Axelgear wrote:P.S. By the way, if 50% of the earners pay 99% of the income tax... Where does the 34% from the top 1% come from? I'm guessing that's a typo.
BrockthePaine wrote:How is that at odds with what I said? I don't see how an immigrant being "of value to us" is any different from what I said...
I'll have to go find my sources on that statistic again. I don't usually save such links, but rather attempt to remember the gist of the numbers. Still, I'll have to get back to you on that.
Atarlost wrote:Additional unskilled labor is not of benefit to the American people commensurate with the social costs of mass immigration. Unskilled laborers and the children of unskilled laborers are statistically more likely than skilled laborers or their children to commit violent crimes or abuse the welfare system. This is why lower class ghettos have higher crime rates than middle class subburbs. In a society that already has more unskilled labor than it strictly needs mass immigration is dangerous.
RHJunior wrote:Personally, I have only one real prerequisite for anyone who wishes to come here.
That if they come here to live, they come here to be an American.
And that they come through the front door.
Atarlost wrote:Additional unskilled labor is not of benefit to the American people commensurate with the social costs of mass immigration. Unskilled laborers and the children of unskilled laborers are statistically more likely than skilled laborers or their children to commit violent crimes or abuse the welfare system. This is why lower class ghettos have higher crime rates than middle class subburbs. In a society that already has more unskilled labor than it strictly needs mass immigration is dangerous.
Axelgear wrote:So does that mean you agree with my compromise plan? I mean, does it not make sense that if these people have a way to enter legally that is efficient that should get them off the ground, I think it's a good thing.
A Low-Income Immigration System. This system would allow Immigrants who have very little money to get a low- or no-interest loan from the United States so long as they submit to extensive identification.
BrockthePaine wrote:Axelgear wrote:So does that mean you agree with my compromise plan? I mean, does it not make sense that if these people have a way to enter legally that is efficient that should get them off the ground, I think it's a good thing.
We already HAVE a legal way to immigrate. These folks don't follow it. That's our biggest problem.
Lemme run over your plan again and tell you the way I'm seeing it...A Low-Income Immigration System. This system would allow Immigrants who have very little money to get a low- or no-interest loan from the United States so long as they submit to extensive identification.
To put it simply, WHY? That's not the government's job. Why should we taxpayers pay to fund a system of loans? Why don't they ask a bank? The government is not a loan agency - it is here solely to protect the nation from foreign and domestic threats and negotiate trade treaties with other nations. I would have no problem paying taxes if they go for military and infrastructure (such as roads and bridges) but having the federal government fund anything else is unnecessary and unconstitutional.
I've never seen a federal government program which has not ended up a total disaster. Color me skeptical that this would end up any different.
Nikas_Zekeval wrote:By definition illegal immigrants, unless they are being supported solely on funds from out of the country, are breaking one of at least three laws by being here.
One, they are working, payed under the table and not paying income tax. That Federal Tax evasion. (I know the 'legalize' them crowd wants a $1000 fine and them to pay the income tax they should have payed. The IRS has broken peole who made less serious mistakes on their tax returns, this is a slap on the wrist compared to IRS SOP).
Two, they are working and paying taxes, but under a false ID. This is either fraud (for completely bogus paperwork) or identity theft (if using a legitimate SS number)
Three, they are living off various public assistance programs. Since you need to prove you are here legally to get them again illegals would have to committ fraud or ID theft to get these.
Simply existing here illegally requires not just breaking the law to get in here, but continuning to break it to avoid notice and deportation. It's not a one time thing, it's like being a 'little bit pregnant', that status leads you into further crime.
RHJunior wrote:The last thing this nation needs is still MORE people who cannot-- or will not-- support themselves without a government handout.
TMLutas wrote:Nikas_Zekeval wrote:Two, they are working and paying taxes, but under a false ID. This is either fraud (for completely bogus paperwork) or identity theft (if using a legitimate SS number)
Three, they are living off various public assistance programs. Since you need to prove you are here legally to get them again illegals would have to committ fraud or ID theft to get these.
I believe you have to actually commit some harm to commit identity fraud. Otherwise Rich Little would be a multiple felon every time he did his act.
Earl McClaw wrote:Besides, Nikas was referring to someone using a valid identity for profit (i.e. work and tax records). This should immediately fall under the classification of "financial harm".
Earl McClaw wrote:TMLutas wrote:Nikas_Zekeval wrote:Two, they are working and paying taxes, but under a false ID. This is either fraud (for completely bogus paperwork) or identity theft (if using a legitimate SS number)
Three, they are living off various public assistance programs. Since you need to prove you are here legally to get them again illegals would have to committ fraud or ID theft to get these.
I believe you have to actually commit some harm to commit identity fraud. Otherwise Rich Little would be a multiple felon every time he did his act.
Impersonators like Rich Little do their bit for acknowleded acts, thus denying they are who they're pretending to be, making them inaccurate examples.
As for needing to do harm to be fraud, that's something I'd want to confirm with a lawyer. I can see it going either way. (Most likely, it'd be more like someone not pressing assault charges and the case not being prosecuted.)
It won't be difficult to argue that someone using your identity - even if no direct harm were caused - had caused the records of your personal life to become inaccurate. Or compare it to wearing a mask in public (at a time when they were inappropriate). Many municipalities have laws against concealing your identity.
Besides, Nikas was referring to someone using a valid identity for profit (i.e. work and tax records). This should immediately fall under the classification of "financial harm".
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest