Most Illegal Immigrant Families Collect Welfare

[Jhhnn]

Lesser intellect... bigfoot... that was quite humorous. This is not about voter fraud although I can see where people of diminished intellect may spout that meme. This is about a large block of the population being dependent on the government for handouts. This is about maintaining a class of people who are indentured servants that will vote for the politicians that promise the most entitlements. I know, you have to think beyond your little mind. There are 12-20 million illegal immigrants. They will not be deported. There will eventually be some sort of amnesty but these people who are illegal immigrants now will not then be suddenly thrust into the middle class. Being largely unskilled laborers, they will have to compete with new illegal immigrants who are coming through our very porous border.

Apparently I misunderstood. Illegals are not a voting bloc until and if they become legal citizens, not just granted the privilege to work in this country.

Income redistribution has been a socio-economic necessity in this country and the rest of the first world since the 1930's. It's what makes us first world. When market forces, like unions, and governmental forces, like projects for the common good, fail to overcome the tendency for capitalism to create oligarchy and a third world distribution pattern, then democracies demand more from their govt so as to avoid widespread misery and economic collapse.

The failure isn't on the part of govt, except in the sense that it failed to properly guide & constrain capitalism, but rather of capitalism itself. As a tool of the people, of legitimate govt, capitalism is an excellent way to create growth and prosperity, but those qualities are not part of the inherent nature of the beast, at all- it has no benevolence, only greed, and no loyalty to any nation or people.

Whenever the general population becomes convinced that's not true, Capitalism is free to pursue its true nature, Boom and bust, and we have the kinds of results we're seeing today.

All the raving over illegals is pure distraction, because if capitalism were all its proponents claim it to be, we'd be able to absorb immigrant workers in a way that enhances our society, not detract from it, and they'd have little need to leave their own countries, anyway. Mexico is capitalist, right? Very "business friendly", too. And they have some of the richest capitalists in the world, but their people leave to work here, even when they have no children and receive no governmental support whatsoever... Think about that a little...

 

[Zebo]

Don't worry there will be no social services in 5-10 years. Who cares what people want when there is no money? Hows social services from whence they came? This is another benefit to massive illegals for the elite. Not only do they get cheap labor, union busting, and defunding left in interim it aids starve/bankrupt the beast.

 

[Tom]

So every country in the world with a system in place to make sure immigrants come legally is "xenophobic" ?


Please tell me that is some sort of sarcasm that I am missing.

That is not an honest description of our immigration quotas. And I didn't say what you said, you said it, so how is something I didn't say sarcastic on my part ?

 

[Exterous]

The "Anchor baby" provision of the 14th Amendment should be fixed.

No western country I know of is as liberal with allowing illegals to use our resources. It's a curious thing.

Why people don't look at a thing and decide based on its overall advantages and disadvantages rather than purposefully view the world through a distorted lens of preconception is beyond my comprehension.

I don't get why it must be that way.

Immigration is a corner stone of the American way of life - The idea that you can come here and, if you work hard, have a much better life than elsewhere. The land of Opportunity. It didn't matter is you were poor, tired, homeless or a wretched refuse (Emma Lazarus).

Now part of that message may have gotten scewed along the way I believe the love/hate relationship Americans have with immigration means it is a very emotional issue rather than an objective issue. We are dealing with something that is 'American' to it's very core. Some people don't see an issue with the laws but how they are enforced. People see different enforcement issues (border security vs lackluster employer penalties). Some people are concerned we will go overboard with new laws and restrictions and that those could be at odds with how this country was founded. It's most likely a some combination but the emotional tint can make it difficult to see and argue clearly(not to meantion being the easy way for politicians to score political points)

I am not sure that 'fixing' the 14th Amendment is the best idea. The 14th Amendment has served us well for a very long time. I would much rather see a huge increase in border security - better citizenship checks for employment and harsher penalties for hiring illegals before changing the 14th Amendment

English, Irish, German, Swedes, Chinese, Vietnamese.

Every large influx of immigrants has led to growth and prosperity, and was attacked at the time by people who thought "immigrants" are bad for us.

The same thing is happening now with Mexican immigrants, it's a big net plus for us.

The odd thing is that it is not the same. It was hard for English, Irish, German, Swedes, Chinese, Vietnamese to come over here. It required sacrifice, effort, money to cross the ocean. While we 'welcomed' the poor, homeless, hungry that didn't actually mean they would be able to make their way over or certainly not in large numbers. The difficulty in reaching our shores actually provided a filter to immigration. (Not to mention that - typically - the number and availability of welfare systems was different) That same filter doesn't exist between us and the countries to our south

A debate about illegal immigration is
funny, given the US not so old history...

I really wish there was an expiration date on some things. "But slavery!" "But the native Americans!" None of us were alive then and a large number of our ancestors were not even in this country yet.

I don't hold the British accountable for things they did to my ancestors in the early 20th century. Let it go! (Unless I get to start holding you accountable for things that your ancestors didn't have anything to do with)

 

[Exterous]

making them illegal in the first place is xenophobic.

Why is making them illegals xenophobic?

 

[spacejamz]

It is truly sad that people cannot the problem here...

Not sure that you can make it anymore simple than the US has a serious debt issue and is giving away millions of dollars to families who are not entitled to it.

It is already fucked up enough that the school systems here in Texas are broke and yet no one wants to address the fact that the majority of funding comes from property taxes and yet God knows how many illegal aliens (and their children) who either don't pay property taxes or cram multiple families into a single house and avoid paying their 'share' are getting these services at the property tax payer's expense...

 

[Tom]

Why is making them illegals xenophobic?

because instead of having an honest immigration policy for this particular group, based on supply and demand, we instead brand them as illegals so we can hate them and it's ok.

that's the real reason for making them illegal, so we dont have to care about them even though we tacitly want them to come here and work.

 

[Tom]

Immigration is a corner stone of the American way of life - The idea that you can come here and, if you work hard, have a much better life than elsewhere. The land of Opportunity. It didn't matter is you were poor, tired, homeless or a wretched refuse (Emma Lazarus).

Now part of that message may have gotten scewed along the way I believe the love/hate relationship Americans have with immigration means it is a very emotional issue rather than an objective issue. We are dealing with something that is 'American' to it's very core. Some people don't see an issue with the laws but how they are enforced. People see different enforcement issues (border security vs lackluster employer penalties). Some people are concerned we will go overboard with new laws and restrictions and that those could be at odds with how this country was founded. It's most likely a some combination but the emotional tint can make it difficult to see and argue clearly(not to meantion being the easy way for politicians to score political points)

I am not sure that 'fixing' the 14th Amendment is the best idea. The 14th Amendment has served us well for a very long time. I would much rather see a huge increase in border security - better citizenship checks for employment and harsher penalties for hiring illegals before changing the 14th Amendment



The odd thing is that it is not the same. It was hard for English, Irish, German, Swedes, Chinese, Vietnamese to come over here. It required sacrifice, effort, money to cross the ocean. While we 'welcomed' the poor, homeless, hungry that didn't actually mean they would be able to make their way over or certainly not in large numbers. The difficulty in reaching our shores actually provided a filter to immigration. (Not to mention that - typically - the number and availability of welfare systems was different) That same filter doesn't exist between us and the countries to our south



I really wish there was an expiration date on some things. "But slavery!" "But the native Americans!" None of us were alive then and a large number of our ancestors were not even in this country yet.

I don't hold the British accountable for things they did to my ancestors in the early 20th century. Let it go! (Unless I get to start holding you accountable for things that your ancestors didn't have anything to do with)

There's no expiration date because YOU live on the backs of the people that came before you, and the history of the world. The world is not remade fresh everytime there's a birth.

Your birth is not so significant that it erases all the history that came before, sorry.

 

[actuarial]

It is truly sad that people cannot the problem here...

Not sure that you can make it anymore simple than the US has a serious debt issue and is giving away millions of dollars to families who are not entitled to it.

I keep getting confused by these comments. I thought the millions of dollars was being paid to American citizens?

Or are you saying those American citizens don't deserve the money because their parents were born abroad? Or did I misread the article and people who are not actually eligible for the benefits are receiving them?

 

[Exterous]

because instead of having an honest immigration policy for this particular group, based on supply and demand, we instead brand them as illegals so we can hate them and it's ok.

Do you care to explain how it is not an honest policy?

There's no expiration date because YOU live on the backs of the people that came before you, and the history of the world. The world is not remade fresh everytime there's a birth.

Your birth is not so significant that it erases all the history that came before, sorry.

Damn you Tom, you need to pay for the slavery in Ancient Egypt! Or Rome! Their immigration policy was based on conquest and slavery so this debate is funny/ironic! What room do you have to have an opinion on this considering this sorid history? It must be brought up every time there is a discussion about these things!

But wait - you can't dispute that because you live on the backs of the backs of people who came before you

 

[davmat787]

because instead of having an honest immigration policy for this particular group, based on supply and demand, we instead brand them as illegals so we can hate them and it's ok.

that's the real reason for making them illegal, so we dont have to care about them even though we tacitly want them to come here and work.

By "this particular group" I assume you are referring to Mexicans and/or other Central/South Americans coming across the southern border. Why do we need an immigration policy just for them? Why not have an immigration policy that is sustainable and equitable for all wanting to immigrate, regardless of their country of origin? It is not about hate or racism as you imply either. It is about having a policy that is diverse and sustainable. Our current methods and policies are not. And we didn't make them illegal, they did when they circumvented our legal immigration methods.

Thanks,
first generation of a legal immigrant father

 

[spacejamz]

I keep getting confused by these comments. I thought the millions of dollars was being paid to American citizens?

Or are you saying those American citizens don't deserve the money because their parents were born abroad? Or did I misread the article and people who are not actually eligible for the benefits are receiving them?

Are you familiar with the saying, "For those that understand, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible".

You fall in the later category.

 

[Tom]

Do you care to explain how it is not an honest policy?



Damn you Tom, you need to pay for the slavery in Ancient Egypt! Or Rome! Their immigration policy was based on conquest and slavery so this debate is funny/ironic! What room do you have to have an opinion on this considering this sorid history? It must be brought up every time there is a discussion about these things!

But wait - you can't dispute that because you live on the backs of the backs of people who came before you

It's not honest because it doesnt address reality. We want their labor, but want to deny their rights, so we create a label for them to make them seem undesirable and easy to hate.

All history is related, slave holders in the USA used slavery in ancient times as justification. And depending where you live, you could still directly benefit from the labor of slaves, and we all do indirectly.

As we do from the conquest of Native Americans. However, they and the descendants of slaves also benefit from our culture so it's not a one way street.

What matters is we dont pretend history didnt happen, but use it to try to move to a more fair and just future.

 

[Tom]

By "this particular group" I assume you are referring to Mexicans and/or other Central/South Americans coming across the southern border. Why do we need an immigration policy just for them? Why not have an immigration policy that is sustainable and equitable for all wanting to immigrate, regardless of their country of origin? It is not about hate or racism as you imply either. It is about having a policy that is diverse and sustainable. Our current methods and policies are not. And we didn't make them illegal, they did when they circumvented our legal immigration methods.

Thanks,
first generation of a legal immigrant father

I dont think we should have a policy just for them, I'm against the one we already have. And we certainly did make them illegal, by creating laws specifically for the purpose of labeling them as such.

And the labeling works. You can deny the hatred if you want, but unless you live in an ivory tower you know that it is true that many people use the fact that they are "illegal" as an open ticket to look down on them.

Do we all think that anyone who drives a few miles over the speed limit is sub-human ? That's illegal too.

Why are some people called illegal, and some people are not, when both break the law ?

 

[EagleKeeper]

So yoiu are saying that immigration laws were targeted specifically at the Latino's coming up from Central/South America? if so, please provide the evidence

The immigration laws were created well before that flood started.

The only thing is that Mexico has a larger percentage of authorized entries than the other countries in the area. That authorization comes from Congress itself.

 

[Exterous]

It's not honest because it doesnt address reality. We want their labor, but want to deny their rights, so we create a label for them to make them seem undesirable and easy to hate.

The label was hardly created just for them. I believe it describes anyone who is here illegally regardless of 'working status' and was created long before the current debate.

I am not sure how many 'normal' Americans want their labor. I, and I suspect many others, do not believe the use of illegal labor affects prices that much and would rather see prices increase than have them here illegally. I do, however, suspect that some companies do like having them due to the inability to pass large penalties for being caught using illegal labor (But I don't atribute the failure to pass that soley on companies)

Furthermore I believe Mexico has a vastly higher number of immigrants here than other nationalities so I don't see how it can be considered xenophobic considering we let a very large number of them in as citizens

Edit: It looks like, accorinding to the DHS immigrants from Mexico make up the largest single percentage at 10.8% this year (India was second at 9.9% but then it drops down to 5.7% for the third highest) but was as high as 22% of ALL legal immigrants (2008). We are so xenophobic about them that we let the them immigrate to the US more than all other countries?

What matters is we dont pretend history didnt happen, but use it to try to move to a more fair and just future.

Not once did I say that we pretend history didn't happen. My remark was in regards to someone making a comment that this discussion is funny because of native americans and the colonists 'illegal immigration'. These remarks detract detract from the issue at hand provide no substance to the discussion while appearing to deride the current discussion

There appear to be a number of hot button cases in history that people shout and point to that, while they may have affected history in terms of how we got to where we are today, hold little value in relation to the current discussion

 

[Fern]

-snip-
There appear to be a number of hot button cases in history that people shout and point to that, while they may have affected history in terms of how we got to where we are today, hold little value in relation to the current discussion

Along these the lines of that remark, I'd like to say that those who believe having an immigration policy is in violation of our history of accepting anyone who wants to come are engaged in some romantic fantasy.

We've had immigration policies before the Statue of Liberty was errected here.

We encouraged immigration at times past because it was in OUR best interests. We had enormous expanses of open land, heck the US gov gave away land for FREE.

Now we have limited resources. We've all seen water shortages etc. We no longer have tons of open land where we need need to recruit people to move into. We have serious problems meeting the needs of the many already here.

Because our needs change, our immigration policy must change. It is our right, indeed our responsibility, to dictate 'who' and 'how many' people immigrate here. The 'who' part not being based on race. I don't support racial quotas (of any sort, really). Do we need certain skills? A certain education level? Or do we need poor illiterate people lacking any skills? Possibly a mix?

As it stands now we have no control over the 'who' or 'how many', and that is unacceptable.

Fern

 

[Tom]

So yoiu are saying that immigration laws were targeted specifically at the Latino's coming up from Central/South America? if so, please provide the evidence

The immigration laws were created well before that flood started.

The only thing is that Mexico has a larger percentage of authorized entries than the other countries in the area. That authorization comes from Congress itself.

http://www.pbs.org/kpbs/theborder/history/timeline/17.html

 

[Tom]

Along these the lines of that remark, I'd like to say that those who believe having an immigration policy is in violation of our history of accepting anyone who wants to come are engaged in some romantic fantasy.

We've had immigration policies before the Statue of Liberty was errected here.

We encouraged immigration at times past because it was in OUR best interests. We had enormous expanses of open land, heck the US gov gave away land for FREE.

Now we have limited resources. We've all seen water shortages etc. We no longer have tons of open land where we need need to recruit people to move into. We have serious problems meeting the needs of the many already here.

Because our needs change, our immigration policy must change. It is our right, indeed our responsibility, to dictate 'who' and 'how many' people immigrate here. The 'who' part not being based on race. I don't support racial quotas (of any sort, really). Do we need certain skills? A certain education level? Or do we need poor illiterate people lacking any skills? Possibly a mix?

As it stands now we have no control over the 'who' or 'how many', and that is unacceptable.

Fern

I have no problem discussing reasonable limits on immigration. I happen to believe it's beneficial to our country to allow much greater immigration, but I also believe in compromise.

My biggest issue is, it's way too easy to blame immigrants for things, whether it's fair or not. As long as there are people who want to deny food to American children because their parents come from South of the border, Im gonna fight against that.

Example-It's not right to call a fellow American, an "anchor baby". To me that is disgusting and unpatriotic in the extreme.

 

[werepossum]

Hey genius, which european nation allows you to sneak in and have a baby to automatically get citizenship and perpetual free money?

It really does sound like you caught a bad case of white guilt. The reasons these programs exist is supposedly help people survive on a temporary basis and when it's forever it's because of some severe disability. It's not so people can keep having kids so they don't have to work. We have people who use these programs properly and that's good. The others? You ignore and insult those who point out the abuse.

Why don't you bitch about how that can happen? Because you are a hack and use these people for politics.

😀 Very well said.

 

[werepossum]

Immigration is a corner stone of the American way of life - The idea that you can come here and, if you work hard, have a much better life than elsewhere. The land of Opportunity. It didn't matter is you were poor, tired, homeless or a wretched refuse (Emma Lazarus).

Now part of that message may have gotten scewed along the way I believe the love/hate relationship Americans have with immigration means it is a very emotional issue rather than an objective issue. We are dealing with something that is 'American' to it's very core. Some people don't see an issue with the laws but how they are enforced. People see different enforcement issues (border security vs lackluster employer penalties). Some people are concerned we will go overboard with new laws and restrictions and that those could be at odds with how this country was founded. It's most likely a some combination but the emotional tint can make it difficult to see and argue clearly(not to meantion being the easy way for politicians to score political points)

I am not sure that 'fixing' the 14th Amendment is the best idea. The 14th Amendment has served us well for a very long time. I would much rather see a huge increase in border security - better citizenship checks for employment and harsher penalties for hiring illegals before changing the 14th Amendment



The odd thing is that it is not the same. It was hard for English, Irish, German, Swedes, Chinese, Vietnamese to come over here. It required sacrifice, effort, money to cross the ocean. While we 'welcomed' the poor, homeless, hungry that didn't actually mean they would be able to make their way over or certainly not in large numbers. The difficulty in reaching our shores actually provided a filter to immigration. (Not to mention that - typically - the number and availability of welfare systems was different) That same filter doesn't exist between us and the countries to our south



I really wish there was an expiration date on some things. "But slavery!" "But the native Americans!" None of us were alive then and a large number of our ancestors were not even in this country yet.

I don't hold the British accountable for things they did to my ancestors in the early 20th century. Let it go! (Unless I get to start holding you accountable for things that your ancestors didn't have anything to do with)

Also very well said.

EDIT: Immigration ceased to be a net positive when we became a welfare state. It has nothing to do with Latinos except that it's easier for them to get here; the real problem is that too many people now come here as ticks looking for a better place on the dog.

 

[Tom]

We didnt all welcome the Irish, Germans, Swedes, back then either. There have always been jerks who blame someone else for their problems, just like there are now.

The barriers arent that different either. People die getting here from the South.

One thing that IS different is Spanish speaking people have been living here for 500 years. Lots of this country used to be their country.

 

[Jhhnn]

Are you familiar with the saying, "For those that understand, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible".

You fall in the later category.

Standard misquote. Originally, it went-

For those that believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe, no explanation is possible".

In your comments, you prove quite vividly that it's not about intellect, but about faith.

Not sure that you can make it anymore simple than the US has a serious debt issue and is giving away millions of dollars to families who are not entitled to it.

For a second there, I thought you might have been talking about Wall St and extending the Bush taxcuts for the wealthy... probably not, huh?

Which families, specifically, are receiving aid not entitled to them by the law? Or is your argument based on some faith based axiom of what you believe the law should be, some form of denial as to why the welfare state has come into being?

 

[Exterous]

The barriers arent that different either. People die getting here from the South.

I very much disagree. Just because people die that does not make the barriers similar. It is actually physically possible to walk from Chilie to Alaska. Doesn't mean it's easy but it can be done. It is not even close to physically possible to walk or even swim from England, Germany, Ireland, China etc

Also - the type of vessel required to get here from Cuba, Haiti etc is significantly different than the one needed to get here from Europe, Africa, Asia etc

 

[EagleKeeper]

So yoiu are saying that immigration laws were targeted specifically at the Latino's coming up from Central/South America? if so, please provide the evidence

The immigration laws were created well before that flood started.

The only thing is that Mexico has a larger percentage of authorized entries than the other countries in the area. That authorization comes from Congress itself.

http://www.pbs.org/kpbs/theborder/history/timeline/17.html

From your link - the laws were clarified and teeth put into place as a result of the illegal surge.

When people came by sea; they were easier to control, filter and document.
Now with them coming by land, and not following proper procedures; additional methods were set up.

so yes the laws were tightened, not created.
And the reason is that people; encouraged by the Mexican government (as still is happening) were coming into the country ILLEGALLY.