President outlines new immigration reform

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by 14ers

I have never believed this arguement.

You must not have read lungs' post on the subject.

Increase the pay and benefits for the job and eventually you will have a package that an American worker will gladly take. It will mean less profit for the business owner and a rise in cost to the consumer, but it will also mean lower unemployment and more jobs for Americans.

And how do you do this, exactly? Regulation?

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

You must not have read lungs' post on the subject.



And how do you do this, exactly? Regulation?

welfare reform.

[beargrowlz]

Originally Posted by 14ers

I have never believed this arguement.

Increase the pay and benefits for the job and eventually you will have a package that an American worker will gladly take. It will mean less profit for the business owner and a rise in cost to the consumer, but it will also mean lower unemployment and more jobs for Americans.

Sure you believe this argument, or you wouldn't think there's a need to increase the pay and benefits for such jobs.

It will, as you state, increase costs to the American consumer and mean lower profits for business, both of which are anethema to most Americans IMHO.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by 14ers

I have never believed this arguement.

Increase the pay and benefits for the job and eventually you will have a package that an American worker will gladly take. It will mean less profit for the business owner and a rise in cost to the consumer, but it will also mean lower unemployment and more jobs for Americans.

Have you looked at the unemployment rate lately?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

welfare reform.

That's so enlightening. Is it too much to ask you to elaborate?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Have you looked at the unemployment rate lately?

I was wondering about that, but figured it wouldn't do any good to mention it.
No sense letting reality get in the way of a good delusion.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

No sense letting reality get in the way of a good delusion.

Who are you and what have you done with JonInMiddleGA?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Who are you and what have you done with JonInMiddleGA?

There are only so many windmills that a man can tilt at in a single day before crashing to the ground

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

crashing to the ground

I'd pay good money to see that, you know.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I'd pay good money to see that, you know.

Just to help with the visualization, make sure that I'm tilting further & further to the right

[beargrowlz]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Just to help with the visualization, make sure that I'm tilting further & further to the right

Heh, the only righty in Athens.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I was wondering about that, but figured it wouldn't do any good to mention it.
No sense letting reality get in the way of a good delusion.

Yeah, I know, I know...

There are certain blatant things that I just can't let go sometimes.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by 14ers

I have never believed this argument.

Increase the pay and benefits for the job and eventually you will have a package that an American worker will gladly take. It will mean less profit for the business owner and a rise in cost to the consumer, but it will also mean lower unemployment and more jobs for Americans.

While simultaneously reducing the disposable income of every American who has a job and thus lowering their standard of living. Screwing over close to 300 million out of their diffuse benefits to put maybe 10 million more people in work wouldn't seem to be the wisest allocation of our labor resources.

Originally Posted by lungs

And my trip to the states of Veracruz and Guererro in southern Mexico was probably the most enlightening experience I've had in my life. I specifically went to see where the people I employ come from. I certainly got all the answers I was looking for and then some on why they come here.

(I also want to thank you for your take.) The scary thing is that as bad as southern Mexico is, they still have a massive immigration problem from Central America (which they're building a fence to stop while decrying American attempts. Hypocrisy isn't the forte of American politicians alone.) Seeing slums in other countries is probably why I'm fairly unsympathetic to many welfare/outsourcing arguments.... unless people want to go the full xenophobic route and argue that being an American gives you a divine right to a better life and job than non-Americans it's hard to call most "poor people" in this country poor in anything but a relative sense.

And that is based on the fact that a certain segment of the population is unemployable.

Shhhhhh. Although I'm curious whether you base this on a lack of skills, a lack of comparable work ethic, or something else?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

How does it open up a can of worms, exactly? I can think of at least three different ways you can contend that it does, each of which I can easily refute, but instead of me doing your work for you, why don't you convince me that you're not just parroting a right-wing talking point and that you've actually thought about this.

So, how, specifically, does a guest worker program compromise national security? Give me examples, even if they're hypothetical.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

You didn't read what I wrote. The terrorists I mentioned were either American citizens or entered the country legally.

As I've asked you many times before, what is your argument, specifically? Convince me you've actually thought about this, and you aren't just parroting talk show talking points.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

That's so enlightening. Is it too much to ask you to elaborate?

Still waiting for your responses/explanations PSU. Convince me you've actually thought about this, and you aren't just parroting talk show talking points.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Still waiting for your responses/explanations PSU. Convince me you've actually thought about this, and you aren't just parroting talk show talking points.

Well, for one thing many immigrants who come to this nation illegally actually wind up on welfare (how they can do this without a social security number I don't know, I think many times they are able to do this through their children who are citizens, but this is a debate for another day) and as a result, many citizen tax payers are taking up the burden. Now this doesn't mean all illegals are on welfare either. What I think we should do is simply scale back welfare all together, for everyone...even U.S. citizens. What we save in taxes would enable employers to provide better wages to actual U.S. citizens who might not ordinarily be working because they were on welfare. The one kink I see in all of this is the fact that unemployment is currently at only 5%, which in essence is essentially total employment. People forget that truthfully 5% of the population is simply unemployable for various reasons.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

The one kink I see in all of this is the fact that unemployment is currently at only 5%, which in essence is essentially total employment. People forget that truthfully 5% of the population is simply unemployable for various reason.

And that's a pretty big kink.

[JPhillips]

You do realize that welfare is a very small percentage of the budget and a minuscule portion of the GDP? You could completely eliminate welfare(not including medicaid) and it wouldn't balance the budget and wouldn't lower your taxes a penny.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Well, for one thing many immigrants who come to this nation illegally actually wind up on welfare (how they can do this without a social security number I don't know, I think many times they are able to do this through their children who are citizens, but this is a debate for another day)

Not after the 1996 Welfare reform bill, they don't. In some cases they can use stolen or counterfeit SSNs, but this is highly risky. The statistics most people like to point to are the benefits they can receive that are intended solely for the support of their U.S.-born children, but the GAO shows that this, at best, makes up only 2-3% of overall welfare expenditures.

and as a result, many citizen tax payers are taking up the burden in the form of taxes.

And yet, it's estimated that roughly 2/3rds of illegal aliens pay taxes, apparently in some sort of hope that this will eventually help their case to gain citizenship.

What I think we should do is simply scale back welfare all together, for everyone...even U.S. citizens. What we save in taxes would enable employers to provide better wages to actual U.S. citizens who might not ordinarily be working because they were on welfare. The one kink I see in all of this is the fact that unemployment is currently at only 5%, which in essence is essentially total employment. People forget that truthfully 5% of the population is simply unemployable for various reason.

So here's your plan:

1. Cut welfare.
2. Use those savings to cut taxes.
3. Employers, out of their own volition, pay better wages.

Personally, I think there's a disconnect between steps #2 and #3.

[PSUColonel]

My suggestion is that we stop paying welfare to HEALTHY people who do not work, but instead, we should use welfare as a supplement to those who work for low wages. This is scaling back welfare. There should be two different types of wages, 1) a minimum wage, and 2) a welfare wage. This way minimum wage can remain where it is in each state, and not need to be raised. The Welfare Wage would be based upon each state’s average living wage. If a legal worker earns less than his or her state’s living wage, the government will supplement those wages to bring those workers up to that wage amount. Therefore if a state’s minimum wage is $6.15 per hour, and their standard of living constitutes a wage of $10.00 per our; the welfare wage would be $3.85 per hour.

[beargrowlz]

Yeah, it's a myth that illegals end up on welfare. Illegals can't obtain welfare (except for one specific instance) and even legal aliens have an inordinantly difficult time qualifying compared to American citizens.

Illegals cannot obtain TANF or Food Stamps legally. They could use false social security numbers, but evenetually that will catch up with them and the welfare agency will shut them off just as they would any American committing welfare fraud.

The one instance where undocumented aliens can qualify for welfare is for emergency medicaid. That's when a doctor signs a statement that the medical treatment the alien is receiving is life saving - though doctors sign it for birth and delivery as well, which technically probably doesn't qualify but the government lets it go.

The children of undocumented aliens born in the United States howeverm do qualify for welfare. They are after all, U.S. citizens by birthright.

PSUColonel's program is interesting in that it would encourage work. But there are two major problems with it.

1) There are far more Americans working at below the living wage than are not working and receiving welfare. Implementing such a plan would cost significantly more in government expenditure than retaining the current system., increasing the size of government and no doubt necessittating new taxes.

2) Are you really prepared to watch hundreds of thousands of children die and be shelterless because their parents are lazy? Or do you pay benefits for the children and not the parents?

[beargrowlz]

dola.

In the interest of accuracy I should also add that undocumented aliens also do qualify for local public education.

[JPhillips]

I commend PSU on posting a proposal, but there is another hole in it. If you are going to subsidize wages up to a living wage amount employers will have no reason to offer anything but minimum as long as the salary stays at living wage level. If living wage is 10/hr why would I ever offer 7 or 8 dollars an hour when the government is going to cover anything from minimum to 10?

It's a nice idea, but I don't think it would do much more than give businesses a huge windfall.

[finkenst]

Originally Posted by beargrowlz

2) Are you really prepared to watch hundreds of thousands of children die and be shelterless because their parents are lazy? Or do you pay benefits for the children and not the parents?

Originally Posted by Bumper Sticker

If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em.

Seriously, why are you having so many children if you can't afford to feed, clothe, house 'em? I just don't understand this...

full disclosure: single, no kids.

[beargrowlz]

Originally Posted by finkenst

Seriously, why are you having so many children if you can't afford to feed, clothe, house 'em? I just don't understand this...

full disclosure: single, no kids.

Because people don't think rationally.

I'm not saying having children if you can't care for them is smart. The best advice as a CPS Case Manager I can give clients is not to have kids.

But even though sayings like "If you can't feed 'em don't breed 'em" are cute (and good advice), it still doesn't alleviate the problem or answer the question.

If the parents can't or won't care for their children, someone has to. If no one will, the state has to or they die.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

It is irresponsible to think that the majority of those perpatrating terrorist attacks against American targets/interests are American born, or even to a little lesser extent American citizens. I don't presume you are so dumb as not to realize this either. You simply just like causing friction here for some reason...especially when it comes to me personally.

I agree with many of your points, as I believe we should close immigration to this country completely (at least in the short term), but it's not because of national security. I believe that the next major attack with be from a person legally in this country. The terrorists know that the best way to purpetrate an attack is to recruit from within. There's a bunch of disenfranchised people out there that are easy pickings for this sort of thing.

No, my major concern is the affect immigration, especially illegal, has on social programs in this country. When so many legal residents are not getting the help they need, when so many people are on the streets, we should not be wasting resources on people not in this country legally. That's my major issue. I wish the laws were to be changed that illegal immigrants not be eligible for any socially funded programs.

[finkenst]

Originally Posted by beargrowlz

Because people don't think rationally.

I'm not saying having children if you can't care for them is smart. The best advice as a CPS Case Manager I can give clients is not to have kids.

But even though sayings like "If you can't feed 'em don't breed 'em" are cute (and good advice), it still doesn't alleviate the problem or answer the question.

If the parents can't or won't care for their children, someone has to. If no one will, the state has to or they die.

so, how come so many people are adopting foreign kids (china, vietnam come to mind) rather than american kids? Is our legal system that screwed up?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

When so many legal residents are not getting the help they need, when so many people are on the streets, we should not be wasting resources on people not in this country legally. That's my major issue. I wish the laws were to be changed that illegal immigrants not be eligible for any socially funded programs.

But we're not, really. The amount of resources that end up being spent on illegal aliens is a very, very small of overall expenditures of this kind, which are, in turn, a very, very small part of the overall government budget. Debt service or the war in Iraq, just to pick two examples, dwarf the expenditures we're talking about.

[beargrowlz]

Originally Posted by finkenst

so, how come so many people are adopting foreign kids (china, vietnam come to mind) rather than american kids? Is our legal system that screwed up?

I can't answer about foreign nations adoption process, but there are serious issues with our's.

First and foremost, many, perhaps most of the children in our foster care system have serious mental health issues because of the way they were raised - or not raised. You need to remember that kids who enter foster care are there because they were either physically or sexually abused or neglected to the point that an overworked, understaffed, underpaid state agency that has trouble retaining workers for more than a year had to step in and remove them from the home.

So the kids have a lot of baggage people don't want.

Second, even after a child enters foster care, it's extraordinarily difficult to terminate parental rights, and no one can adopt that child until his or her parent's have their rights terminated in court. All a parent has to do in order to avoid TPR is to agree and follow a case plan.

Then they are free to abuse or neglect all over again.

Then once the TPR is done, assuming adoptive parents come forward to adopt a foster kid, they have to go through the legal system - which is admittedly beyond how I am involved with the kids, so I don't know a heck of a lot about that end.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

But we're not, really. The amount of resources that end up being spent on illegal aliens is a very, very small of overall expenditures of this kind, which are, in turn, a very, very small part of the overall government budget. Debt service or the war in Iraq, just to pick two examples, dwarf the expenditures we're talking about.

On the grand scale of things, you're absolutely right. In the last big thread about this someone posted the amount of money social programs utilize for the benefit of illegal aliens, and it was somewhere in the amount of 10 billion (or roundabout there). That's pocket change if you're looking at it from an overall perspective, but I'm looking at it as 10 billiion that could be spent helping those here legally.

To me, it all comes down to priority, I guess, and to me the priorities in this country when it comes to social programs have always been screwy.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

On the grand scale of things, you're absolutely right. In the last big thread about this someone posted the amount of money social programs utilize for the benefit of illegal aliens, and it was somewhere in the amount of 10 billion (or roundabout there). That's pocket change if you're looking at it from an overall perspective, but I'm looking at it as 10 billiion that could be spent helping those here legally.

Yes, but the 1996 Welfare Reform Act really cut all that down. My point is that this particular well is dry. I understand your point about priorities, but to be honest, there are much bigger blocks of money to target. Heck, there was $1 billion in Iraq redevelopment money which essentially went missing. There's billions being sent overseas to Afghanistan & Iraq to provide services we don't provide to all of our own citizens. Not to mention that a lot of DoD R&D projects easily blow through as much money as this gap.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

What, are you trying to confuse the President even more?

That was pretty funny, I have to admit.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by finkenst

so, how come so many people are adopting foreign kids (china, vietnam come to mind) rather than american kids? Is our legal system that screwed up?

As some one who's adopted from China let me give you some of my reasons for choosing international adoption over domestic. Be aware that I'm talking about newborns and not foster care children.

The birthmother generally chooses the adoptive parents. This leads to a high degree of uncertainty in the process. You may get a child very quickly or you may wait years. This alone is enough to scare a lot of folks off. More than that, though, is the whole sense of competition in the process. You are trying to sell yourselves as parents to in most cases a young, not very educated girl with little to no parenting experience. It leads to a lot of choices being made on income and looks.

As stated above the parental rights issue is a major concern. Most likely it won't be an issue, but birthmothers do change their mind occasionally ad when they do you really have very little recourse. Imagine having a child for a year and then that child being taken away.

While we are now an interracial family, adopting a black child would be far more difficult for us and the child. Race and racism in the US is still a conversation dominated by white/black issues. Adopting a black child would expose the child and us to situations that we aren't prepared to deal with. Let me be clear that these are problems that will come both from whites and blacks. There is a vocal part of the black community that doesn't believe white parents should have black children.

Foreign adoption is a much more predictable and accepted practice in the US than domestic adoption. In most cases it costs more, but the ability to know the steps of the process is very beneficial to waiting parents.

[Mo.Raider]

JPhilipps-

Hey man, we just finalized our second from Korea! He is watching his big sis ride her hippitty hop and cackling with envy.


To add to what JPhillipps and Bear have already stated, when we adopted our little ones, everything legally is as if they were born to us. In the U.S. the uncertainty is a killer. Way too much legal risk. We went through the whole domestic process, all the while being told that they really didn't want nor need us, as they really wanted to just put the kids back with their biological parents. We waited for probably two years for a referral of anything close to a healthy child and it just wasn't going to happen. Most of the time when we came close to adopting older children we were told that we would have to have an open adoption. This began to seem way too much like babysitting until the parents were able to "handle" having a child and could come back and try to regain custody. We really were like most normal people and just wanted to have a family.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

It is irresponsible to think that the majority of those perpatrating terrorist attacks against American targets/interests are American born, or even to a little lesser extent American citizens.

As depressing as it may be, the FBI and DHS are finding just that. A subcommittee of the House Homeland Security Committee has been conducting a number of hearings and briefings on this domestic radicalization. Flere's examples are well made, and I would throw in a couple more -- Jose Padilla, the SoCal cell busted in 2005 (http://www.fbi.gov/page2/sept05/ca_indict090105.htm) the London bombers (UK citizens, but the same deal).

Also worth noting are the US citizens that have joined up with al Qaeda. This New Yorker article about one of bin Laden's top advisers, Azzam the American, is disturbing on a number of levels: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...khatchadourian

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

As depressing as it may be, the FBI and DHS are finding just that. A subcommittee of the House Homeland Security Committee has been conducting a number of hearings and briefings on this domestic radicalization. Flere's examples are well made, and I would throw in a couple more -- Jose Padilla, the SoCal cell busted in 2005 (http://www.fbi.gov/page2/sept05/ca_indict090105.htm) the London bombers (UK citizens, but the same deal).

Also worth noting are the US citizens that have joined up with al Qaeda. This New Yorker article about one of bin Laden's top advisers, Azzam the American, is disturbing on a number of levels: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...khatchadourian

I agree that this is a real threat, and that it's one that is increasing, but you'll also notice I said "majority", not "all".

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

I agree that this is a real threat, and that it's one that is increasing, but you'll also notice I said "majority", not "all".

I know you did. A majority of the arrests and prosecutions inside the US for terrorism-related charges lately has been homegrown folks. At least, that is the way it was presented by the FBI to House Members. No one asked them for exact numbers, so I don't have them at my fingertips.

I'll give you a safe out. I think Flere (and subsequently, myself) was speaking of US interests and targets purely within our borders, in which case evidence is growing that we are looking at domestic perpetrators, as unthinkable as that may be. What you wrote may have meant US interests globally, in which case a vast majority of the plotters are not American.

To bring this tangent back to the main discussion, the Tom Tancredos of the world (and someone earlier in this thread, I believe) have hypothesized that Middle Eastern terrorists might be going to Mexico, posing as Mexicans, and then hiring coyotes or devising other schemes to get themselves across the border. There is no documentary evidence of that happening. Meaning that, of the thousands caught on the Southern border sneaking in over the past few years, none have turned out to be terrorists of Middle Eastern origin.

I can think of a couple of cases where we got folks on the Northern border, including the so-called Millennium Bomber Ahmed Ressam, caught in Port Angeles, WA in 2000. But he entered legally.

None of this should be construed as negating the need for appropriate fences, barriers, agents and technology on the land borders to increase our operational control. But the anti-terrorism gains from this are very modest in comparison to the costs.

[PSUColonel]

I actually agree. Forgive me for my sometimes short and blunt comments, but I don't often enough have time to articulate my full views here on a message board. Many Muslims have taken up occupancy in French quarters, and that is likely the reason you see more muslim criminals, or potential criminals coming from the north. However I feel it is a matter of time before they discover the reasons for coming from the south. Just my opinion.

[Edward64]

Well, Immigration bill went down in flames.

I am an immigrant myself and other than for the bad taste of 'amnesty', thought we needed some sort of reform.

Really liked the point based, skilled based criteria.

[Buccaneer]

Can you have imagined the immense beaucracy it would have taken to manage the details in that bill? And do you think they would have been able to manage it right? Would we have gotten the benefits from such legislature in relation to the costs?

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Can you have imagined the immense beaucracy it would have taken to manage the details in that bill? And do you think they would have been able to manage it right? Would we have gotten the benefits from such legislature in relation to the costs?

That's part of the point -- job creation, anyway.