Comprehensive Immigration Reform is really worse than amnesty!

It may significantly change the demographic of the voter pool. The IRS set up a way for Illegal Immigrants to pay
taxes, it is called an ITEN (Individual Taxpayer Id Number). So, it has been very clear it has been going on for a while. If they get the right to vote that could surely move the country to the left. To me it is almost treasonous to
dilute the voter pool to gain a political advantage. But, that is what could have with immigration reform is passed.
When Pres Reagan did this in 1986, he was told it would be 700,000 it turned out to be 3 million. He later stated it
was the biggest mistake he made. The message then became, come here and stay long enough and we will let
you stay and vote get public assistance. With 12 million here, it would appear that many people got that message.

Anyway, here is a Youtube news video about it: ILLEGAL Immigrants Receive $Billions Yearly via IRS Loophole

 

Did anyone notice, that in the last census, not one question was about citizenship. With as many as 20 million immigrants, legal and otherwise, in this country being counted in the general population. This is the basis for congressional representation, meaning that there are 28 congressmen and their staff that shouldn't be there. As far as illegal immigration goes, what's so hard about a 48 hour background check and a 9 to 18 month work permit. Except of course it makes them harder to exploit and scumbag employers will have to go back to following those pesky labor laws. I interviewed a Canadian who had been here legally for 5 years and married to a US citizen for the whole of it. He had yet been granted the permission to work. Needless to say I couldn't hire him.

 

For a country purely and almost entirely built on immigrants, you sure find some "natives" that hate immigrants. The same descendants of the people who committed genocide on the native people of this country now want to deny other people the same citizenship. This country has always in every single wave benefitted from immigrant populations that have come here through forced migrations, planned migrations, and yes, even illegal migrations. If the Right is unwilling to welcome new citizens to this vast country because they perceive that immigrants are unlikely to vote for their party, maybe they should consider what it is their party stands for in the first place that is so unappealing instead of faulting those that welcome perfectly fine newcomers to the country that claims to be the best country on earth.

 

Dunno, seems to me we have laws regarding immigration. Folks can choose to either come to this country legally or illegally. Are the people who decide to violate our laws, right out of the gate, really the people we want? Why wouldn't they take the legal route since one certainly exists?

 

Don't these stupid immigrants know that you don't use loop holes to bilk the tax payers, you simply have them pay your enormlus salary. They'll never learn.

Taxpayer Dollars Paid A Third Of Richest Corporate CEOs: Report

WASHINGTON -- More than one-third of the nation's highest-paid CEOs from the past two decades led companies that were subsidized by American taxpayers, according to a report released Wednesday by the Institute for Policy Studies, a liberal think tank.

"Financial bailouts offer just one example of how a significant number of America's CEO pay leaders owe much of their good fortune to America's taxpayers," reads the report. "Government contracts offer another."

IPS has been publishing annual reports on executive compensation since 1993, tracking the 25 highest-paid CEOs each year and analyzing trends in payouts. Of the 500 total company listings, 103 were banks that received government bailouts under the Troubled Asset Relief Program, while another 62 were among the nation's most prolific government contractors.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/28/richest-ceos-compensation-ceos_n_3825087.html

 

I don't really see what the Huffington Post story you posted has to do with illegal immigration. Besides this tax loophole there is also a large cost in terms of public assistance. Has the Huffington Post run any articles on that? He is a blog using a study by the Heritage Foundation: http://blog.heritage.org/2013/05/22/cost-of-illegal-immigration-and-amnesty-could-be-higher/

 

Let me connect the dots for you. Immigrants exploiting tax loopholes and huge corporations using tax dollars to pay their CEOs.

Now you used an interesting term here that I found needing more of an explanation. "Dilute" the voter pool? What do you mean "delute"?

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dilute
3: to diminish the strength
To diminish the strength of the current voters. Pretty straight forward statement I think. I knew what the word meant.
I just thought I would give you a definition. So, as to avoid any confusion.

 

He will still be confused.

 

So being obtuse is your only answer? I didn't ask for a word definition as you know, I asked what you meant by a diluted voter pool? Certainly if something is diluted it has more of something and less of something else. What specifically is being diluted about the voter pool?

 

I think it is clear to most people. If some type of immigration reform adds millions of voters. The current voter pool
will have less strength......be diluted. A person who entered this country illegally should not be allowed to vote. A
very simple statement to most people.

 

You seem to be dancing around some point here. I don't know how you could possibly know what "most" people think. Well you can't. I also don't know how immigrants gaining citizenship through some immigration reform and adding their voices to our democracy could possibly dilute the strength of the voter pool. New citizens usually vote in much higher numbers than the people who were born and raised here. I think you are confused.

 

I'm not dancing around any point. I feel people most are rational and would not want to reward people who have broken the law. You seem to think a very rational simple statement is not correct. How do you know this?

Your real goal is obvious. Try and find a name to call me like racist. Because that has been successful in the past.
Say my real goal is to discriminate against people who are different from me. As opposed to enforcing existing law
and having secure borders. People violating US immigration laws come from all over the world. The laws should be
enforced on all, regardless of an immigrant's country of origin.

As an American citizen, I can't go to Canada or Europe to obtain social services or take a job from people in one of those countries. They would send me home pronto if I tried to do that. Mexico enforces their immigration laws,
by tossing anyone caught in Mexico illegally in jail.

 

Maybe the immigration laws should be reviewed. They could take out all the biased BS, but then there wouldn't be a law at all.

Or, we could do what you anti-immigrants appear to want to do, and remove this plaque from the Statue of Liberty:

The choice is ours.

My choice is to honor the wisdom of the words on that plaque, and tell anti-immigrants to go to hell.

 

I encourage immigration. But, requiring immigrants to go through the legal process isn't too much of a requirement, is it?

 

Again, this has nothing to do with the question I asked you and you danced around and could not answer.

Your statements are absured given your OP. If we have immigration reform, amnesty, or just some legal path to citizenship, the point of people being illegal or legal immigrants is moot.

What you said was that doing so would dilute the voter pool. That implies that our voter pool has some type of characteristic of being pure in some respect and is diluted by immigrants. Was that just a poor choice of words or did you mean something by it? You just keep dancing around and not explaining your own statement. What did you mean? It's a simple question.

What I think I'm hearing is another one of those people that would routinely use for example the N word but knows that using it in public would bring immediate condemnation so they have to restrain themselves but you can kind of tell anyway that they are repressing how they really feel. Please feel free to correct me if I am misreading your diluted voter pool phrase.

 

In the past, immigration to the US was a very different situation. There was vacant land that could be settled and
farmed. There were not the large number of public assistance programs we have today. The US already has over 300 million people, do we really need more. I don't believe we do. One reason for allowing a lot of immigration, is
to have more workers to pay into programs that have been over promised, like Social Security.

One reason a lot of immigration is being allowed is to delay the Social Security Shortfall. The present value of unfunded obligations under Social Security was approximately $8.6 trillion over a 75-year forecast period (2012-2086) {source, Wiki}. Medicaid and Medicare also have a shortfall as well. According to this 2005 USA Today
article, more immigration took place from 2001-2005, that at any other time in US history.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-12-12-immigration_x.htm

In a way all that immigration helped the US economy. By reducing wages, which helped keep jobs in the US.
However, this is one reason the middle class is shrinking. FICA taxes, which fund Social Security, Medicaid & Medicare). Start at dollar 1 of a workers income and are a very regressive tax. Where as federal income taxes only start after a worker has earned about $10K. Many people pay for FICA than federal income taxes. The goal
of all this immigration, is keep this shortfall reality out of the media and out of the publics mind. Benefits will
have to be cut, it is just a matter of when and by how much. Social Security was a very poorly designed program
and is the biggest future liability facing the USA. Bigger than the national debt. Lou Dobbs on CNN began to bring
this to the public's attention and was fired for doing so by CNN. It is just a major problem that the media has not
covered very well.

 

Social Security, like Obamacare, is just a giant pyramid scheme. Eventually, the house of cards will come down.

 

What do you mean "poorly designed"? In the 30's life expectance was below 65. Congress forgot the premise behind Roosevelt's scheme and failed to move the age qualification in order to keep up with the pace life expectancy. They are only now trying to address the problem. Social Security was meant to be the insurance policy that never pays. Retirement age a.k.a. death should be currently set at age 85.

 

Crime pays..........
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/immigration-bill-knot-special-citizenship-path-20129505