Author Topic: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion  (Read 22363 times)

TornWonder

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 57
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #150 on: May 09, 2018, 09:40:17 AM »
I'll report someone breaking the law if I think there will be any possible action taken.  I'm not going to call in every speeder on the street because it would be basically impossible for the police to do anything about it and would simply tie up resources that could be helping to save a life somewhere else.  If someone is obviously driving recklessly/drunk I will call the police and report it.

One could argue against what you (and ICE) are doing by the same logic.

Sure, and it would be a valid argument if ICE didn't exist for the exact purpose that they are being used for.  If you don't think immigration laws should be enforced, that means you don't think immigration laws should exist, and that's what you should be arguing about.

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1141
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #151 on: May 09, 2018, 09:46:27 AM »
I'll report someone breaking the law if I think there will be any possible action taken.  I'm not going to call in every speeder on the street because it would be basically impossible for the police to do anything about it and would simply tie up resources that could be helping to save a life somewhere else.  If someone is obviously driving recklessly/drunk I will call the police and report it.

One could argue against what you (and ICE) are doing by the same logic.

Sure, and it would be a valid argument if ICE didn't exist for the exact purpose that they are being used for.  If you don't think immigration laws should be enforced, that means you don't think immigration laws should exist, and that's what you should be arguing about.

If you don't think speeding laws should be enforced, that means you don't think speeding laws should exist, and that's what you should be arguing about.

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1191
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #152 on: May 09, 2018, 09:53:20 AM »
I'll report someone breaking the law if I think there will be any possible action taken.  I'm not going to call in every speeder on the street because it would be basically impossible for the police to do anything about it and would simply tie up resources that could be helping to save a life somewhere else.  If someone is obviously driving recklessly/drunk I will call the police and report it.

One could argue against what you (and ICE) are doing by the same logic.

Sure, and it would be a valid argument if ICE didn't exist for the exact purpose that they are being used for.  If you don't think immigration laws should be enforced, that means you don't think immigration laws should exist, and that's what you should be arguing about.

If you don't think speeding laws should be enforced, that means you don't think speeding laws should exist, and that's what you should be arguing about.

TornWonder has already explained that reporting someone for speeding leads down a road to nowhere, there is no proof. It's not a matter of whether speeding laws should be enforced, but that they cannot be enforced in this manner.

iris lily

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2950
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #153 on: May 09, 2018, 12:42:51 PM »
Reporting a speeding car, driving recklessly, is the action of a responsible citizen  because it can be assumed that the driver will continue his method of driving once he passes you (the generic you) by. Then, law enforcement can watch for him and nab him when they onserve him breaking the law.

 I have never reported another driver for this, but there have been a few times when I think I SHOULD report that driver, for the safety of all on the road.


MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1700
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #154 on: May 09, 2018, 01:21:03 PM »
I'll report someone breaking the law if I think there will be any possible action taken.  I'm not going to call in every speeder on the street because it would be basically impossible for the police to do anything about it and would simply tie up resources that could be helping to save a life somewhere else.  If someone is obviously driving recklessly/drunk I will call the police and report it.

One could argue against what you (and ICE) are doing by the same logic.

Sure, and it would be a valid argument if ICE didn't exist for the exact purpose that they are being used for.  If you don't think immigration laws should be enforced, that means you don't think immigration laws should exist, and that's what you should be arguing about.

If you don't think speeding laws should be enforced, that means you don't think speeding laws should exist, and that's what you should be arguing about.

TornWonder has already explained that reporting someone for speeding leads down a road to nowhere, there is no proof. It's not a matter of whether speeding laws should be enforced, but that they cannot be enforced in this manner.

Sure or worse case scenario it leads to the person getting a ticket. Worse case scenario of reporting folks to ICE is they are deported back into the life they so desperately were trying to escape. That often means torture, abuse, even death, etc. Perhaps for a large percentage of us, morality and the sanctity of human life are far more important than country of origin.

The job of ICE is to enforce immigration laws. It's not the job of TornWonder. In reality helping police catch speeders is arguably more humane, than helping ICE send folks back into often terrible situations. Personally I have no problems reporting obvious speeders, drunk drivers, etc. I see it as helping to serve the public safety and possibly saving a life (lives). But I have no ideal the nature of an immigrants background or situation that led to their desire to escape from it. It's not up to me to determine their fate nor do I see it as serving any sort of public good and could in fact be endangering a life (lives).

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1191
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #155 on: May 09, 2018, 01:48:07 PM »
I'll report someone breaking the law if I think there will be any possible action taken.  I'm not going to call in every speeder on the street because it would be basically impossible for the police to do anything about it and would simply tie up resources that could be helping to save a life somewhere else.  If someone is obviously driving recklessly/drunk I will call the police and report it.

One could argue against what you (and ICE) are doing by the same logic.

Sure, and it would be a valid argument if ICE didn't exist for the exact purpose that they are being used for.  If you don't think immigration laws should be enforced, that means you don't think immigration laws should exist, and that's what you should be arguing about.

If you don't think speeding laws should be enforced, that means you don't think speeding laws should exist, and that's what you should be arguing about.

TornWonder has already explained that reporting someone for speeding leads down a road to nowhere, there is no proof. It's not a matter of whether speeding laws should be enforced, but that they cannot be enforced in this manner.

Sure or worse case scenario it leads to the person getting a ticket. Worse case scenario of reporting folks to ICE is they are deported back into the life they so desperately were trying to escape. That often means torture, abuse, even death, etc. Perhaps for a large percentage of us, morality and the sanctity of human life are far more important than country of origin.

The job of ICE is to enforce immigration laws. It's not the job of TornWonder. In reality helping police catch speeders is arguably more humane, than helping ICE send folks back into often terrible situations. Personally I have no problems reporting obvious speeders, drunk drivers, etc. I see it as helping to serve the public safety and possibly saving a life (lives). But I have no ideal the nature of an immigrants background or situation that led to their desire to escape from it. It's not up to me to determine their fate nor do I see it as serving any sort of public good and could in fact be endangering a life (lives).

I was just responding to an illogical statement, and yes, in very obvious cases of speeding or reckless driving it may be worth reporting but we're getting away from the point of the analogy. Instead of continuing down that path I have another question for @TornWonder:

You state that you report illegals because they are breaking the law but I'm curious, is this the only reason you report them? I don't know your personal stance on the current laws, are you in agreement with them?

TornWonder

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 57
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #156 on: May 09, 2018, 02:03:54 PM »
I'll report someone breaking the law if I think there will be any possible action taken.  I'm not going to call in every speeder on the street because it would be basically impossible for the police to do anything about it and would simply tie up resources that could be helping to save a life somewhere else.  If someone is obviously driving recklessly/drunk I will call the police and report it.

One could argue against what you (and ICE) are doing by the same logic.

Sure, and it would be a valid argument if ICE didn't exist for the exact purpose that they are being used for.  If you don't think immigration laws should be enforced, that means you don't think immigration laws should exist, and that's what you should be arguing about.

If you don't think speeding laws should be enforced, that means you don't think speeding laws should exist, and that's what you should be arguing about.

TornWonder has already explained that reporting someone for speeding leads down a road to nowhere, there is no proof. It's not a matter of whether speeding laws should be enforced, but that they cannot be enforced in this manner.

Sure or worse case scenario it leads to the person getting a ticket. Worse case scenario of reporting folks to ICE is they are deported back into the life they so desperately were trying to escape. That often means torture, abuse, even death, etc. Perhaps for a large percentage of us, morality and the sanctity of human life are far more important than country of origin.

The job of ICE is to enforce immigration laws. It's not the job of TornWonder. In reality helping police catch speeders is arguably more humane, than helping ICE send folks back into often terrible situations. Personally I have no problems reporting obvious speeders, drunk drivers, etc. I see it as helping to serve the public safety and possibly saving a life (lives). But I have no ideal the nature of an immigrants background or situation that led to their desire to escape from it. It's not up to me to determine their fate nor do I see it as serving any sort of public good and could in fact be endangering a life (lives).

I was just responding to an illogical statement, and yes, in very obvious cases of speeding or reckless driving it may be worth reporting but we're getting away from the point of the analogy. Instead of continuing down that path I have another question for @TornWonder:

You state that you report illegals because they are breaking the law but I'm curious, is this the only reason you report them? I don't know your personal stance on the current laws, are you in agreement with them?
What other reason would I have to report them?

As for the current laws, I think if you have significant government social programs/wealth redistribution you need immigration control, otherwise the financial burden on the country is too great.  I would prefer open borders, but don't see the US moving away from government dependency anytime soon.

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1191
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #157 on: May 09, 2018, 02:49:21 PM »
I was just responding to an illogical statement, and yes, in very obvious cases of speeding or reckless driving it may be worth reporting but we're getting away from the point of the analogy. Instead of continuing down that path I have another question for @TornWonder:

You state that you report illegals because they are breaking the law but I'm curious, is this the only reason you report them? I don't know your personal stance on the current laws, are you in agreement with them?
What other reason would I have to report them?

As for the current laws, I think if you have significant government social programs/wealth redistribution you need immigration control, otherwise the financial burden on the country is too great.  I would prefer open borders, but don't see the US moving away from government dependency anytime soon.

In other words I was asking if you report illegals because you are in favor of the actions by ICE which may result. What I was getting at was your response to the original question from jordanread "What is the big deal about someone being here illegally? What concerns you most?"

Your response was that you report people because you want to help enforce the law as it stands but that didn't answer the second part of the question; what concerns you about someone being here illegally.

It sounds like your reasoning is based on the idea that these people will consume social welfare/government resources at a greater rate than they pay into the system. If that was not the case, would your opinion change?

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1700
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #158 on: May 09, 2018, 02:59:01 PM »
I'll report someone breaking the law if I think there will be any possible action taken.  I'm not going to call in every speeder on the street because it would be basically impossible for the police to do anything about it and would simply tie up resources that could be helping to save a life somewhere else.  If someone is obviously driving recklessly/drunk I will call the police and report it.

One could argue against what you (and ICE) are doing by the same logic.

Sure, and it would be a valid argument if ICE didn't exist for the exact purpose that they are being used for.  If you don't think immigration laws should be enforced, that means you don't think immigration laws should exist, and that's what you should be arguing about.

If you don't think speeding laws should be enforced, that means you don't think speeding laws should exist, and that's what you should be arguing about.

TornWonder has already explained that reporting someone for speeding leads down a road to nowhere, there is no proof. It's not a matter of whether speeding laws should be enforced, but that they cannot be enforced in this manner.

Sure or worse case scenario it leads to the person getting a ticket. Worse case scenario of reporting folks to ICE is they are deported back into the life they so desperately were trying to escape. That often means torture, abuse, even death, etc. Perhaps for a large percentage of us, morality and the sanctity of human life are far more important than country of origin.

The job of ICE is to enforce immigration laws. It's not the job of TornWonder. In reality helping police catch speeders is arguably more humane, than helping ICE send folks back into often terrible situations. Personally I have no problems reporting obvious speeders, drunk drivers, etc. I see it as helping to serve the public safety and possibly saving a life (lives). But I have no ideal the nature of an immigrants background or situation that led to their desire to escape from it. It's not up to me to determine their fate nor do I see it as serving any sort of public good and could in fact be endangering a life (lives).

I was just responding to an illogical statement, and yes, in very obvious cases of speeding or reckless driving it may be worth reporting but we're getting away from the point of the analogy. Instead of continuing down that path I have another question for @TornWonder:

You state that you report illegals because they are breaking the law but I'm curious, is this the only reason you report them? I don't know your personal stance on the current laws, are you in agreement with them?
What other reason would I have to report them?

As for the current laws, I think if you have significant government social programs/wealth redistribution you need immigration control, otherwise the financial burden on the country is too great.  I would prefer open borders, but don't see the US moving away from government dependency anytime soon.

I am curious what specifically you mean by " significant." That's a very broad statement to quantify support of open borders.

Can you provide factual data showing immigration plays a significant role in " wealth redistribution." ( Not really sure what you mean by that either).

jordanread

  • Guest
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #159 on: May 09, 2018, 08:13:07 PM »

I am curious what specifically you mean by " significant." That's a very broad statement to quantify support of open borders.

Can you provide factual data showing immigration plays a significant role in " wealth redistribution." ( Not really sure what you mean by that either).

I don't think that @TornWonder was saying that immigration plays a role in wealth redistribution. I think what was being said is that in a society with some social safety nets, immigration needs to be controlled or the system gets overwhelmed, based on more people taking advantage of it. Or at least that's how I read it.

TornWonder

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 57
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #160 on: May 10, 2018, 08:09:38 AM »
I was just responding to an illogical statement, and yes, in very obvious cases of speeding or reckless driving it may be worth reporting but we're getting away from the point of the analogy. Instead of continuing down that path I have another question for @TornWonder:

You state that you report illegals because they are breaking the law but I'm curious, is this the only reason you report them? I don't know your personal stance on the current laws, are you in agreement with them?
What other reason would I have to report them?

As for the current laws, I think if you have significant government social programs/wealth redistribution you need immigration control, otherwise the financial burden on the country is too great.  I would prefer open borders, but don't see the US moving away from government dependency anytime soon.

In other words I was asking if you report illegals because you are in favor of the actions by ICE which may result. What I was getting at was your response to the original question from jordanread "What is the big deal about someone being here illegally? What concerns you most?"

Your response was that you report people because you want to help enforce the law as it stands but that didn't answer the second part of the question; what concerns you about someone being here illegally.

It sounds like your reasoning is based on the idea that these people will consume social welfare/government resources at a greater rate than they pay into the system. If that was not the case, would your opinion change?

There are lots of concerns that can arise from someone being here illegally in addition to their burden on taxpayers.  For instance, did they avoid border agents and/or customs for some reason?  Why should they have priority over individuals attempting to enter the country by following the rules?  There are countless scenarios and reasons and it's not within my capabilities to determine their veracity or reasonableness.  That's what we have judges for.

As to your hypothetical, if I could somehow objectively see the future, I would not be spending time using that super power on determining the potential burden of each illegal immigrant on the state.

TornWonder

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 57
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #161 on: May 10, 2018, 08:10:14 AM »

I am curious what specifically you mean by " significant." That's a very broad statement to quantify support of open borders.

Can you provide factual data showing immigration plays a significant role in " wealth redistribution." ( Not really sure what you mean by that either).

I don't think that @TornWonder was saying that immigration plays a role in wealth redistribution. I think what was being said is that in a society with some social safety nets, immigration needs to be controlled or the system gets overwhelmed, based on more people taking advantage of it. Or at least that's how I read it.

Correct.

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1141
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #162 on: May 10, 2018, 09:14:05 AM »
http://econofact.org/do-undocumented-immigrants-overuse-government-benefits

Fun facts though:

Quote
Unauthorized immigrants are ineligible for most major federally-funded safety net programs.

Quote
According to a study by the CATO Institute, low-income non-citizens (documented and undocumented combined) have lower participation rates in safety net programs than low-income citizens, in part due to eligibility restrictions for the undocumented.

Quote
Undocumented immigrants are not eligible to receive Social Security benefits even though many contribute to the system.

Quote
Estimates suggest that up to $12 billion per year are contributed by undocumented immigrants and their employers. Most undocumented immigrants will never draw from the system.

Quote
Despite scapegoating in public discourse, the drain that undocumented immigrants place on government benefit programs is small. The number of low-income undocumented immigrants is small relative to the size of the overall low-income population, and federal law restricts their participation in most programs.

http://econofact.org/do-immigrants-cost-native-born-taxpayers-money

Quote
Estimates of the fiscal impacts of immigrants are complex and depend on the time horizon chosen for the analysis. Over the long horizon such estimates, under the most likely scenarios, generally find that immigrants are not a significant fiscal drain. The evidence does not suggest that current immigrant flows cost native-born taxpayers money over the long-run nor does it provide support for the notion that lowering immigration quotas or stepping up enforcement of existing immigration laws would generate savings to existing taxpayers.

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1191
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #163 on: May 10, 2018, 10:24:01 AM »
I was just responding to an illogical statement, and yes, in very obvious cases of speeding or reckless driving it may be worth reporting but we're getting away from the point of the analogy. Instead of continuing down that path I have another question for @TornWonder:

You state that you report illegals because they are breaking the law but I'm curious, is this the only reason you report them? I don't know your personal stance on the current laws, are you in agreement with them?
What other reason would I have to report them?

As for the current laws, I think if you have significant government social programs/wealth redistribution you need immigration control, otherwise the financial burden on the country is too great.  I would prefer open borders, but don't see the US moving away from government dependency anytime soon.

In other words I was asking if you report illegals because you are in favor of the actions by ICE which may result. What I was getting at was your response to the original question from jordanread "What is the big deal about someone being here illegally? What concerns you most?"

Your response was that you report people because you want to help enforce the law as it stands but that didn't answer the second part of the question; what concerns you about someone being here illegally.

It sounds like your reasoning is based on the idea that these people will consume social welfare/government resources at a greater rate than they pay into the system. If that was not the case, would your opinion change?

There are lots of concerns that can arise from someone being here illegally in addition to their burden on taxpayers.  For instance, did they avoid border agents and/or customs for some reason?  Why should they have priority over individuals attempting to enter the country by following the rules?  There are countless scenarios and reasons and it's not within my capabilities to determine their veracity or reasonableness.  That's what we have judges for.

As to your hypothetical, if I could somehow objectively see the future, I would not be spending time using that super power on determining the potential burden of each illegal immigrant on the state.

The points that DarkandStormy makes is actually what I was getting at, not a hypothetical future but a present reality. Also I was thinking more in terms of averages, not on an individual basis. Certainly there will be cases where someone is taking advantage of the system or has a medical emergency and cannot afford the costs, but on average if undocumented immigrants are not burdening the system then your first point would be null.

Your second point where I believe you were suggesting they may be bringing in contraband, I don't see how that relates to illegal residency. If they were smuggling and now they are here, it's too late to prevent that.

As for the matter of allowing illegals to stay while those going through the process must wait, you're right, that's unfair. Although I would add that those who become legal residents enjoy advantages that illegal residents do not, for example receiving some of the welfare advantages you mentioned. Personally I would advocate that the way to fix this is to make the process more manageable so that legal immigration doesn't take so long and have arbitrary results the way it does now. The current path to legal immigration isn't working and needs to be fixed. In the meantime, some will be coming in illegally for lack of a better life choice as MasterStache discussed. Whether or not we should allow them to stay and for how long is still a tricky question.

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 363
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #164 on: May 10, 2018, 11:20:16 AM »
I was just responding to an illogical statement, and yes, in very obvious cases of speeding or reckless driving it may be worth reporting but we're getting away from the point of the analogy. Instead of continuing down that path I have another question for @TornWonder:

You state that you report illegals because they are breaking the law but I'm curious, is this the only reason you report them? I don't know your personal stance on the current laws, are you in agreement with them?
What other reason would I have to report them?

As for the current laws, I think if you have significant government social programs/wealth redistribution you need immigration control, otherwise the financial burden on the country is too great.  I would prefer open borders, but don't see the US moving away from government dependency anytime soon.

In other words I was asking if you report illegals because you are in favor of the actions by ICE which may result. What I was getting at was your response to the original question from jordanread "What is the big deal about someone being here illegally? What concerns you most?"

Your response was that you report people because you want to help enforce the law as it stands but that didn't answer the second part of the question; what concerns you about someone being here illegally.

It sounds like your reasoning is based on the idea that these people will consume social welfare/government resources at a greater rate than they pay into the system. If that was not the case, would your opinion change?

There are lots of concerns that can arise from someone being here illegally in addition to their burden on taxpayers.  For instance, did they avoid border agents and/or customs for some reason?  Why should they have priority over individuals attempting to enter the country by following the rules?  There are countless scenarios and reasons and it's not within my capabilities to determine their veracity or reasonableness.  That's what we have judges for.

As to your hypothetical, if I could somehow objectively see the future, I would not be spending time using that super power on determining the potential burden of each illegal immigrant on the state.

The points that DarkandStormy makes is actually what I was getting at, not a hypothetical future but a present reality. Also I was thinking more in terms of averages, not on an individual basis. Certainly there will be cases where someone is taking advantage of the system or has a medical emergency and cannot afford the costs, but on average if undocumented immigrants are not burdening the system then your first point would be null.

Your second point where I believe you were suggesting they may be bringing in contraband, I don't see how that relates to illegal residency. If they were smuggling and now they are here, it's too late to prevent that.

As for the matter of allowing illegals to stay while those going through the process must wait, you're right, that's unfair. Although I would add that those who become legal residents enjoy advantages that illegal residents do not, for example receiving some of the welfare advantages you mentioned. Personally I would advocate that the way to fix this is to make the process more manageable so that legal immigration doesn't take so long and have arbitrary results the way it does now. The current path to legal immigration isn't working and needs to be fixed. In the meantime, some will be coming in illegally for lack of a better life choice as MasterStache discussed. Whether or not we should allow them to stay and for how long is still a tricky question.

Regarding that last point, I'm not an immigration expert but I don't believe that those going through the legal immigration process have to wait for the process to be fully completed before coming to the states.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1700
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #165 on: May 10, 2018, 11:23:43 AM »

I am curious what specifically you mean by " significant." That's a very broad statement to quantify support of open borders.

Can you provide factual data showing immigration plays a significant role in " wealth redistribution." ( Not really sure what you mean by that either).

I don't think that @TornWonder was saying that immigration plays a role in wealth redistribution. I think what was being said is that in a society with some social safety nets, immigration needs to be controlled or the system gets overwhelmed, based on more people taking advantage of it. Or at least that's how I read it.

Correct.

The question is still viable. Weather you call it "wealth redistribution" or social programs. I see you didn't answer the question though. I assume (possibly incorrectly) that you have come to the conclusion you did based on some sort of figures, statistics, actual evidence. So we still sit at "significant" without any specific quantification as to what that means financially.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1700
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #166 on: May 10, 2018, 11:28:15 AM »
http://econofact.org/do-undocumented-immigrants-overuse-government-benefits

Fun facts though:

Quote
Unauthorized immigrants are ineligible for most major federally-funded safety net programs.

Quote
According to a study by the CATO Institute, low-income non-citizens (documented and undocumented combined) have lower participation rates in safety net programs than low-income citizens, in part due to eligibility restrictions for the undocumented.

Quote
Undocumented immigrants are not eligible to receive Social Security benefits even though many contribute to the system.

Quote
Estimates suggest that up to $12 billion per year are contributed by undocumented immigrants and their employers. Most undocumented immigrants will never draw from the system.

Quote
Despite scapegoating in public discourse, the drain that undocumented immigrants place on government benefit programs is small. The number of low-income undocumented immigrants is small relative to the size of the overall low-income population, and federal law restricts their participation in most programs.

http://econofact.org/do-immigrants-cost-native-born-taxpayers-money

Quote
Estimates of the fiscal impacts of immigrants are complex and depend on the time horizon chosen for the analysis. Over the long horizon such estimates, under the most likely scenarios, generally find that immigrants are not a significant fiscal drain. The evidence does not suggest that current immigrant flows cost native-born taxpayers money over the long-run nor does it provide support for the notion that lowering immigration quotas or stepping up enforcement of existing immigration laws would generate savings to existing taxpayers.

Thanks for providing. This is much of the same of what I have found and why I posed the question to TornWonder about how he came to the conclusion that undocumented immigrants pose a  "significant"  burden on our social programs. He/she seems to be avoiding the question.

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1191
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #167 on: May 10, 2018, 12:11:31 PM »

The points that DarkandStormy makes is actually what I was getting at, not a hypothetical future but a present reality. Also I was thinking more in terms of averages, not on an individual basis. Certainly there will be cases where someone is taking advantage of the system or has a medical emergency and cannot afford the costs, but on average if undocumented immigrants are not burdening the system then your first point would be null.

Your second point where I believe you were suggesting they may be bringing in contraband, I don't see how that relates to illegal residency. If they were smuggling and now they are here, it's too late to prevent that.

As for the matter of allowing illegals to stay while those going through the process must wait, you're right, that's unfair. Although I would add that those who become legal residents enjoy advantages that illegal residents do not, for example receiving some of the welfare advantages you mentioned. Personally I would advocate that the way to fix this is to make the process more manageable so that legal immigration doesn't take so long and have arbitrary results the way it does now. The current path to legal immigration isn't working and needs to be fixed. In the meantime, some will be coming in illegally for lack of a better life choice as MasterStache discussed. Whether or not we should allow them to stay and for how long is still a tricky question.

Regarding that last point, I'm not an immigration expert but I don't believe that those going through the legal immigration process have to wait for the process to be fully completed before coming to the states.

Good point, my wording suggesting that they must wait to enter the country was off. Immigrants can live in the country while being processed but the processing is not straightforward and I'm not so sure that is always the case. I'm no expert either, but from what I've read and tried to understand the process isn't the same for everyone which is what I was referring to when I said "arbitrary". Even if they are living in the US they are at a disadvantage in the sense that they are jumping through hoops, if it was easy, more people would do it the legal way.

This also brings up the one of the big problems with building a wall that so many advocates seem to miss- even if there is a wall there still needs to be a gate and that's where most immigrants are coming through anyway (or flying in of course). Legal or not, getting inside the borders isn't really the hard part.

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 363
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #168 on: May 10, 2018, 12:25:06 PM »

The points that DarkandStormy makes is actually what I was getting at, not a hypothetical future but a present reality. Also I was thinking more in terms of averages, not on an individual basis. Certainly there will be cases where someone is taking advantage of the system or has a medical emergency and cannot afford the costs, but on average if undocumented immigrants are not burdening the system then your first point would be null.

Your second point where I believe you were suggesting they may be bringing in contraband, I don't see how that relates to illegal residency. If they were smuggling and now they are here, it's too late to prevent that.

As for the matter of allowing illegals to stay while those going through the process must wait, you're right, that's unfair. Although I would add that those who become legal residents enjoy advantages that illegal residents do not, for example receiving some of the welfare advantages you mentioned. Personally I would advocate that the way to fix this is to make the process more manageable so that legal immigration doesn't take so long and have arbitrary results the way it does now. The current path to legal immigration isn't working and needs to be fixed. In the meantime, some will be coming in illegally for lack of a better life choice as MasterStache discussed. Whether or not we should allow them to stay and for how long is still a tricky question.

Regarding that last point, I'm not an immigration expert but I don't believe that those going through the legal immigration process have to wait for the process to be fully completed before coming to the states.

Good point, my wording suggesting that they must wait to enter the country was off. Immigrants can live in the country while being processed but the processing is not straightforward and I'm not so sure that is always the case. I'm no expert either, but from what I've read and tried to understand the process isn't the same for everyone which is what I was referring to when I said "arbitrary". Even if they are living in the US they are at a disadvantage in the sense that they are jumping through hoops, if it was easy, more people would do it the legal way.

This also brings up the one of the big problems with building a wall that so many advocates seem to miss- even if there is a wall there still needs to be a gate and that's where most immigrants are coming through anyway (or flying in of course). Legal or not, getting inside the borders isn't really the hard part.
My main point was that I don't see how it's unfair for someone to simply be in the United States without having gone through the process yet if that's a normal part of the legal process anyway.  Now if we're talking about moving undocumented immigrants to the front of the line so that they finish the process before those who started the normal process before them then that could be considered unfair, but I don't think anyone is advocating that.

Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

« Last Edit: May 10, 2018, 12:36:37 PM by shenlong55 »

jordanread

  • Guest
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #169 on: May 10, 2018, 12:43:45 PM »
The points that DarkandStormy makes is actually what I was getting at, not a hypothetical future but a present reality. Also I was thinking more in terms of averages, not on an individual basis. Certainly there will be cases where someone is taking advantage of the system or has a medical emergency and cannot afford the costs, but on average if undocumented immigrants are not burdening the system then your first point would be null.

Your second point where I believe you were suggesting they may be bringing in contraband, I don't see how that relates to illegal residency. If they were smuggling and now they are here, it's too late to prevent that.

As for the matter of allowing illegals to stay while those going through the process must wait, you're right, that's unfair. Although I would add that those who become legal residents enjoy advantages that illegal residents do not, for example receiving some of the welfare advantages you mentioned. Personally I would advocate that the way to fix this is to make the process more manageable so that legal immigration doesn't take so long and have arbitrary results the way it does now. The current path to legal immigration isn't working and needs to be fixed. In the meantime, some will be coming in illegally for lack of a better life choice as MasterStache discussed. Whether or not we should allow them to stay and for how long is still a tricky question.

@Dabnasty , I'm pretty sure that you and I are somewhat aligned politically, but I have to mention a couple of things that I noticed here, that are something interesting to look at. I've bolded a couple of points above, and I will talk about why those bugged me below.

I invited @TornWonder to this thread because they made a comment in the other thread. Honestly, I gave it 3:1 odds that it was meant to be snarky and intended to troll the other thread. But something that I realized is that with the name of that thread, the fact is that resistance means something different to everyone. So whether or not it was trolling becomes besides the point, based exclusively on the fact that they are engaging in a conversation (which we do here pretty awesomely if I do say so myself). I know that as someone with misanthropic tendencies, I assume the worst of people. Nothing wrong with that in and of itself. But on occasion I found that I was taking what someone said, adding my own assumptions, and addressing that underlying assumption. This doesn't do anything to further understanding or the conversation. Dare I say 'discussion' (get it...it's acts of Political Discussion...witty, right?)? Which is at least part of the reason that I view words as super important.

Huh, not so far below after all. The first bolded comment was about the first point presented. Maybe it's because I initiated this particular conversation, but even given that potential blindspot, rereading the comments, I don't think that the bit about the weight of illegal immigrants on the safety net was a point. It was more just answering generally. I'm not saying it's a point that may eventually be discussed, but I didn't consider a point in this context. It may have touched on something they believe*, but since that wasn't the question, I feel like it was more general than an actual point attempting to be made.

On that note though, @DarkandStormy , thank you so much for references related to those thoughts. I'm certain that will come in handy, especially in this thread.

For some reason, I think the most important part of the comments made, that provide what I feel is a fundamental belief that I'd like to address is this:

That's what we have judges for.

This makes sense to me, even though I don't agree. This also is consistent with other comments made. Now, I suspect that due to whatever job TornWonder has, it's not a real inconvenience to send info along to ICE. I also suspect that there may be some kind of bias underneath it, but I don't know them, so I can't say for certain. Based on the comments that have been made, I would assume that if underlying bias exists, it's a subtle thing. What I am pretty certain about is that TornWonder respects the law as it stands, even if they don't agree with it. The questions I would have is as follows:

How do you feel about the current immigration laws?
When it comes to immigration, what role should the government play, and what values do you feel should be focused on?
Is there any other laws broken that you witness regularly and report (besides traffic...I think we've already discussed that)?

There are follow up questions, but it kind of depends on the answers to the first question.


*Dammit. @TornWonder , these gender neutral pronouns are driving me crazy. Do you care to share what you prefer to be referenced as? I'm a guy, if that helps (all Jordans I've met [and most of those I've interacted with] are women, but I don't like assuming).

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1141
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Midwest, USA

Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1122
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #171 on: May 11, 2018, 02:39:57 PM »
Quote
Why do illegal immigrants bug you? What is the big deal about someone being here illegally? What concerns you most?

I know these questions were directed at another, but I don't like the fact that illegal immigrants start off by breaking the law. It is unfair to jump the line in front of people who've been waiting years for legal residence. Because of the lack of documentation, it's easier for employers to get illegal immigrants to work under the table, undercutting labor laws, minimum wages, and unions.

That was my starting point but, the whole convolution I went through earlier in this thread have also led me to believe (at this point, data is still incoming) that the criminalization of illegal immigration is problematic.  I think that until immigration is fixed, illegal entry should be at most a civil, fine-able offense. The punishment (forcible removal, separation from family, indefinite incarceration, then deportation) is too harsh.

Moreover, detaining immigrants is expensive: I have read $208 per detainee per day. . Rather than spending money on detentions, resources should be spent on creating more points of legal entry, speeding up the process of vetting immigrants, and providing long term working visas for immigrants and refugees with clear guidelines in the beginning about when and how they are expected to return to their home countries.   
   
Until the laws and procedures are changed,  in conscience I wouldn't be able to turn a non-criminal in to ICE. Separating kids from their parents is especially troubling, with potential long term consequences, such as  abuse or Reactive Attachment Disorder

The law is wrong, it is inhumane and wasteful and should be changed.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1700
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #172 on: May 11, 2018, 03:47:22 PM »
Quote
Why do illegal immigrants bug you? What is the big deal about someone being here illegally? What concerns you most?

I know these questions were directed at another, but I don't like the fact that illegal immigrants start off by breaking the law. It is unfair to jump the line in front of people who've been waiting years for legal residence. Because of the lack of documentation, it's easier for employers to get illegal immigrants to work under the table, undercutting labor laws, minimum wages, and unions.

That was my starting point but, the whole convolution I went through earlier in this thread have also led me to believe (at this point, data is still incoming) that the criminalization of illegal immigration is problematic.  I think that until immigration is fixed, illegal entry should be at most a civil, fine-able offense. The punishment (forcible removal, separation from family, indefinite incarceration, then deportation) is too harsh.

Moreover, detaining immigrants is expensive: I have read $208 per detainee per day. . Rather than spending money on detentions, resources should be spent on creating more points of legal entry, speeding up the process of vetting immigrants, and providing long term working visas for immigrants and refugees with clear guidelines in the beginning about when and how they are expected to return to their home countries.   
   
Until the laws and procedures are changed,  in conscience I wouldn't be able to turn a non-criminal in to ICE. Separating kids from their parents is especially troubling, with potential long term consequences, such as  abuse or Reactive Attachment Disorder

The law is wrong, it is inhumane and wasteful and should be changed.

+1 Great response.

OtherJen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 632
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #173 on: May 11, 2018, 04:18:55 PM »
Quote
Why do illegal immigrants bug you? What is the big deal about someone being here illegally? What concerns you most?

I know these questions were directed at another, but I don't like the fact that illegal immigrants start off by breaking the law. It is unfair to jump the line in front of people who've been waiting years for legal residence. Because of the lack of documentation, it's easier for employers to get illegal immigrants to work under the table, undercutting labor laws, minimum wages, and unions.

That was my starting point but, the whole convolution I went through earlier in this thread have also led me to believe (at this point, data is still incoming) that the criminalization of illegal immigration is problematic.  I think that until immigration is fixed, illegal entry should be at most a civil, fine-able offense. The punishment (forcible removal, separation from family, indefinite incarceration, then deportation) is too harsh.

Moreover, detaining immigrants is expensive: I have read $208 per detainee per day. . Rather than spending money on detentions, resources should be spent on creating more points of legal entry, speeding up the process of vetting immigrants, and providing long term working visas for immigrants and refugees with clear guidelines in the beginning about when and how they are expected to return to their home countries.   
   
Until the laws and procedures are changed,  in conscience I wouldn't be able to turn a non-criminal in to ICE. Separating kids from their parents is especially troubling, with potential long term consequences, such as  abuse or Reactive Attachment Disorder

The law is wrong, it is inhumane and wasteful and should be changed.

+1 Great response.

Seconded. I can't argue with any of it, except to wonder why the unscrupulous employers rarely face consequences serious enough to dissuade them from hiring undocumented workers.

TornWonder

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 57
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #174 on: May 14, 2018, 10:31:47 AM »
http://econofact.org/do-undocumented-immigrants-overuse-government-benefits

Fun facts though:

Quote
Unauthorized immigrants are ineligible for most major federally-funded safety net programs.

Quote
According to a study by the CATO Institute, low-income non-citizens (documented and undocumented combined) have lower participation rates in safety net programs than low-income citizens, in part due to eligibility restrictions for the undocumented.

Quote
Undocumented immigrants are not eligible to receive Social Security benefits even though many contribute to the system.

Quote
Estimates suggest that up to $12 billion per year are contributed by undocumented immigrants and their employers. Most undocumented immigrants will never draw from the system.

Quote
Despite scapegoating in public discourse, the drain that undocumented immigrants place on government benefit programs is small. The number of low-income undocumented immigrants is small relative to the size of the overall low-income population, and federal law restricts their participation in most programs.

http://econofact.org/do-immigrants-cost-native-born-taxpayers-money

Quote
Estimates of the fiscal impacts of immigrants are complex and depend on the time horizon chosen for the analysis. Over the long horizon such estimates, under the most likely scenarios, generally find that immigrants are not a significant fiscal drain. The evidence does not suggest that current immigrant flows cost native-born taxpayers money over the long-run nor does it provide support for the notion that lowering immigration quotas or stepping up enforcement of existing immigration laws would generate savings to existing taxpayers.

Thanks for providing. This is much of the same of what I have found and why I posed the question to TornWonder about how he came to the conclusion that undocumented immigrants pose a  "significant"  burden on our social programs. He/she seems to be avoiding the question.

First you should understand that in order to pay into the social security system, you need a social security number, and illegal immigrants cannot legally obtain that.  This means every illegal immigrant contributing to the social security system has committed identity fraud/theft.

Just because illegal immigrants are ineligible for social safety net programs doesn't mean that none are on them.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3338
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #175 on: May 14, 2018, 10:35:25 AM »
Quote
Why do illegal immigrants bug you? What is the big deal about someone being here illegally? What concerns you most?

I know these questions were directed at another, but I don't like the fact that illegal immigrants start off by breaking the law. It is unfair to jump the line in front of people who've been waiting years for legal residence. Because of the lack of documentation, it's easier for employers to get illegal immigrants to work under the table, undercutting labor laws, minimum wages, and unions.

That was my starting point but, the whole convolution I went through earlier in this thread have also led me to believe (at this point, data is still incoming) that the criminalization of illegal immigration is problematic.  I think that until immigration is fixed, illegal entry should be at most a civil, fine-able offense. The punishment (forcible removal, separation from family, indefinite incarceration, then deportation) is too harsh.

Moreover, detaining immigrants is expensive: I have read $208 per detainee per day. . Rather than spending money on detentions, resources should be spent on creating more points of legal entry, speeding up the process of vetting immigrants, and providing long term working visas for immigrants and refugees with clear guidelines in the beginning about when and how they are expected to return to their home countries.   
   
Until the laws and procedures are changed,  in conscience I wouldn't be able to turn a non-criminal in to ICE. Separating kids from their parents is especially troubling, with potential long term consequences, such as  abuse or Reactive Attachment Disorder

The law is wrong, it is inhumane and wasteful and should be changed.

+1 Great response.

Seconded. I can't argue with any of it, except to wonder why the unscrupulous employers rarely face consequences serious enough to dissuade them from hiring undocumented workers.

This. Frankly, I doubt very much that the politicians in question care much about the problem of illegal immigration -- except to the extent that they can rally their base with dog-whistle calls.

If they really were serious about stopping it, they would create and enforce serious charges against those who hire them. Since they don't, we know how serious they really are.

TornWonder

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 57
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #176 on: May 14, 2018, 10:38:41 AM »
The points that DarkandStormy makes is actually what I was getting at, not a hypothetical future but a present reality. Also I was thinking more in terms of averages, not on an individual basis. Certainly there will be cases where someone is taking advantage of the system or has a medical emergency and cannot afford the costs, but on average if undocumented immigrants are not burdening the system then your first point would be null.

Your second point where I believe you were suggesting they may be bringing in contraband, I don't see how that relates to illegal residency. If they were smuggling and now they are here, it's too late to prevent that.

As for the matter of allowing illegals to stay while those going through the process must wait, you're right, that's unfair. Although I would add that those who become legal residents enjoy advantages that illegal residents do not, for example receiving some of the welfare advantages you mentioned. Personally I would advocate that the way to fix this is to make the process more manageable so that legal immigration doesn't take so long and have arbitrary results the way it does now. The current path to legal immigration isn't working and needs to be fixed. In the meantime, some will be coming in illegally for lack of a better life choice as MasterStache discussed. Whether or not we should allow them to stay and for how long is still a tricky question.

@Dabnasty , I'm pretty sure that you and I are somewhat aligned politically, but I have to mention a couple of things that I noticed here, that are something interesting to look at. I've bolded a couple of points above, and I will talk about why those bugged me below.

I invited @TornWonder to this thread because they made a comment in the other thread. Honestly, I gave it 3:1 odds that it was meant to be snarky and intended to troll the other thread. But something that I realized is that with the name of that thread, the fact is that resistance means something different to everyone. So whether or not it was trolling becomes besides the point, based exclusively on the fact that they are engaging in a conversation (which we do here pretty awesomely if I do say so myself). I know that as someone with misanthropic tendencies, I assume the worst of people. Nothing wrong with that in and of itself. But on occasion I found that I was taking what someone said, adding my own assumptions, and addressing that underlying assumption. This doesn't do anything to further understanding or the conversation. Dare I say 'discussion' (get it...it's acts of Political Discussion...witty, right?)? Which is at least part of the reason that I view words as super important.

Huh, not so far below after all. The first bolded comment was about the first point presented. Maybe it's because I initiated this particular conversation, but even given that potential blindspot, rereading the comments, I don't think that the bit about the weight of illegal immigrants on the safety net was a point. It was more just answering generally. I'm not saying it's a point that may eventually be discussed, but I didn't consider a point in this context. It may have touched on something they believe*, but since that wasn't the question, I feel like it was more general than an actual point attempting to be made.

On that note though, @DarkandStormy , thank you so much for references related to those thoughts. I'm certain that will come in handy, especially in this thread.

For some reason, I think the most important part of the comments made, that provide what I feel is a fundamental belief that I'd like to address is this:

That's what we have judges for.

This makes sense to me, even though I don't agree. This also is consistent with other comments made. Now, I suspect that due to whatever job TornWonder has, it's not a real inconvenience to send info along to ICE. I also suspect that there may be some kind of bias underneath it, but I don't know them, so I can't say for certain. Based on the comments that have been made, I would assume that if underlying bias exists, it's a subtle thing. What I am pretty certain about is that TornWonder respects the law as it stands, even if they don't agree with it. The questions I would have is as follows:

How do you feel about the current immigration laws?
When it comes to immigration, what role should the government play, and what values do you feel should be focused on?
Is there any other laws broken that you witness regularly and report (besides traffic...I think we've already discussed that)?

There are follow up questions, but it kind of depends on the answers to the first question.


*Dammit. @TornWonder , these gender neutral pronouns are driving me crazy. Do you care to share what you prefer to be referenced as? I'm a guy, if that helps (all Jordans I've met [and most of those I've interacted with] are women, but I don't like assuming).

How do you feel about the current immigration laws?
I'm not a fan of current immigration laws.  I think they don't make much sense at all for the good of the country and should be overhauled.  However, that doesn't mean I view that breaking the law as acceptable.

When it comes to immigration, what role should the government play, and what values do you feel should be focused on?
I think the main two things that should be focused on are integration in US society and training/education.  As for what role the government should play, how do you mean?

Is there any other laws broken that you witness regularly and report (besides traffic...I think we've already discussed that)?
No, on a regular basis I don't witness much crime.  I am either at work, home, or in nature >99% of the time.

Also, I'm a guy.

TornWonder

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 57
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #177 on: May 14, 2018, 10:41:49 AM »
Quote
Why do illegal immigrants bug you? What is the big deal about someone being here illegally? What concerns you most?

I know these questions were directed at another, but I don't like the fact that illegal immigrants start off by breaking the law. It is unfair to jump the line in front of people who've been waiting years for legal residence. Because of the lack of documentation, it's easier for employers to get illegal immigrants to work under the table, undercutting labor laws, minimum wages, and unions.

That was my starting point but, the whole convolution I went through earlier in this thread have also led me to believe (at this point, data is still incoming) that the criminalization of illegal immigration is problematic.  I think that until immigration is fixed, illegal entry should be at most a civil, fine-able offense. The punishment (forcible removal, separation from family, indefinite incarceration, then deportation) is too harsh.

Moreover, detaining immigrants is expensive: I have read $208 per detainee per day. . Rather than spending money on detentions, resources should be spent on creating more points of legal entry, speeding up the process of vetting immigrants, and providing long term working visas for immigrants and refugees with clear guidelines in the beginning about when and how they are expected to return to their home countries.   
   
Until the laws and procedures are changed,  in conscience I wouldn't be able to turn a non-criminal in to ICE. Separating kids from their parents is especially troubling, with potential long term consequences, such as  abuse or Reactive Attachment Disorder

The law is wrong, it is inhumane and wasteful and should be changed.

+1 Great response.

Seconded. I can't argue with any of it, except to wonder why the unscrupulous employers rarely face consequences serious enough to dissuade them from hiring undocumented workers.

This. Frankly, I doubt very much that the politicians in question care much about the problem of illegal immigration -- except to the extent that they can rally their base with dog-whistle calls.

If they really were serious about stopping it, they would create and enforce serious charges against those who hire them. Since they don't, we know how serious they really are.

Like this: https://chicago.suntimes.com/business/immigration-crackdown-shifts-to-employers-as-audits-surge/

jordanread

  • Guest
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #178 on: May 14, 2018, 11:50:41 AM »
First, dude...thank you so much for coming over here and be willing to discuss stuff. It's really awesome that we can do that, even if we don't all agree on everything (actually, I think that disagreement makes things even more awesome!).

Also, I'm a guy.

Thank you! That will make things way easier (no idea why it was bugging me so much, but I suspect it was how many times I had to write 'their').

How do you feel about the current immigration laws?
I'm not a fan of current immigration laws.  I think they don't make much sense at all for the good of the country and should be overhauled.  However, that doesn't mean I view that breaking the law as acceptable.

The phrasing you used here brought up an interesting thought. I'm going to expand on what you said/paraphrase just a bit, and if I'm off, that's probably why. You said that immigration laws don't make sense for the good of the country. That to me means that at best, it does nothing to better the country, and at worse, it's actually damaging the country. Let's assume the best for now, though (personally, I believe the latter option is accurate, but that's neither here nor there). I mentioned earlier that I felt your belief in the rule of law (and the justice system) is what drove you as it relates to the original comment. So to me, it tracks that you feel the rule of law is a fundamental part of the country. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this all seems a bit dissonant. So you follow the rule of law because that is one of the fundamental parts of the country that improves it. And yet the current immigration laws don't do that. So you are following the rule of law (and holding others to that) that improves the country, by reporting violations of a law that doesn't. How do you square the two seemingly opposite positions?

When it comes to immigration, what role should the government play, and what values do you feel should be focused on?
I think the main two things that should be focused on are integration in US society and training/education.  As for what role the government should play, how do you mean?

I like your first sentence, especially the bolded part. I agree entirely. It brings up a contrast. I don't know if you've heard it (I didn't until I actually went there), but the US is a melting pot, while Canada is a salad. With the US, everyone integrates, and society as a whole ideally takes the best of all integrated cultures, while in Canada, the numerous different cultures sitting under the umbrella of the country make more of an in depth section of that society that is way different, but complementary. I don't know which viewpoint is better, if either, but in the US, I will support the melting pot idea.

As far as education goes, to me, we can't do that with Americans born here. Would the education of immigrants be more important than the education of the next generation? I do know that currently, the tests to become a citizen actually results in immigrants knowing more about the country than natural-born citizens.

As far as the government role, this actually starts getting into larger ideas regarding sovereignty of a nation, the borders required to clarify the sovereignty on a global stage, and how immigration fits into that idea. Just a concept I want to flesh out.
 
Is there any other laws broken that you witness regularly and report (besides traffic...I think we've already discussed that)?
No, on a regular basis I don't witness much crime.  I am either at work, home, or in nature >99% of the time.

I kind of want to dig into your existence in nature, because I do the same thing, and while I don't report people who I see littering, or attempting to leave a campsite in a really crappy state, I do confront them. That's not really a good conversation for the moment, so I'll leave it.

I don't have knowledge of what it is you do, but do you consider what you see to be a witness to a crime?


https://chicago.suntimes.com/business/immigration-crackdown-shifts-to-employers-as-audits-surge/

I didn't know that audits were something that ICE did. Learn something new every day. I almost want to put forth an idea that those who are found by audits at an employer are obviously benefitting society via the work they do (even if they don't contribute in any other way), and should be rewarded. This is just a strange gut reaction, and not fleshed out, nor do I even think it's a potential solution (as of right now).

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1141
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #179 on: May 14, 2018, 12:50:16 PM »
Quote from: TornWonder link=topic=75619.msg2005573#msg2005573

First you should understand that in order to pay into the social security system, you need a social security number, and illegal immigrants cannot legally obtain that.  This means every illegal immigrant contributing to the social security system has committed identity fraud/theft.

Just because illegal immigrants are ineligible for social safety net programs doesn't mean that none are on them.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/17/15290950/undocumented-immigrants-file-tax-returns

Undocumented immigrants can obtain an ITIN, which is used in place of a SSN.  It was literally created for this purpose.

Quote
Still, all undocumented workers fund public schools and local government services by paying sales and property taxes like everyone else. In 2010, that added up to about $10.6 billion in state and local taxes, according to an analysis by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.

And workers who get a paycheck, like Maria, still have payroll taxes for Medicare and Social Security withheld from their paycheck, even if they put a fake Social Security number down on their W-2 form. The IRS estimates that unauthorized workers pay about $9 billion in payroll taxes annually.

Deporting all illegal immigrants, which seems to be your stance of "hey they broke they law, let's enforce the law" would not go over well for the economy.

Quote
So many unauthorized immigrants were paying into the trust fund while getting nothing in return that it ends up generating a lot of revenue for the government. “We estimate that earnings by unauthorized immigrants result in a net positive effect on Social Security financial status generally,” Gross concluded in the 2013 review.

More analysis - https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/undocumented-immigrants-and-taxes/499604/
« Last Edit: May 14, 2018, 02:22:00 PM by DarkandStormy »

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1700
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #180 on: May 14, 2018, 02:15:50 PM »
First you should understand that in order to pay into the social security system, you need a social security number, and illegal immigrants cannot legally obtain that.  This means every illegal immigrant contributing to the social security system has committed identity fraud/theft.

Just because illegal immigrants are ineligible for social safety net programs doesn't mean that none are on them.

You are correct. However, many undocumented immigrants use either a fake SS number, stolen SS number, a previously valid SS number, or an ITIN (as discussed above) which allow them to pay federal taxes and into social security. The IRA rarely pursues offenders hiring these folks because the penalty is a measly $50 per SS mismatch and it's just not worth the resources.

I am still waiting for you to provide those numbers. Looking more and more like you were just trolling.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2018, 02:19:06 PM by MasterStache »

jordanread

  • Guest
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #181 on: May 14, 2018, 03:03:42 PM »
@DarkandStormy thank you for fixing that post. I twitch a bit when I see that.

Deporting all illegal immigrants, which seems to be your stance of "hey they broke the law, let's enforce the law" would not go over well for the economy.

I get that you are upset about the original post from @TornWonder , and I am in agreement with you when it comes to the quote above. I haven't seen anything about deporting all illegal immigrants though (have you? if so, please quote it). Unless I missed a comment, where did this come from? I don't think he said anything like that. It seems to me that this part of your comment is propping up a strawman, and in the worst way. I assume that this is because you (rightly) feel strongly about this subject. It doesn't help anything in my experience though.

Am I wrong?

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1700
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #182 on: May 14, 2018, 07:30:31 PM »
@DarkandStormy thank you for fixing that post. I twitch a bit when I see that.

Deporting all illegal immigrants, which seems to be your stance of "hey they broke the law, let's enforce the law" would not go over well for the economy.

I get that you are upset about the original post from @TornWonder , and I am in agreement with you when it comes to the quote above. I haven't seen anything about deporting all illegal immigrants though (have you? if so, please quote it). Unless I missed a comment, where did this come from? I don't think he said anything like that. It seems to me that this part of your comment is propping up a strawman, and in the worst way. I assume that this is because you (rightly) feel strongly about this subject. It doesn't help anything in my experience though.

Am I wrong?

I am quite certain TornWonder claimed that he reports all he deems to be illegal. I think that fairly translates to wanting all of them deported. I don't know how you can see it any other way. It would raise a host of questions if he now claimed to pick and choose.

jordanread

  • Guest
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #183 on: May 14, 2018, 07:56:57 PM »
I think that fairly translates to wanting all of them deported.

Really? How do you figure that, you know, fairly?


former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3640
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #184 on: May 15, 2018, 06:33:44 AM »
How do you feel about the current immigration laws?
I'm not a fan of current immigration laws.  I think they don't make much sense at all for the good of the country and should be overhauled.  However, that doesn't mean I view that breaking the law as acceptable.

The phrasing you used here brought up an interesting thought. I'm going to expand on what you said/paraphrase just a bit, and if I'm off, that's probably why. You said that immigration laws don't make sense for the good of the country. That to me means that at best, it does nothing to better the country, and at worse, it's actually damaging the country. Let's assume the best for now, though (personally, I believe the latter option is accurate, but that's neither here nor there). I mentioned earlier that I felt your belief in the rule of law (and the justice system) is what drove you as it relates to the original comment. So to me, it tracks that you feel the rule of law is a fundamental part of the country. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this all seems a bit dissonant. So you follow the rule of law because that is one of the fundamental parts of the country that improves it. And yet the current immigration laws don't do that. So you are following the rule of law (and holding others to that) that improves the country, by reporting violations of a law that doesn't. How do you square the two seemingly opposite positions?

Laws are never "perfect": if nothing else (and there is always a lot else) there is a time lag between the current and ideal laws.  So yes, the rule of law is fundamental to a safe, secure and fair society but there is always likely to be dissonance at some point.  As to how to deal with that dissonance there are a couple of choices: citizen activism within the law (campaigning, sit ins, striking, standing for elected office, etc.) and citizen activism outside the law (breaking campaign rules, bribery, all the way up to violent terrorism).

The problem that I have with illegal immigrants is not that by making themselves into illegal immigrants they are protesting unfair laws and trying to change them, which is the answer to the question posed, but that they are breaking the law for personal advantage.  There is little which is noble per se about being an illegal immigrant, or which can be seen as a principled response to a genuine problem of the law.  (Note, asylum seekers who have made a claim for asylum based on persecution in their home state are not illegal immigrants.) 

As to what to do about illegal immigrants, the discussion seems to revolve about whether or not being an illegal immigrant is a "victimless crime", something which is being discussed almost wholly in terms of whether an illegal immigrant is an economic benefit or an economic burden.  Economics are of course not the whole issue, as a consideration of social benefits and burdens should be of equal consideration.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1700
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #185 on: May 15, 2018, 10:48:18 AM »
I think that fairly translates to wanting all of them deported.

Really? How do you figure that, you know, fairly?

  I send the names and numbers of every applicant that does not have legal paperwork, I don't pick and choose.

Logical Deduction -  if he didn't want them deported he wouldn't report them. If he didn't want them all deported, he would pick and choose who to report.

jordanread

  • Guest
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #186 on: May 15, 2018, 12:06:11 PM »
I think that fairly translates to wanting all of them deported.

Really? How do you figure that, you know, fairly?

  I send the names and numbers of every applicant that does not have legal paperwork, I don't pick and choose.

Logical Deduction -  if he didn't want them deported he wouldn't report them. If he didn't want them all deported, he would pick and choose who to report.

Gotcha. I didn't make that leap. I assumed something different. I suppose it's best to just ask @TornWonder.

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1141
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #187 on: May 15, 2018, 12:53:15 PM »
@DarkandStormy thank you for fixing that post. I twitch a bit when I see that.

Deporting all illegal immigrants, which seems to be your stance of "hey they broke the law, let's enforce the law" would not go over well for the economy.

I get that you are upset about the original post from @TornWonder , and I am in agreement with you when it comes to the quote above. I haven't seen anything about deporting all illegal immigrants though (have you? if so, please quote it). Unless I missed a comment, where did this come from? I don't think he said anything like that. It seems to me that this part of your comment is propping up a strawman, and in the worst way. I assume that this is because you (rightly) feel strongly about this subject. It doesn't help anything in my experience though.

Am I wrong?

He has said, "All laws should be enforced.  If you don't like the laws, then change them."  As well as saying he reports every undocumented worker (or non-citizen?) to ICE.

This is a tough one, no doubt.  The sheer amount of resources needed to deport millions of people would be staggering.  They are providing an economic benefit - a net positive to social security, cheap(er) labor, etc.  I actually don't know what all the "right" answers are in terms of deportation, border security, etc.  I think we have a better legal path in place, that might help.  But people simply overstaying their visa (which is the vast majority of undocumented immigrants in this country) is hard to enforce or monitor.

I used to be fairly anti-illegal immigrant.  But I attended a seminar in January 2017 on the matter - this was when Trump was starting to tout his Muslim ban.  I got to hear the stories of couples and families who were trying to do things legally.  One guy never got his notice to appear in court and ICE picked him up and sent him to a detention facility.  He wanted to stay here, do it the right way, but how's he supposed to know when to go to court if he never gets the notice?

I do think there is a middle ground but don't really know what that looks like.

jordanread

  • Guest
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #188 on: May 16, 2018, 10:15:33 AM »
@DarkandStormy thank you for fixing that post. I twitch a bit when I see that.

Deporting all illegal immigrants, which seems to be your stance of "hey they broke the law, let's enforce the law" would not go over well for the economy.

I get that you are upset about the original post from @TornWonder , and I am in agreement with you when it comes to the quote above. I haven't seen anything about deporting all illegal immigrants though (have you? if so, please quote it). Unless I missed a comment, where did this come from? I don't think he said anything like that. It seems to me that this part of your comment is propping up a strawman, and in the worst way. I assume that this is because you (rightly) feel strongly about this subject. It doesn't help anything in my experience though.

Am I wrong?

He has said, "All laws should be enforced.  If you don't like the laws, then change them."  As well as saying he reports every undocumented worker (or non-citizen?) to ICE.

This is a tough one, no doubt.  The sheer amount of resources needed to deport millions of people would be staggering.  They are providing an economic benefit - a net positive to social security, cheap(er) labor, etc.  I actually don't know what all the "right" answers are in terms of deportation, border security, etc.  I think we have a better legal path in place, that might help.  But people simply overstaying their visa (which is the vast majority of undocumented immigrants in this country) is hard to enforce or monitor.

I used to be fairly anti-illegal immigrant.  But I attended a seminar in January 2017 on the matter - this was when Trump was starting to tout his Muslim ban.  I got to hear the stories of couples and families who were trying to do things legally.  One guy never got his notice to appear in court and ICE picked him up and sent him to a detention facility.  He wanted to stay here, do it the right way, but how's he supposed to know when to go to court if he never gets the notice?

I do think there is a middle ground but don't really know what that looks like.

Considering I'm the main one who didn't make this leap, I think over the past week I've failed at extrapolating things out. Sorry about that everyone. Your explanations make sense, and I just missed it.

Also, when he said he reports every undocumented worker, I read that more as every undocumented worker he comes across during the day to day. Which I assumed (there I go again) was a relatively small number of people. I don't like putting those extrapolations on people, until it starts into the actual discussion with the person.

TornWonder

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 57
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #189 on: May 16, 2018, 12:18:57 PM »
First, dude...thank you so much for coming over here and be willing to discuss stuff. It's really awesome that we can do that, even if we don't all agree on everything (actually, I think that disagreement makes things even more awesome!).

Also, I'm a guy.

Thank you! That will make things way easier (no idea why it was bugging me so much, but I suspect it was how many times I had to write 'their').

How do you feel about the current immigration laws?
I'm not a fan of current immigration laws.  I think they don't make much sense at all for the good of the country and should be overhauled.  However, that doesn't mean I view that breaking the law as acceptable.

The phrasing you used here brought up an interesting thought. I'm going to expand on what you said/paraphrase just a bit, and if I'm off, that's probably why. You said that immigration laws don't make sense for the good of the country. That to me means that at best, it does nothing to better the country, and at worse, it's actually damaging the country. Let's assume the best for now, though (personally, I believe the latter option is accurate, but that's neither here nor there). I mentioned earlier that I felt your belief in the rule of law (and the justice system) is what drove you as it relates to the original comment. So to me, it tracks that you feel the rule of law is a fundamental part of the country. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this all seems a bit dissonant. So you follow the rule of law because that is one of the fundamental parts of the country that improves it. And yet the current immigration laws don't do that. So you are following the rule of law (and holding others to that) that improves the country, by reporting violations of a law that doesn't. How do you square the two seemingly opposite positions?

Again, it's not for me to use my personal beliefs to determine if current law should be enforced or not.  I don't think most drugs should be illegal, but I'm still going to report it to the police if I see a drug deal occurring.  If every individual acted on how they believed the laws should be, you'd have chaos and anarchy, not law and order.

Quote
When it comes to immigration, what role should the government play, and what values do you feel should be focused on?
I think the main two things that should be focused on are integration in US society and training/education.  As for what role the government should play, how do you mean?

I like your first sentence, especially the bolded part. I agree entirely. It brings up a contrast. I don't know if you've heard it (I didn't until I actually went there), but the US is a melting pot, while Canada is a salad. With the US, everyone integrates, and society as a whole ideally takes the best of all integrated cultures, while in Canada, the numerous different cultures sitting under the umbrella of the country make more of an in depth section of that society that is way different, but complementary. I don't know which viewpoint is better, if either, but in the US, I will support the melting pot idea.

As far as education goes, to me, we can't do that with Americans born here. Would the education of immigrants be more important than the education of the next generation? I do know that currently, the tests to become a citizen actually results in immigrants knowing more about the country than natural-born citizens.

As far as the government role, this actually starts getting into larger ideas regarding sovereignty of a nation, the borders required to clarify the sovereignty on a global stage, and how immigration fits into that idea. Just a concept I want to flesh out.

So the broader concept is assimilation into society, but I'm not sure of the best way to judge that.  Hopefully smarter people than I are spending their time thinking of ways to accomplish that.

I don't think immigration control is an aspect of my ideal government, but you do need borders and some level of border control so that everyone understands the laws and authority of where they are.
 
Quote
Is there any other laws broken that you witness regularly and report (besides traffic...I think we've already discussed that)?
No, on a regular basis I don't witness much crime.  I am either at work, home, or in nature >99% of the time.

I kind of want to dig into your existence in nature, because I do the same thing, and while I don't report people who I see littering, or attempting to leave a campsite in a really crappy state, I do confront them. That's not really a good conversation for the moment, so I'll leave it.

I don't have knowledge of what it is you do, but do you consider what you see to be a witness to a crime?

Simply stated, yes.  Not going to get into what I do because it would be fairly simple for me to be doxxed.


Quote
https://chicago.suntimes.com/business/immigration-crackdown-shifts-to-employers-as-audits-surge/

I didn't know that audits were something that ICE did. Learn something new every day. I almost want to put forth an idea that those who are found by audits at an employer are obviously benefitting society via the work they do (even if they don't contribute in any other way), and should be rewarded. This is just a strange gut reaction, and not fleshed out, nor do I even think it's a potential solution (as of right now).
On the surface that doesn't sound like something I'd support but feel free to flesh it out further.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2018, 12:30:41 PM by TornWonder »

TornWonder

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 57
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #190 on: May 16, 2018, 12:20:25 PM »
First you should understand that in order to pay into the social security system, you need a social security number, and illegal immigrants cannot legally obtain that.  This means every illegal immigrant contributing to the social security system has committed identity fraud/theft.

Just because illegal immigrants are ineligible for social safety net programs doesn't mean that none are on them.

You are correct. However, many undocumented immigrants use either a fake SS number, stolen SS number, a previously valid SS number, or an ITIN (as discussed above) which allow them to pay federal taxes and into social security. The IRA rarely pursues offenders hiring these folks because the penalty is a measly $50 per SS mismatch and it's just not worth the resources.

I am still waiting for you to provide those numbers. Looking more and more like you were just trolling.

Which numbers do you mean?

TornWonder

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 57
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #191 on: May 16, 2018, 12:23:06 PM »
Quote from: TornWonder link=topic=75619.msg2005573#msg2005573

First you should understand that in order to pay into the social security system, you need a social security number, and illegal immigrants cannot legally obtain that.  This means every illegal immigrant contributing to the social security system has committed identity fraud/theft.

Just because illegal immigrants are ineligible for social safety net programs doesn't mean that none are on them.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/17/15290950/undocumented-immigrants-file-tax-returns

Undocumented immigrants can obtain an ITIN, which is used in place of a SSN.  It was literally created for this purpose.

Quote
Still, all undocumented workers fund public schools and local government services by paying sales and property taxes like everyone else. In 2010, that added up to about $10.6 billion in state and local taxes, according to an analysis by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.

And workers who get a paycheck, like Maria, still have payroll taxes for Medicare and Social Security withheld from their paycheck, even if they put a fake Social Security number down on their W-2 form. The IRS estimates that unauthorized workers pay about $9 billion in payroll taxes annually.

Deporting all illegal immigrants, which seems to be your stance of "hey they broke they law, let's enforce the law" would not go over well for the economy.

Quote
So many unauthorized immigrants were paying into the trust fund while getting nothing in return that it ends up generating a lot of revenue for the government. “We estimate that earnings by unauthorized immigrants result in a net positive effect on Social Security financial status generally,” Gross concluded in the 2013 review.

More analysis - https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/undocumented-immigrants-and-taxes/499604/

In the article the person interviewed is still using a fake SSN on her W-2.

TornWonder

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 57
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #192 on: May 16, 2018, 12:28:38 PM »
I think that fairly translates to wanting all of them deported.

Really? How do you figure that, you know, fairly?

  I send the names and numbers of every applicant that does not have legal paperwork, I don't pick and choose.

Logical Deduction -  if he didn't want them deported he wouldn't report them. If he didn't want them all deported, he would pick and choose who to report.

Gotcha. I didn't make that leap. I assumed something different. I suppose it's best to just ask @TornWonder.

That's not my decision to make.  I don't know their criminal background, how they crossed the border, etc.  All I know if their current status in the US is breaking the law.  To make assumptions beyond that, picking and choosing who to report, that would be even worse in my opinion.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12040
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #193 on: May 16, 2018, 12:33:25 PM »
Quote from: TornWonder link=topic=75619.msg2005573#msg2005573

First you should understand that in order to pay into the social security system, you need a social security number, and illegal immigrants cannot legally obtain that.  This means every illegal immigrant contributing to the social security system has committed identity fraud/theft.

Just because illegal immigrants are ineligible for social safety net programs doesn't mean that none are on them.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/17/15290950/undocumented-immigrants-file-tax-returns

Undocumented immigrants can obtain an ITIN, which is used in place of a SSN.  It was literally created for this purpose.

Quote
Still, all undocumented workers fund public schools and local government services by paying sales and property taxes like everyone else. In 2010, that added up to about $10.6 billion in state and local taxes, according to an analysis by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.

And workers who get a paycheck, like Maria, still have payroll taxes for Medicare and Social Security withheld from their paycheck, even if they put a fake Social Security number down on their W-2 form. The IRS estimates that unauthorized workers pay about $9 billion in payroll taxes annually.

Deporting all illegal immigrants, which seems to be your stance of "hey they broke they law, let's enforce the law" would not go over well for the economy.

Quote
So many unauthorized immigrants were paying into the trust fund while getting nothing in return that it ends up generating a lot of revenue for the government. “We estimate that earnings by unauthorized immigrants result in a net positive effect on Social Security financial status generally,” Gross concluded in the 2013 review.

More analysis - https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/undocumented-immigrants-and-taxes/499604/

In the article the person interviewed is still using a fake SSN on her W-2.

Right.  So she's paying into a system that she can never benefit from.  This is a huge benefit to social security.  This is what you dislike?

jordanread

  • Guest
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #194 on: May 16, 2018, 12:44:25 PM »
Thanks for your responses @TornWonder . One of those I don't get, because the quotes are all messed up. Hit me up if you want help fixing it. Twitchiness and all that.

I'm thinking about what you said. There are a few things I can reply to immediately though.



Quote from: TornWonder link=topic=75619.msg2005573#msg2005573

First you should understand that in order to pay into the social security system, you need a social security number, and illegal immigrants cannot legally obtain that.  This means every illegal immigrant contributing to the social security system has committed identity fraud/theft.

Just because illegal immigrants are ineligible for social safety net programs doesn't mean that none are on them.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/17/15290950/undocumented-immigrants-file-tax-returns

Undocumented immigrants can obtain an ITIN, which is used in place of a SSN.  It was literally created for this purpose.

Quote
Still, all undocumented workers fund public schools and local government services by paying sales and property taxes like everyone else. In 2010, that added up to about $10.6 billion in state and local taxes, according to an analysis by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.

And workers who get a paycheck, like Maria, still have payroll taxes for Medicare and Social Security withheld from their paycheck, even if they put a fake Social Security number down on their W-2 form. The IRS estimates that unauthorized workers pay about $9 billion in payroll taxes annually.

Deporting all illegal immigrants, which seems to be your stance of "hey they broke they law, let's enforce the law" would not go over well for the economy.

Quote
So many unauthorized immigrants were paying into the trust fund while getting nothing in return that it ends up generating a lot of revenue for the government. “We estimate that earnings by unauthorized immigrants result in a net positive effect on Social Security financial status generally,” Gross concluded in the 2013 review.

More analysis - https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/undocumented-immigrants-and-taxes/499604/

In the article the person interviewed is still using a fake SSN on her W-2.

I understand that this is illegal, but honestly, I find it hard to care. Collecting benefits based on using a fake/stolen SSN is something else though. What was your point (I think I know, but I've been bad with assumptions this past week)? Do you dismiss everything else due to this?

First, dude...thank you so much for coming over here and be willing to discuss stuff. It's really awesome that we can do that, even if we don't all agree on everything (actually, I think that disagreement makes things even more awesome!).

Also, I'm a guy.

Thank you! That will make things way easier (no idea why it was bugging me so much, but I suspect it was how many times I had to write 'their').

How do you feel about the current immigration laws?
I'm not a fan of current immigration laws.  I think they don't make much sense at all for the good of the country and should be overhauled.  However, that doesn't mean I view that breaking the law as acceptable.

The phrasing you used here brought up an interesting thought. I'm going to expand on what you said/paraphrase just a bit, and if I'm off, that's probably why. You said that immigration laws don't make sense for the good of the country. That to me means that at best, it does nothing to better the country, and at worse, it's actually damaging the country. Let's assume the best for now, though (personally, I believe the latter option is accurate, but that's neither here nor there). I mentioned earlier that I felt your belief in the rule of law (and the justice system) is what drove you as it relates to the original comment. So to me, it tracks that you feel the rule of law is a fundamental part of the country. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this all seems a bit dissonant. So you follow the rule of law because that is one of the fundamental parts of the country that improves it. And yet the current immigration laws don't do that. So you are following the rule of law (and holding others to that) that improves the country, by reporting violations of a law that doesn't. How do you square the two seemingly opposite positions?

Again, it's not for me to use my personal beliefs to determine if current law should be enforced or not.  I don't think most drugs should be illegal, but I'm still going to report it to the police if I see a drug deal occurring.  If every individual acted on how they believed the laws should be, you'd have chaos and anarchy, not law and order.

So if I'm reading this correctly, one should most definitely use their influence to shape the laws, but once they are done, it's the responsibility of all of us to enforce that. Essentially, once something is law, thus ends the protests. Am I correct? When I verbalized it this way, I realized that there are a few legal ways (which I do) to protest after the law was enacted. Just because it's law, one doesn't need to go out of their way to enforce it. That's how Sanctuary Cities exist, and exactly what is being discussed here.

That's not my decision to make.  I don't know their criminal background, how they crossed the border, etc.  All I know if their current status in the US is breaking the law.  To make assumptions beyond that, picking and choosing who to report, that would be even worse in my opinion.

Having a criminal background, I'm biased. However, the bolded part above makes me wonder. Normally, I would take that phrasing to mean that you most certainly have some biases, conscious or not. But we are talking about a section of society that may not (and most likely don't) have a criminal record. But you said background, and if we are talking about illegal immigration, technically they all have criminal backgrounds.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1700
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #195 on: May 16, 2018, 12:45:23 PM »
First you should understand that in order to pay into the social security system, you need a social security number, and illegal immigrants cannot legally obtain that.  This means every illegal immigrant contributing to the social security system has committed identity fraud/theft.

Just because illegal immigrants are ineligible for social safety net programs doesn't mean that none are on them.

You are correct. However, many undocumented immigrants use either a fake SS number, stolen SS number, a previously valid SS number, or an ITIN (as discussed above) which allow them to pay federal taxes and into social security. The IRA rarely pursues offenders hiring these folks because the penalty is a measly $50 per SS mismatch and it's just not worth the resources.

I am still waiting for you to provide those numbers. Looking more and more like you were just trolling.

Which numbers do you mean?

Feel free to peruse the previous post. Not going to repeat myself. It's not a long thread ( :

jordanread

  • Guest
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #196 on: May 16, 2018, 01:14:56 PM »
First you should understand that in order to pay into the social security system, you need a social security number, and illegal immigrants cannot legally obtain that.  This means every illegal immigrant contributing to the social security system has committed identity fraud/theft.

Just because illegal immigrants are ineligible for social safety net programs doesn't mean that none are on them.

You are correct. However, many undocumented immigrants use either a fake SS number, stolen SS number, a previously valid SS number, or an ITIN (as discussed above) which allow them to pay federal taxes and into social security. The IRA rarely pursues offenders hiring these folks because the penalty is a measly $50 per SS mismatch and it's just not worth the resources.

I am still waiting for you to provide those numbers. Looking more and more like you were just trolling.

Which numbers do you mean?

Feel free to peruse the previous post. Not going to repeat myself. It's not a long thread ( :

I disagree with almost everything @TornWonder has said, but still like to understand. This one, I'm with him. I looked. I even jumped to your profile and posts contributed to*. The closest thing I thought is below.



I am curious what specifically you mean by " significant." That's a very broad statement to quantify support of open borders.

Can you provide factual data showing immigration plays a significant role in " wealth redistribution." ( Not really sure what you mean by that either).

I don't think that @TornWonder was saying that immigration plays a role in wealth redistribution. I think what was being said is that in a society with some social safety nets, immigration needs to be controlled or the system gets overwhelmed, based on more people taking advantage of it. Or at least that's how I read it.

Correct.

The question is still viable. Weather you call it "wealth redistribution" or social programs. I see you didn't answer the question though. I assume (possibly incorrectly) that you have come to the conclusion you did based on some sort of figures, statistics, actual evidence. So we still sit at "significant" without any specific quantification as to what that means financially.

Is this the number you were referring to?


*You are ballsier than I am. I love a good chunk of your posts. You are awesome!!

Wexler

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 368
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #197 on: May 16, 2018, 02:33:18 PM »
Net neutrality is important to me, and the Democrats and a handful of Republicans are trying to restore it.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/16/politics/net-neutrality-vote-senate-democrats/index.html

"The measure, which was backed by all 49 Democrats and Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and John Kennedy of Louisiana"

If this issue is important to you, make sure your representatives know it.  But, calling and writing is not enough.  You have to pledge to vote for candidates who will represent your interests. I'm a liberal, but I have no particular party loyalty.  I'd happily vote for any Republican who I agreed with.  However, we are reaching a point where the party loyalty of our representatives is enough to predict where they will vote most of the time.  For whatever reason, this is an issue that has divided the parties, and position on net neutrality is generally falling along party lines.

jordanread

  • Guest
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #198 on: May 16, 2018, 03:01:16 PM »
Net neutrality is important to me, and the Democrats and a handful of Republicans are trying to restore it.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/16/politics/net-neutrality-vote-senate-democrats/index.html

"The measure, which was backed by all 49 Democrats and Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and John Kennedy of Louisiana"

If this issue is important to you, make sure your representatives know it.  But, calling and writing is not enough.  You have to pledge to vote for candidates who will represent your interests. I'm a liberal, but I have no particular party loyalty.  I'd happily vote for any Republican who I agreed with.  However, we are reaching a point where the party loyalty of our representatives is enough to predict where they will vote most of the time.  For whatever reason, this is an issue that has divided the parties, and position on net neutrality is generally falling along party lines.

I would assume everyone here is aware of Net Neutrality, but I'm statistically bad at assumptions lately. Thank you for bringing it up.

This is the discussion thread though.

Pledging to vote for a candidate is giving your word, and cementing your place as a single issue voter. I get it, but it's super easy for a politician (or a reality TV cast member) to play those strings. Think that life happens at conception? Vote Republican. Disagree? Vote Democrat. Think the government should be competent? Vote Democrat. Disagree? Vote Republican. Think that war or soldiers are just patriots? Vote Republican. Disagree? Vote Democrat. Think that aforementioned soldiers deserve to be thanked when they finish? Vote Democrat. Disagree? Vote Republican. Think that our country sucks at taking care of people? Vote Democrat. Disagree? Vote Republican.

I'd say that this is overly simplistic, but that is what happens when one becomes a single issue voter. More than a single issue affects every single one of us.


I'm a realistic independent, with libertarian leanings. I think that government should be as small as possible, and yet I see where we are, and vote accordingly. There are ideas about what the government and society should be, and how best react to how government and society currently is.

Again, thank you for bringing up this really important topic. Giving your word (I just assume that everyone holds that as important as I do) is a shitty response to a specific and single issue. Notice I mentioned the response was shitty, and that is a vague term. As are Humans. Note what I was actually stating. Just in case @madgeylou was waiting to call me out for being a hypocrite. I don't think she is that petty, and has hopefully dismissed our argument earlier, and may read the responses and provide her insight. If not, that's fine too.

Wexler

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 368
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #199 on: May 16, 2018, 03:39:03 PM »
Net neutrality is important to me, and the Democrats and a handful of Republicans are trying to restore it.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/16/politics/net-neutrality-vote-senate-democrats/index.html

"The measure, which was backed by all 49 Democrats and Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and John Kennedy of Louisiana"

If this issue is important to you, make sure your representatives know it.  But, calling and writing is not enough.  You have to pledge to vote for candidates who will represent your interests. I'm a liberal, but I have no particular party loyalty.  I'd happily vote for any Republican who I agreed with.  However, we are reaching a point where the party loyalty of our representatives is enough to predict where they will vote most of the time.  For whatever reason, this is an issue that has divided the parties, and position on net neutrality is generally falling along party lines.

I would assume everyone here is aware of Net Neutrality, but I'm statistically bad at assumptions lately. Thank you for bringing it up.

This is the discussion thread though.

Pledging to vote for a candidate is giving your word, and cementing your place as a single issue voter. I get it, but it's super easy for a politician (or a reality TV cast member) to play those strings. Think that life happens at conception? Vote Republican. Disagree? Vote Democrat. Think the government should be competent? Vote Democrat. Disagree? Vote Republican. Think that war or soldiers are just patriots? Vote Republican. Disagree? Vote Democrat. Think that aforementioned soldiers deserve to be thanked when they finish? Vote Democrat. Disagree? Vote Republican. Think that our country sucks at taking care of people? Vote Democrat. Disagree? Vote Republican.

I'd say that this is overly simplistic, but that is what happens when one becomes a single issue voter. More than a single issue affects every single one of us.


I'm a realistic independent, with libertarian leanings. I think that government should be as small as possible, and yet I see where we are, and vote accordingly. There are ideas about what the government and society should be, and how best react to how government and society currently is.

Again, thank you for bringing up this really important topic. Giving your word (I just assume that everyone holds that as important as I do) is a shitty response to a specific and single issue. Notice I mentioned the response was shitty, and that is a vague term. As are Humans. Note what I was actually stating. Just in case @madgeylou was waiting to call me out for being a hypocrite. I don't think she is that petty, and has hopefully dismissed our argument earlier, and may read the responses and provide her insight. If not, that's fine too.

I'm not sure I understand this response, but I apologize if I violated the thread rules, and please feel free to report or delete if so.