I need to bookmark this article. I've brought this up in discussions before about illegals "leeching" tax services, and people are like, there's no way illegals pay taxes, they're stealing our gubm't money!

I would bookmark this while you are at it(pops)

Hmm, nine billion--that pays for how many days of QuagRaq?

.

rmoose: I would bookmark this while you are at it(pops)

FTA: "Ford said a majority of economists agree that illegal immigrants are a net benefit for the U.S. economy."

I'm gonna go with the tenured faculty chair and fellow of the National Association of Business Economists over a right-wing think tank kthxbye.

rmoose: I would bookmark this while you are at it(pops)

Thanks, that was interesting.

I'm assuming that if we were to take away the illegal alien and replace them with an American citizen, not only would the social security taxes still get paid, but a higher sum may be collected since American citizens probably would demand a higher wage.

socalnewwaver:
awwww, that's cute. you probably believe global warming is caused my humans, too. isn't it great when you don't have to do any research, and you can just have someone on your side tell you what you should believe?



The "Waste of Bandwidth" Farky group is growing in leaps and bounds lately. Is it something in the water?

Sinister Steve: I'm assuming that if we were to take away the illegal alien and replace them with an American citizen, not only would the social security taxes still get paid, but a higher sum may be collected since American citizens probably would demand a higher wage.

um, you realize that unemployment is really low in this country right (as a historical statistical measure), and that the big problem is underemployment- americans working for minimum wage with more skills.
so, no, taking away a minimum wage worker and replacing them with an american would just make it worse.

From what they report on the news, alot of the wages that illegals and other immigrants earn in the US is sent back to their country of origin. How does this effect the US economy? Not too well I would guess, but don't know anything about economics. Anyone?

socalnewwaver: PurplePimpSaber: pic

heh. i accuse you of not being to think for yourself, and you post a worn-out fark cliche.

boy, you sure showed me.

It's more about knowing the difference in research conducted under the rigors of peer review (being a published author myself), such as that performed by tenured academics, versus the "research" Mr. Moose cited earlier conducted by the Manhattan Institute, a think tank which is much more neo-conservative than it is libertarian.

socalnewwaver: not everyone with an opposing viewpoint is a knuckle-dragging neanderthal.

Please don't destroy his perceptions. It's the only psuedo-reality that his Goliath ego can hang on to.

socalnewwaver: PurplePimpSaber: a think tank which is much more neo-conservative than it is libertarian.

i understand. i get it. it's a 'right-wing,' 'neo-conservative' think tank. which automatically means it couldn't possibly produce anything of value.and that's my point. you didn't disagree with or refute the study, or offer any evidence to the contrary. you immediately dismissed it because of the source."There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance-that principle is contempt prior to investigation."

The pre-disposition of this think tank to distort evidence to serve the corporate, social, and political interests they represent should lead anyone to be skeptical of any research they produce.

I'm not going to refute the article outright because I'm not an economist and I don't have all the facts. If they believe their research is legitimate, let them publish in a well-respected economic journal under the rigors of peer review. If it holds up, myself and other intellectuals will be much less apt to dismiss the study.

socalnewwaver: welcome to the world of think tanks. you dismiss it because you don't like the 'interests they represent.' if you think a left-leaning think tank is any more free from bias or the influence of special interests, then you're incredibly naive.

He didn't say that he preferred left-leaning think tanks to right-leaning ones. Just that he'd rather listen to experts who've published peer-reviewed studies, reports, and articles on the subject. Quite frankly, I don't see why anyone would get their panties in a bunch over that, it only makes sense to listen to real experts.

socalnewwaver: PurplePimpSaber: The pre-disposition of this think tank to distort evidence to serve the corporate, social, and political interests they represent should lead anyone to be skeptical of any research they produce.

welcome to the world of think tanks. you dismiss it because you don't like the 'interests they represent.' if you think a left-leaning think tank is any more free from bias or the influence of special interests, then you're incredibly naive.

it goes back to my previous point. you don't refute or take issue with the data (you even admit you don't have all the facts), you just bash the source.

I'll always take peer reviewed research over non-peer reviewed research, regardless of the source. I never said otherwise.

They do not pay as much per person as legal residents do. Since they know they are not going to file a return they put crazy dependent numbers on the w-4 like Married 14. So their with holding is minimal. Pennies per pay check. Not 25% like out checks.

First-generation illegals are fine. They usually work hard and put as much into our society as they take (or more).

The second-gen illegals are another matter... They are disenfranchised and therefore angry, rebellious, and all-too often, gang members.

We have two choices: open the borders completely, disbanding the INS, and STFU about the obvious consequences...or stop the illegal immigration.

Stopping illegal immigration is the easiest path; simply announce a $5,000 fine, per conviction, for hiring an illegal immigrant, and a $2,500 reward for information leading to the arrest/conviction of any employer hiring illegal immigrants (payable to illegal immigrants). Use the other $2,500 to pay for processing and deporting illegals. Within three months, there will be no illegal immigrants working in the US.

The easiest path is always the best.

Giblet: The second-gen illegals are another matter.

*blinks*

Katie98_KT: Giblet: The second-gen illegals are another matter.

*blinks*

Oh yeah. I'm also for removing the birthright citizen clause.

Did you have to blink my fool head off? Jeez!

socalnewwaver: Giblet: The second-gen illegals are another matter.

second generation meaning they were born here, meaning they are citizens, meaning they are not illegal?

/head asplodes

Read on. I clarified this.

Sorry your head asploded. Send me a cleaning bill...

PurplePimpSaber: socalnewwaver:
awwww, that's cute. you probably believe global warming is caused my humans, too. isn't it great when you don't have to do any research, and you can just have someone on your side tell you what you should believe?

The "Waste of Bandwidth" Farky group is growing in leaps and bounds lately. Is it something in the water?

Interesting the FEDS don't know who's legal and who's not, yet the IRS seems to know...

rmoose: I would bookmark this while you are at it(pops)

So which is it?

Giblet: We have two choices: open the borders completely, disbanding the INS, and STFU about the obvious consequences...or stop the illegal immigration.

Son, we got rid of the INS a long time ago...

OK EVERYONE BACK IN THE PILE!!!!!

20 million illegals paying 9 billion in taxes and using X billion in local/state/federal services, what does x = ?

PurplePimpSaber: I'm not going to refute the article outright because I'm not an economist and I don't have all the facts. If they believe their research is legitimate, let them publish in a well-respected economic journal under the rigors of peer review. If it holds up, myself and other intellectuals will be much less apt to dismiss the study.

Number one, "corporate interests" like illegal immigration because it depresses wages. Number two, you can read the study by Prof. George Borjas measuring the true costs of mass immigration here (new window) and read the panel discussion here (new window). The economic data about the actual costs of illegal immigration is well known and the methodology sound, and the only possible case to be made for not enforcing our laws immediately is a humanitarian one - which, for the most part, wouldn't be a concern if Mexico would bother to elect a halfway competent government. Assuming for argument's sake that a lot of legal immigration is a good thing, then to both benefit our nation as a whole and benefit the immigrants that follow our laws we must work to deport illegals.

Get out you damn lazy free-loading mexi . . . wait what?

/first thing that popped into my head.

Republican voters hate brown people.

Republican leaning corporations love cheap labor.

Brown people = cheap labor.

corporations
that is all.

I live in the same damn state and I was told that I was not eligible for such care for the following reason:

-White
-Male
-Full time college student
-Never married
-No dependents

However, I was eligible for $24/month in Food Stamps.

socalnewwaver: Ryan2065: There is no one else that fits the "unfunded care" category?

basically, in my state (california), all you have to do to get some kind of coverage plan is have a pulse. and be legal.

for example, when i was a starving college student, i had a mountain biking accident that required surgery. said surgery cost me $4 (yes, that's four dollars), because i qualified for the state's MIS plan, which is basically a plan for poor people. between medical, medicare, mis, and the like, virtually everyone in california can be covered.

we have an interesting phenomena in our ed. whenever someone shows up in military fatigues, the ed waiting room empties. seriously. it's almost like a bad snl skit. they're worried about ins, and the place just clears out.