your own questions before you post them…. Ten Ways Immigrants Help Build and Strengthen Our …
https://www.whitehouse.gov/…/ten-ways-immigrants-help-b…
Do Immigrants Boost Economic Growth? Yes …
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/…/do_immigrants_boost_economic_growth_...
Three Reasons Why Immigrants Help the U.S. Economy …
http://www.inc.com/…/three-reasons-why-immigrants-help-the-u-s-econom...
How migrants help | The Economist
http://www.economist.com/…/21635008-and-how-obamas-orde...
IMMIGRATION: The Economic Benefits of Immigration …
clas.berkeley.edu/…/immigration-econ…
Facts About Immigration and the U.S. Economy: Answers to …
http://www.epi.org/publication/immigration-facts/
Is migration good for the economy? – OECD
http://www.oecd.org/...
Immigrants have enriched American culture and enhanced our
http://www.cato.org/…/immigrants-have-enriched-american-cultu...
LikeLike
November 3rd, 2015 at 6:53 pm
Most of these links are broken. The one from epi.com had some good information about LEGAL immigrants, but the information about illegal immigrants appeared flawed compared to my personal experiences. I think the people who came to those conclusions either deliberately or accidentally had too narrow a focus.
LikeLike
November 3rd, 2015 at 11:33 am
Do Undocumented Immigrants Benefit the US Economy?
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/…/Reality-Check-Do-Undocumented-Immi...
Despite frequent claims by conservative politicians and pundits, the reality is that undocumented immigrant workers have a net positive contribution to the U.S. economy — it’s something that economists of all stripes and the research (both government and academic) have found repeatedly.
How big the benefit is and what kinds of immigrant workers contribute the most is up for debate, explained U.C. Davis economist Giovanni Peri, who has done extensive research on the economic impact of immigrants.
LikeLike
November 3rd, 2015 at 6:43 pm
Link did not work
LikeLike
November 1st, 2015 at 4:25 am
Define a citizen and a minefield appears. Sometimes I detest the concept of citizenship…
LikeLike
November 1st, 2015 at 12:22 pm
Isn’t the definition cut and dried (legally specified)?. It is qualification for and responsibilities/advantages of which can get murky
LikeLike
November 1st, 2015 at 2:13 pm
I think “Americans” probably more than any other people, have a problem with the concept of citizenship. Perhaps that is due to the attempted application of the “melting pot” idea: forcing everybody who comes to the US to become a “citizen” with no fixed idea what that entails. What would it mean to me to be a US citizen after watching that place from just north of the Canadian border? After seeing its pretense of the good life plastered all over here through TV, religion, ads and made in the USA concepts that portray a false lifestyle (e.g., Coke and McDonalds) and bad ideas, particularly about gun ownership, racism, patriotism and the ubiquitous worship of its military; aspects Canadians don’t seem to have much use for. When I became a Canadian citizen, I knew it meant that I should live by the laws of the land – and if those laws should become oppressive, it meant that I would have to join with other Canadians to change those laws – which I have done, loudly but legally.
What does it mean to be an American when you live in a place that does not even have a name for itself? When so many people simply try to exist in an increasingly oppressive structure? When so many are marginalized because of race, colour, gender, religion – especially when such marginalization is done surreptitiously, to individuals rather than to groups so as to hide it? The problem with US citizenship is, it doesn’t mean what people think it means and for an immigrant that gets pretty confusing and dangerous. What does “freedom” actually mean? Who defines it: the law, the courts, the boss, the mob or the gun-toting loner whacked-out on drugs? So yes, being a “citizen” in as confused a place as the US is very much like walking through a minefield. What amazes me more than anything is that a place that can’t get its own act together has the gall to go into foreign countries and make a pretense of bringing “peace, justice and freedom” to those countries demonstrating to the whole world how utterly inept they are at it. Or perhaps, as they do “at home” they are there specifically to spread terror and create chaos; to destroy those nations so they will be easier to despoil of their resources. Now, what on earth would make me think that?
LikeLike
November 1st, 2015 at 3:32 pm
Please allow me to say one more thing here. The very, very conservative US Chamber of Commerce came out some time ago to puncture myths about the cost of illegal immigration, and I wrote a summary im my blog about it. Here is the link if you are interested in seeing what they had to say. https://wordpress.com/post/43547471/1164/
LikeLike
November 1st, 2015 at 7:31 pm
Could it be that the Chamber of Commerce is big in favor of cheap labor? Is it beyond the realm of possibility that they spun things a bit (ie, lied their head off)?
(that link does not work)
LikeLike
November 1st, 2015 at 8:09 pm
I might buy that if these same facts had not been independently reported by scholarly institutions and independent government agencies like the CBO
LikeLike
November 1st, 2015 at 11:16 pm
“independant”? Maybe, maybe not.
“scholarly institutions”? “government agencies”? Sure, these organizations never present or are pressured to present a slanted view.
I suspect (I could be wrong), that if EVERYTHING was considered, that the cost of illegal immigration greatly outweighs the benefits to the country and those here legally.
There appears to be a fair “profit” for some people from illegal immigration and they “push” it with great vigor.
LikeLike