Posted on 02/19/2003 8:55:02 PM PST by hoosierskypilot
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:35:33 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Annie was an ethnic Chinese born in Malaysia who had legally emigrated to the U.S. decades ago. She entered my law office with her mother, who clutched a well-worn copy of a Chinese language book called What You Need to Know About Life in America that is eventually encountered by most immigration lawyers.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Owl_Eagle
Guns Before Butter.
That $345 billion would go a long way to helping California and Texas with their very large state budget deficits too. Americans no longer count except when it comes to paying taxes, these are some pretty expensive votes!
Well, Lots of Freepers who are blindly enamored with Bush will continue to ignore his socializing of the US, (Medicare and SSI), his leaving our borders undefended to the happiness of the nightly massive invasion of foreigners. They will continue to praise him for being so much better than Clinton was UNTIL THE BILLS START COMING IN!
Only then will they realize what fools they have been. The billion dollars in Medicare to border hospitals is the closest thing I have seen to foreign aid for Mexico that didn't have to go throught the Committee. Slick move, just as good as a democrat would have done.
He knows that we have short memories and by doing a couple of good publicity moves just before the election all will be forgiven by most Republicans.
And the more clownish the Democrat Presidential candidates act, the more Bush can do this stuff and not fear being rejected by us desperate conservatives at election time.
I'll vote third party for sure.
I suggest we all just go back to work and pay our taxes.
Go Bush!
You read the below and thought I was serious? LOL...
Look people, just because they are in our country illegally, doesn't mean they don't shop at Wal-Mart and contribute to our economy. If we could only get another 75 million in here, I'm sure the ecomomy would really pickup. It's good for Wal-Mart, it's good for you.
I suggest we all just go back to work and pay our taxes.
I have seen you post this exact reply too many times. I finally decided to look up the figures of just what it costs us to support these parasites.
According to El Paso mayor Judge Chuck Mattox, this flow of illegal aliens cost $14 million in local taxes in the past year. San Diego County supervisor Dianne Jacob estimated that the illegal alien costs in her jurisdiction amount to $230 million annually, $50 million alone for health care. (Source: The Dallas Morning News, September 25, 1998)www.fairus.org/html/042txill.htm
(Washington, DC) A new study by the U.S. Census Bureau has revealed that an amnesty of illegal aliens, or any policy of the same effect, will cost U.S. taxpayers a whopping $30 billion! (Washington Times, 9/6/01, A1) www.uwsa.com/pipermail/uwsa/2001q3/028775.html
'One and only' amnesty in 1986 cost taxpayers a bundle The 1986 amnesty of some 3 million illegal aliens cost taxpayers about $78 billion over the first ten years. (Center for Immigration Studies, May 1997) www.balkanunity.org/immigrat/english/aflcio.htm
Georgia insight April 18, 2003 ________________________________________________________ Illegal Aliens: Economic Burden to Taxpayers The illegal alien situation is a very real national security threat and an economic burden the likes of which weve never seen before. Have you heard?
(a) Pregnant illegal aliens have their babies in U.S. hospitals that are required by law to treat them without charge to the parents. Of course, taxpayers pay for it.
(b) Mexicans with serious health problems are deliberately sent to the U.S. when Mexican hospitals learn they cant pay and dont have insurance. U.S. hospitals along the Mexican border provide illegal aliens at least $200 million a year in free emergency care. In the four border states 77 hospitals face medical emergencies.
(c) Floridas Hospital Association provided illegal aliens $40.5 million in medical care in 2002. How would elected officials fix all this? Senator John McCains bill would gouge taxpayers for the entire amount.
(d) Food stamps to illegal aliens cost taxpayers big bucks. In 1996 Ohio officials discovered a Jordanian and his uncle had deposited $24 million in purchased food stamps in their food and video store bank accounts.
Terrorists Sneak-Point: Canadian and Mexican Borders
· April 7th The Washington Times reported at least 14 al Qaeda terrorists are in Mexico working with Mexican organized crime groups to infiltrate the U.S. from Mexico. U.S. Border Patrol officials said a diary written in Arabic was found last month in a backpack on a southern Arizona trail frequently used by illegal aliens. That diary contained names and telephone numbers of individuals in Canada and Iran.
Georgia Taxpayers Foot the Bill
· Healthcare. The Georgia Department of Community Health reported some of the startling cost to taxpayers that foot the bill for illegal aliens who tap into American generosity. In the year 2000, there were 5,133 recorded births to illegal aliens in Georgia. That cost the state $13 million. In 2001, 9,528 births to illegal aliens cost taxpayers $23 million. Just over halfway through 2002, there were already more births to illegal aliens than in all of 2001, at an exorbitant cost to taxpayers. You do the math.www.georgiaeagle.org/index.php?
where=insight&ID
Mass Illegal Aliens Cost American Taxpayers $69 Billion Net and 2 Million Jobs in 1997 The nearly 26 million legal and illegal immigrants settling in the United States since 1970 cost taxpayers a net $69 billion in 1997 alone, in excess of taxes those immigrants paid. This represents a cost of $260 in additional taxes paid by each U.S. resident or $1,030 in additional taxes paid by each family of four. This cost is a substantial increase over the net immigration costs of $65 billion in 1996, $51 billion in 1994, $44 billion in 1993, and $43 billion in 1992.
www.alpinesurvival.com/immigration.html
The Costs of Illegal Aliens
According to one estimate, the cost of providing federally-mandated health care to illegal immigrants is between $1.5 billion and $2 billion annually. Lawmakers still lack an accurate assessment of the actual cost to border states.
http://www.carryingcapacity.org/huddlenr.html
Cost of Immigration to American Taxpayers in 1997
Mass Immigration Cost American Taxpayers $69 Billion Net and 2 Million Jobs
in 1997
State Costs to Taxpayers are Also Soaring (1996 Net Costs % up from 1992):
California: $28 billion up 35%
New York: $14 billion up 29%
Texas: $7 billion up 37%
Florida: $6 billion up 77%
The first study of the net cost of immigration to American taxpayers in 1997 conducted by Dr. Donald Huddle, Professor Emeritus of Economics at Rice University, found that:
The nearly 26 million legal and illegal immigrants settling in the United States since 1970 cost taxpayers a net $69 billion in 1997 alone, in excess of taxes those immigrants paid. This represents a cost of $260 in additional taxes paid by each U.S. resident or $1,030 in additional taxes paid by each family of four. This cost is a substantial increase over the net immigration costs of $65 billion ins 1996, $51 billion ins 1994, $44 billion in 1993, and $43 billion in 1992.
Over 62% of the net national cost of immigration in 1996, $40.6 billion, was attributable to legal and legalized (amnesty) immigrants. Illegal immigration generates about 38%, $24 billion of the total net cost. Legal immigration levels are over one million per year, and rising.
During 1996, approximately 2.3 million predominantly low-skill American workers were displaced from their jobs due to the continued heavy influx of immigrant workers since 1970. Taxpayers paid more than $15.2 billion in public assistance for those displaced workers in 1996, including Medicaid, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), unemployment compensation, and food stamps.
A net deficit of $8.5 billion dollars to the Social Security system in 1996 is attributable to the economic impact of the foreign-born population. Continued mass immigration threatens the solvency of the Social Security system.
Net cumulative costs for the 1998-2007 decade are projected to reach $932 billion, an average of $93.2 billion per year, even with recent changes in welfare and immigration policies and a prosperous economy, if current mass immigration trends are allowed to continue.
Public Schools (Primary, Secondary, Higher, etc) $22.5 billion
Bilingual Education, ESOL, ESL Education $ 3.3 billion
Medicaid $12.8 billion
AFDC (for legal and illegal immigrant's offspring) $ 2.4 billion
Social Security $24.8 billion
Supplemental Security Income $ 2.9 billion
Housing Assistance $ 2.6 billion
Criminal Justice $ 2.6 billion
Jobs Lost by Americans $10.8 billion
Other Programs $51.4 billion
1997 Total Costs for LEGAL Immigration: $136 billion
Add 1997 total costs for illegal immigration of $41 billion and subtract an estimated $108 billion in taxes paid by all immigrants (legal and illegal) in 1997 to obtain the overall net figure of $69 billion charged to you, and other American taxpayers.
Other key facts regarding immigration are:
1.) If current immigration trends continue, the current U.S. population of
274 million will nearly double to over 500,000,000 by 2050. (The U.S. was 135 million at the end of WWII.)
2.) Harvard Professor George Borjas demonstrated that mass immigration costs American workers $133 billion per year in wage depression and job loss.
3.) The prestigious National Research Council found at the state and local levels (which bear most of the burden for K-12 education) the net fiscal burden of the average immigrant-headed household (i.e., after subtracting state and local taxes the household paid) was:
$1,484 per immigrant-headed household in New Jersey (in the 1989-1990 fiscal year); and $3,463 in California (in 1994-1995)(p. 276-277)
Why should we continue to allow our own working poor, homeless, and unemployed to continue to suffer from the job loss, wage depression, and other burdens imposed by mass immigration?
Tell your friends about this page!
You either have a comfortable position with Wal-Mart, forget about the billions they send to Mexico without stopping at Wal-Mart or you just flat don't realize the costs to American taxpayers and the future costs to our kids!
Do you have a source for this? As far as I can tell, the agreement would apply to illegal aliens once they move back to Mexico. From a story in the Washington Times in September:
Jo Anne B. Barnhart, commissioner of Social Security, said current law requires anyone receiving benefits from the United States be a legal resident of the country being lived in at the time the benefits are paid.[Emphasis added]She also denied reports the administration is trying to change that and allow illegal immigrants in the United States to receive benefits.
"Any totalization agreement that would be signed with Mexico would not have anything to do with immigration," the administrator said.
But witnesses and lawmakers said the law still allows an illegal Mexican immigrant to earn credits in the United States then return to Mexico and receive benefits from the U.S. government, since he would then be living legally in his home nation.
This money is taken out of people's paychecks who worked here legally, with the understanding that it would be paid back, his phrasing seems to indicate that this is money that belongs to the government, and not to the very people that it is going back to.
The money you and I pay into Social Security doesn't belong to us. It funds the retirement of current retirees. We do this in the expectation that future generations will fund our retirement.
Does this "compact between generations" apply to noncitizens who work here for several years then leave? Assuming they were here legally, my belief is that we owe them something, but not necessarily full participation in Social Security. Just my opinion.
There are no Social Security funds.
" The proceeds of both [employee and employer] taxes are to
be paid into the treasury like other internal revenue
generally, and are not earmarked in any way." Helvering v
Davis 301 US 619, 635 (1937).
"The proceeds of the tax imposed on employers by Title IX of
the Social Security Act, supra, go into the Treasury of the
United States without earmark, like internal revenue
collections generally." Steward Machine Co. v Davis 301 US
548 (1936)
And that will help how? Claiming the vote is voicing your opinion doesn't wash. The only time your opinion is heard is if your candidate is elected.
I've been a Republican all my life and finally I am seeing what they are doing to America.....wrecking it!
LOL! Hey Bro, I think you ought to take a closer look at my #28. I couldn't agree with you more! LOL!
I guess I should have added sarcasm! Look at my screen name. It means I've HADENUF of this epic invasion of millions.
I have nothing but contempt for this government, that has allowed this titanic invasion to take place. This invasion of illegals is choking off America, and it will eventually kill this country unless we get a grip on it fast. Wal-Mart and other companies that hire these criminals are the problem. I have nothing but contempt to them too. I completely agree with your post.
The sarcasm I used is what we constantly hear from those that support this two party cartel and this federal government approved, open border time bomb!
Either we stop this endless, epic flood of illegals, or we will lose this country. End of story.
Your friend,
Joe.....
What "witnesses"?
"The money you and I pay into Social Security doesn't belong to us. It funds the retirement of current retirees. We do this in the expectation that future generations will fund our retirement."
I can't believe I just read that.
Taciturn acceptance of socialism as an explanation for government in FR...never thought I'd see the day.
What "witnesses"?
I don't know who made the specific point in that paragraph. In the Washington Times article, Barbara D. Bovbjerg, director of education, workforce and income-security issues for the GAO and John Hostettler, the subcommittee chairman, are both quoted as including illegal immigrants when considering the effect of the agreement.
Taciturn acceptance of socialism as an explanation for government in FR...never thought I'd see the day.
I'm just describing the Social Security system, not advocating it. It is not structured as a private pension plan. When we contemplate changes we have to consider the merit of the claim and also consider how much we want future generations to be taxed.
The Washington Times
www.washingtontimes.com
Mexico benefits accord rapped
By Stephen Dinan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published September 12, 2003
The General Accounting Office said yesterday the administration has not done the research to justify signing a "totalization agreement" with Mexico, which would allow Mexican nationals including some one-time illegal immigrants to collect Social Security benefits earned during their time in the United States.
Totalization allows citizens of one country to earn credit for Social Security benefits for time they worked in another country. At retirement, the credits from both countries would be "totaled" to calculate eligibility for benefits, and each nation would be responsible for paying a part of the benefits.
The Bush administration last year stepped up negotiations with the Mexican government to try to secure an agreement.
But Barbara D. Bovbjerg, director of education, workforce and income-security issues for the GAO, told the House Judiciary immigration subcommittee that the Social Security Administration has failed to do basic research on Mexico's ability to cooperate in a totalization program.
"SSA provided no information showing that it assessed the reliability of Mexican earnings data and the internal controls in place to ensure the integrity of information that SSA will rely on to pay Social Security benefits," she said.
She also disputed the administration's estimate of totalization's cost, calling the actual cost "highly uncertain."
The SSA predicted a first-year cost of $78 million based on an estimate of 50,000 beneficiaries currently living in Mexico and predicted the number of beneficiaries would grow sixfold over time.
Ms. Bovbjerg, though, said those figures don't take into account the estimated 5 million illegal immigrants from Mexico currently living in the United States or the millions who have lived in the United States but have since returned to Mexico.
The concept of a totalization agreement is not unpopular. All told, the United States has entered into 20 such agreements, ranging from the first, with Italy in 1978, to the most recent, with Australia, in 2002.
But Rep. John Hostettler, Indiana Republican and chairman of the subcommittee, said an agreement with Mexico will be very different from earlier agreements. "None of those countries have public policies that encourage illegal immigration," he said.
Jo Anne B. Barnhart, commissioner of Social Security, said current law requires anyone receiving benefits from the United States be a legal resident of the country being lived in at the time the benefits are paid.
She also denied reports the administration is trying to change that and allow illegal immigrants in the United States to receive benefits.
"Any totalization agreement that would be signed with Mexico would not have anything to do with immigration," the administrator said.
But witnesses and lawmakers said the law still allows an illegal Mexican immigrant to earn credits in the United States then return to Mexico and receive benefits from the U.S. government, since he would then be living legally in his home nation.
Illegal-immigrant workers often pay into Social Security through fraudulent or duplicate identification numbers, but if they can prove through tax forms that they earned the money, they would be eligible for payment.
The agreement is not a treaty subject to the Constitution's requirement of Senate approval. It can be invalidated if either house of Congress passes a resolution of disapproval. The House and Senate would have 60 days to act. Otherwise, the agreement would go into effect.
There's the article in its entirety, would you mind pointing out exactly where your supposed quotes are?
The SSA predicted a first-year cost of $78 million based on an estimate of 50,000 beneficiaries currently living in Mexico and predicted the number of beneficiaries would grow sixfold over time.
Ms. Bovbjerg, though, said those figures don't take into account the estimated 5 million illegal immigrants from Mexico currently living in the United States or the millions who have lived in the United States but have since returned to Mexico.
Hostettler's remark: But Rep. John Hostettler, Indiana Republican and chairman of the subcommittee, said an agreement with Mexico will be very different from earlier agreements. "None of those countries have public policies that encourage illegal immigration," he said.
Granted, Hostettler's remark could have been referring to administrative difficulties, and not necessarily payments to illegals.
The big question is, why are we, the American people being forced, by our own government, to pay for these criminals?
That's not a quote for one, and even if it were, it in no way addresses the point of paying monies to illegal immigrants.
The fact that her figures do not include those 5 million illegals means that there is no intention of paying them money.
As far as the other comment, it gives no indication whatsoever that Hostettler believes that the government is considering paying illegals either.
"Ms. Bovbjerg, though, said those figures don't take into account the estimated 5 million illegal immigrants from Mexico currently living in the United States or the millions who have lived in the United States but have since returned to Mexico."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.