Invasion

Current issues and things in the news

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
nobspeople
Prodigy
Posts: 3187
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
Has thanked: 1510 times
Been thanked: 824 times

Invasion

Post #1

Post by nobspeople »

1 : an act of invading
especially : incursion of an army for conquest or plunder
2: the incoming or spread of something usually hurtful

In recent years, there's been an ongoing issue at the southern border of the USA in regards to immigrants from Mexico. The below link seems to indicate some think this in an invasion (MW definition above):
https://www.yahoo.com/news/ex-trump-off ... 51955.html

Most would likely say legal immigration isn't an issue - it's the illegal immigration that's the problem. Why? Many of these people take advantage of what the country (in this case, the USA) has to offer, and giving little to nothing back in return.
A couple examples:
Getting paid to work and not pay taxes
Using the healthcare system without paying
Giving birth in the USA, so their children can be US citizens, then returning home, oft times not paying for the delivery

Many so-called liberals seem to think it's OK to have illegal immigration, saying they're taking jobs American's don't want and or 'their lives are so bad back there they're coming here to have a better life' and the like.

For discussion:
Should all immigrants (illegal or legal) be welcomed in your country, or should illegal immigrants be sent home as well as tried to be prevented from entering your country?
Why?
Last edited by nobspeople on Thu Apr 07, 2022 12:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3247 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: Invasion

Post #2

Post by Difflugia »

nobspeople wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 1:21 pmMany of these people take advantage of what the country (in this case, the USA) has to offer, and giving little to nothing back in return.
This is absolutely false on its face. In fact, I'd argue that it's next to impossible in practice if their pay is calculated hourly or by the piece.

The difference between what they're paid for their labor and that labor's value is what they're "giving back." That's true for any wage earner. The only people that are taking more from society than they're giving are those that are paid more than the value of their labor. Without delving into exactly where that line is for any given profession (or if there's a difference), I'm guessing that most of us can agree that the people that fit that description aren't the ones picking asparagus or cleaning rooms for a living. Whether or not the right people are receiving that excess value is a valid question, but unless someone at the top is hoarding all that wealth, it's hard to argue that the excess value isn't contributing to the U.S. economy. Whether it gets to the right people is a bureaucratic problem rather than a problem with immigration per se. Who to tax is the government's problem, not those already contributing to the overall economy.

If we're going to compare illegal immigrants' economic value to legal residents', then just compare the take home pay of an illegal immigrant to a legal resident doing the same work. Whoever's pay is higher is giving less of their labor value to somebody else. Again, whether that excess value makes it into the right hands is a valid question, but once someone else accepts possession of it, I'd argue that it's no longer the responsibility of the wage earner.

One could make other arguments, like that the illegal immigrants aren't filling out the right paperwork or that we're exceeding the overall carrying capacity of our collective resources, but I don't see a valid argument being made based on economic imbalance.
nobspeople wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 1:21 pmShould all immigrants (illegal or legal) be welcomed in your conutry, or should illegal immigrants be sent home as well as tried to be prevented from entering your country?
There should be legal restrictions to immigration based on the ability of our society to absorb new people, however those are calculated. Whether or not the current standards are too restrictive, I don't think that immigration should be completely unchecked. Anyone already here should be treated fairly and humanely whether they're here legally or not. Immigration status should not be a factor in receiving things like medical care or education for dependent children. At the very least, it should be more illegal to exploit an illegal immigrant that it is to actually be an illegal immigrant.

That does bring up the question of enforcement. My proposal is that anyone that reports a violation that could be considered exploitative be granted immediate permanent residence. Any illegal immigrant reporting something like unfair labor practices or substandard living conditions gets an immediate green card.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

nobspeople
Prodigy
Posts: 3187
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
Has thanked: 1510 times
Been thanked: 824 times

Re: Invasion

Post #3

Post by nobspeople »

[Replying to Difflugia in post #2]
This is absolutely false on its face. In fact, I'd argue that it's next to impossible in practice if their pay is calculated hourly or by the piece.
I do know for a personal fact that many come to the USA to get free healthcare (which is what I was referring in the quoted statement). I see it a couple times a week, at least. That is taking (healthcare) and not giving back (paying for said healthcare).
I personally know several people that have come to the USA ONLY to give birth, for free.
I also know of many (a dozen or so?) that work and don't pay taxes. It's surprisingly easy to do, it seems.
Though this could be eliminated if employers don't hire people who don't pay taxes, don't have a social #, etc.
That's not saying citizens don't also do this, however. Neither is right in their actions.
There should be legal restrictions to immigration based on the ability of our society to absorb new people, however those are calculated.
I have a few friends that seem to think everyone should be allowed in, for free, with no checks, and the country will simply 'absorb' them appropriately and eventually. This idea they have doesn't seem based on logic, but emotion.
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3247 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: Invasion

Post #4

Post by Difflugia »

nobspeople wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 6:08 amI do know for a personal fact that many come to the USA to get free healthcare (which is what I was referring in the quoted statement). I see it a couple times a week, at least. That is taking (healthcare) and not giving back (paying for said healthcare). I personally know several people that have come to the USA ONLY to give birth, for free.
You mean they are illegally entering the country, getting healthcare, then returning whence they came?
nobspeople wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 6:08 amI also know of many (a dozen or so?) that work and don't pay taxes. It's surprisingly easy to do, it seems.
Doing what? Are they paid more than their labor ultimately contributes to the GDP, for example? Paying taxes isn't the only way to extract wealth from someone.
nobspeople wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 6:08 amThough this could be eliminated if employers don't hire people who don't pay taxes, don't have a social #, etc.
That will help enforce the bureaucratic rules and help ensure that the wealth extracted from the workers makes it to the right place, but it doesn't really change the economic imbalance in either direction. If the employees don't have employees of their own, it's difficult to see how they'd be getting more out of the system than what they're putting in.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

nobspeople
Prodigy
Posts: 3187
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
Has thanked: 1510 times
Been thanked: 824 times

Re: Invasion

Post #5

Post by nobspeople »

[Replying to Difflugia in post #4]
You mean they are illegally entering the country, getting healthcare, then returning whence they came?
Some do, usually to have a baby so it will have dual citizenship (which can help if they ever want to become a citizen). Plus, it's free for some (though some do pay (usually these paying ones are the ones coming into the country legally, though not always) - the dual citizenship seemingly being the only motivating factor, which, itself, is another topic).
Some come, get medical care, and stay.
It's funny in a way; many of them know how to 'work the system' in ways citizens typically don't. It doesn't help that the government offers special programs for these people. Truthfully, if the government is either going to help you pay, and or not pursue you to pay, you can't blame them too much.
Paying taxes isn't the only way to extract wealth from someone.
That's not debatable. But if you and I have to pay taxes for our work, why should another not? Or, if these others are going to be 'judged' in other ways (contributing to the GDP per your example) so that they don't have to pay taxes, why not everyone else? What it boils down to is fairness for everyone.
Work and pay taxes, or work and don't pay taxes. For everyone.
That will help enforce the bureaucratic rules and help ensure that the wealth extracted from the workers makes it to the right place, but it doesn't really change the economic imbalance in either direction.
To me, the imbalance is another, though related, issue with its own discussion needed
If the employees don't have employees of their own, it's difficult to see how they'd be getting more out of the system than what they're putting in.
If employees don't have employees? I don't follow your thinking here. Please elaborate.
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3247 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: Invasion

Post #6

Post by Difflugia »

nobspeople wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 8:47 amSome do, usually to have a baby so it will have dual citizenship (which can help if they ever want to become a citizen). Plus, it's free for some (though some do pay (usually these paying ones are the ones coming into the country legally, though not always) - the dual citizenship seemingly being the only motivating factor, which, itself, is another topic).
What you're describing here isn't immigration as such. I also think that any scarcity of health-care is artificial and an artifact of the overall economic system rather than a scarcity of actual resources. I think that the country should provide health care for everybody in the country and as much as possible humanitarian health care as possible to those outside. Perhaps a series of hospitals just across the border in Mexico that are funded by the US government would satisfy both the moral imperative to provide health care as widely as possible, but alleviate whatever other problems unfettered immigration (or in this case, health-care tourism) might cause.

If you're just worried about whether the hospitals themselves get paid for the care they provide, denying someone healthcare, whether that denial is at the door or the border, is the laziest, least moral option available. Of course, that's only my personal moral opinion.

If you don't think the rules for citizenship are fair, that's a different discussion than either immigration as such or access to safe child delivery.
nobspeople wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 8:47 amSome come, get medical care, and stay.
If they stay and work in the US, then they're likely returning more wealth to the overall system than they receive. If the hospitals don't get their share of that wealth, that's a bureaucratic problem, not an immigration problem.
nobspeople wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 8:47 amIt's funny in a way; many of them know how to 'work the system' in ways citizens typically don't. It doesn't help that the government offers special programs for these people. Truthfully, if the government is either going to help you pay, and or not pursue you to pay, you can't blame them too much.
Who are the "them" you're not blaming? It's not clear to me.

I'd argue that everyone, contributing or not, should have access to adequate healthcare on humanitarian grounds, but at the very least, anyone contributing to the economy should receive it. If some people are getting it and some people aren't, the proper solution isn't to deny the care to anyone that's getting it.
nobspeople wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 8:47 am
Paying taxes isn't the only way to extract wealth from someone.
That's not debatable. But if you and I have to pay taxes for our work, why should another not?
Whether they should or shouldn't isn't an argument about immigration.
nobspeople wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 8:47 amOr, if these others are going to be 'judged' in other ways (contributing to the GDP per your example) so that they don't have to pay taxes, why not everyone else?
That is an excellent and insightful question. Restricting immigration doesn't address it, though.

As something to think about, though, any immigrant, illegal or otherwise, that receives less for their labor is also being taxed in some way, just perhaps not by the government. I suspect that in that sense, you are taxed less on your labor than the vast majority of illegal immigrants are. That you see at least some of the numbers on your paycheck before they're deducted can be distracting, but is ultimately immaterial. It's the difference between a $1 cup of coffee at full price and a $300 cup of coffee at a $299 discount. Maybe it's not the same coffee. Maybe it is.
nobspeople wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 8:47 amWhat it boils down to is fairness for everyone.
Work and pay taxes, or work and don't pay taxes. For everyone.
I am so much more in agreement with this than I'd bet you are yourself.
nobspeople wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 8:47 amTo me, the imbalance is another, though related, issue with its own discussion needed
Exactly. It's unrelated. If the argument against immigration is that immigrants overall, even including the ones that don't work, are removing more from the economy as a group than they add, then the argument fails. Additionally, the imbalance that exists is probably in a different direction than what you're claiming.
nobspeople wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 8:47 am
If the employees don't have employees of their own, it's difficult to see how they'd be getting more out of the system than what they're putting in.
If employees don't have employees? I don't follow your thinking here. Please elaborate.
If they're receiving wealth in excess of what they're creating through their labor, then it must be coming from somewhere. By far, the most common way of extracting that wealth is by taking it from an employee by paying them less than what the employer will receive by reselling that labor. Another method that does so without employees being necessary would be a predatory monopoly on an item that one could make alone, but even fewer illegal immigrants are in a position to pull that one off.

An interesting reverse example is when someone is so greatly underpaid that an employer can resell the labor at less than its value, but still extract a profit. Artificially cheap produce, for example, means that end consumers may be paying less than enough to support the laborers' access to safe and sufficient food, housing, healthcare, and education for their children. That means that the consumers themselves are illegitimately receiving some of the wealth that the laborers are creating that should be going to pay for those other things. The consumers themselves aren't to blame, either (or at least not entirely), but the end result is that the laborers are still contributing more value to the economy than what they're receiving. This is again a problem that needs to be addressed, but it's not a valid argument against immigration per se.

tl;dr—Economics is complicated. Those that are getting more than their share of resources exploit its complicated nature to create the illusion that those with the largest net contributions are actually receiving more than they contribute. For the real parasites, that's a feature, not a bug.

As a whole, illegal immigrants are at the top in terms of net contribution because of the level of exploitation they face. Underpaid laborers are next on the list. By virtue of being legal, they have more protection from exploitation than illegal laborers, but not enough to ensure that they receive fair value for their contributions.

To use a boundary case as an example, Google says that Jeff Bezos' net worth is $189,000,000,000 dollars. He's 58. If he started working at 16 and worked 70 hours every week for 42 years, then his average pay beyond what he has already spent was $1.2 million per hour. The difference between that number and his overall contribution to the wealth of the nation is the amount that he has unfairly extracted from the US economy every hour that he worked. So that you don't think I'm a hypocrite, though, I think that even he should be allowed free access to clean water and adequate healthcare.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

nobspeople
Prodigy
Posts: 3187
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
Has thanked: 1510 times
Been thanked: 824 times

Re: Invasion

Post #7

Post by nobspeople »

[Replying to Difflugia in post #6]
What you're describing here isn't immigration as such.
If they go into another country and stay for any period of time, it is immigration: travel into a country for the purpose of permanent residence there.
I also think that any scarcity of health-care is artificial and an artifact of the overall economic system rather than a scarcity of actual resources.
That's not up for debate to me. And it does speak to a potential 'reason' why some immigrate.
I think that the country should provide health care for everybody in the country and as much as possible humanitarian health care as possible to those outside.
Some would balk at that, but I would agree, personally. But I think every country should focus more or first on their citizens before people from elsewhere in the world.
Perhaps a series of hospitals just across the border in Mexico that are funded by the US government would satisfy both the moral imperative to provide health care as widely as possible, but alleviate whatever other problems unfettered immigration (or in this case, health-care tourism) might cause.
I won't agree that they should be 'fully funded', but maybe assisted with funding. The problem is, (in this case) Mexico is ripe with toil and the like, especially directly across the boarder. If I were president, I wouldn't want to 'throw good money at bad', as they say. I wouldn't want to give money, for example, to a place where it may not be used for the intended purpose. Maybe experience and teaching would suffice in lieu of money? That might be better. :confused2:
If you're just worried about whether the hospitals themselves get paid for the care they provide, denying someone healthcare, whether that denial is at the door or the border, is the laziest, least moral option available.
Health care costs are out of control in the USA. A recent 90 minute stress test rang a bill of right over $5K for me recently. A blood test was almost $400. And I had three. Rather or not the hospital gets paid is likely a matter for the hospital board, not me. The concern many have is: 'Why do I, a legal citizen, have to pay, while an illegal person doesn't?!'. I think that's a very valid issue.
Maybe that would be solved, in part, by universal healthcare? Though I've heard in some places that utilize this, it's not all 'roses' like some would lead people to believe. Maybe someone with more experience in this matter could weigh in?
If you don't think the rules for citizenship are fair, that's a different discussion than either immigration as such or access to safe child delivery.
Absolutely best for another thread! Which is why I said: "the dual citizenship seemingly being the only motivating factor, which, itself, is another topic".
If they stay and work in the US, then they're likely returning more wealth to the overall system than they receive.
Not that I see. I see people driving on the roads, with no license or insurance, risking the physical and financial lives of them and others. I see people working and not paying taxes, but also living on free healthcare and, sometimes, welfare (not sure how they pull that off but I've seen it with my own eyes). There could be an argument made that they are contributing more than they're getting, especially when compared to where they are from. But the same argument could be made of someone working, paying taxes and paying insurance.
I don't see the math working in favor of the non-tax paying, no insurance having, worker contributing more than their tax paying, insurance carrying worker.
If the hospitals don't get their share of that wealth, that's a bureaucratic problem, not an immigration problem.
Agreed, which isn't something I care much about in this conversation.
Who are the "them" you're not blaming? It's not clear to me.
Those that work and don't pay tax, don't pay for insurance. In this conversation, they're illegals, but this also happens with legal citizens, which isn't right either.
I'd argue that everyone, contributing or not, should have access to adequate healthcare on humanitarian grounds, but at the very least, anyone contributing to the economy should receive it.
Maybe (though I'm not a believer in that EVERYONE DESERVES healthcare - but again that's a different topic). Unfortunately, we have to work with what we have until it changes. And what we have is, unfortunately, people often times getting something (healthcare) for free while others have to pay for it.
Whether they should or shouldn't [if you and I have to pay taxes for our work, why should another not?] isn't an argument about immigration.
It's a big part of it. I don't believe most would say 'I don't want those dirty XYZ people in my country!' (though, unfortunately, those people do exist). I believe most would say 'You want to come to this country and live along side me and be treated like me, fine. But we have to do the same thing. We both have to work and contribute into the system that helps supports us both.'
A reasonable request.
That is an excellent and insightful question. Restricting immigration doesn't address it, though.
Agreed. Doing so it nothing more than a band-aid to a larger problem. But we all know politicians like band-aids and tend to shy away from tackling the problems at their core. Which is sad.
As something to think about, though, any immigrant, illegal or otherwise, that receives less for their labor is also being taxed in some way, just perhaps not by the government.
Surely that happens across the board, illegal or otherwise.
I suspect that in that sense, you are taxed less on your labor than the vast majority of illegal immigrants are.
The term 'majority' is ambiguous here as I have no way to tell. And I get the whole concept of 'taxing isn't always about money'. But when I work and get taxed at 40%, I pay $125/mth car insurance, I pay $200/wk helath insurance, and the 'guy over there' works and gets taxed 0%, pays no car or health insurance, I don't see me making out better than him.
That's not saying this is the golden standard on which all of judged. But it does point to a problem.
That you see at least some of the numbers on your paycheck before they're deducted can be distracting, but is ultimately immaterial.
Not at all. If I could take that extra $400-$500/week and use it to buy my parents a home (like one illegal I know does) or bank it, or add it to the economy in some useful way, it's very much not immaterial.
I am so much more in agreement with this than I'd bet you are yourself.
Why would you make such an assumption without even knowing me, my history? I expected a lot more from you than such a grand assumption. It's disappointing, really.
It's unrelated.
No where did I say unrelated. I said "...the imbalance is another, though related, issue with its own discussion needed".
If they're receiving wealth in excess of what they're creating through their labor, then it must be coming from somewhere. By far, the most common way of extracting that wealth is by taking it from an employee by paying them less than what the employer will receive by reselling that labor. Another method that does so without employees being necessary would be a predatory monopoly on an item that one could make alone, but even fewer illegal immigrants are in a position to pull that one off.
Thanks for the clarification. I would agree with this in principle.
As a whole, illegal immigrants are at the top in terms of net contribution because of the level of exploitation they face.
Absolutely. I see them getting exploited almost every day (in terms of payment). Though I do see them exploiting the system as well outside 'the paycheck'. But the best way to fix this? Stop being illegal. I knew several guys that were always nervous when they'd see a policeman because they had no insurance, no driver's license and working illegally - for years. When asked why, they said they didn't want to spend the money to become legal. When asked what they'd do if deported, they replied they'd wait a couple weeks or months, then come back in and start over. They said it's easier that way. I explained to them if they're legal, they've have a lot more legal protection, but that didn't seem to interest them. So long as they're not going to be killed, they didn't care much.

I know from personal experience becoming a legal citizen is a long and oft times expensive process. We are waiting for the citizenship test currently. The time and money and effort put into it was considerable but, for us, not as bad as it is for some.

Which is another issue to touch on here, but best left for in-depth discussion in another thread: why is it so flippin' expensive to become a US citizen? Why so many holes to jump through? It's frustrating not only from a legal standpoint, but from a person one as well. Just because you have a Latin accept, everyone assumed you're from Mexico? It's amazing how people don't know that 'other countries speak Spanish too - not just Mexico!'
A funny and sad personal example:
A: Where are you from?
B: Venezuela
A: How did you get here?
B: Plane
A: *looks confused* Why did you not just drive?
Obviously "A" has no idea where Venezuela is.
I think ignorance, rather purposeful or otherwise, is also a contributing factor in this issue.
So that you don't think I'm a hypocrite, though, I think that even he [Jeff B ] should be allowed free access to clean water and adequate healthcare.
I believe if it's offered to one, it should be offered to all. If it's denied to one, it should be denied to all.
But that's probably a too simplistic train of thought in a complicated matter, I suspect. But, if enough of the right people put their minds to it, and politicians stand behind it (and not party lines) it could be do-able!

Back to the specific thread topic:
Should all immigrants (illegal or legal) be welcomed in your country, or should illegal immigrants be sent home as well as tried to be prevented from entering your country?

I believe if people go to a new country, in good faith, and try to 'better their lives', living legally, (and aren't convicted murderers, rapists, etc) they should welcomed.
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: Invasion

Post #8

Post by The Barbarian »

Years ago, a republican comptroller in Texas decided to find out what was the economic impact of illegal aliens in the state. She found that they added billions of dollars to the state economy, which had become dependent on them.

Immigration was a heated topic of debate leading up to the November elections and will continue to fuel discussion and action in 2007. This month, I released a special report, "Undocumented Immigrants in Texas: A Financial Analysis of the Impact to the State Budget and Economy," which clearly shows the state receives an economic benefit from the growing number of undocumented immigrants in Texas, but it also sheds light on the challenges facing local governments providing services to undocumented immigrants.

The report (online at www.window.state.tx.us) marks the the first time any state has done a comprehensive financial analysis of the effect of undocumented immigrants on its budget and economy, looking at gross state product, revenues generated, taxes paid and the cost of state services.

The absence of the estimated 1.4 million undocumented immigrants in Texas in fiscal 2005 would have been a loss to our gross state product of $17.7 billion. Undocumented immigrants produced $1.58 billion in state revenues, which exceeded the $1.16 billion in state services they received. However, local governments bore the burden of $1.44 billion in uncompensated health care and law enforcement costs not paid for by the state.

The report estimates that undocumented immigrants in Texas generate more in state taxes and fees than the costs incurred by the state in providing education, health care and emergency medical services, and incarceration.

https://alexrydr.blogspot.com/2020/01/s ... leave.html

And the state of Texas has found that illegal immigrants tend to be more law-abiding while here, than native-born Americans:

The vast majority of research finds that immigrants do not increase local crime rates and that they are less likely to cause crime and less likely to be incarcerated than their native‐​born peers.3 There is less research on illegal immigrant criminality, but what research there is shows that illegal immigrants have lower incarceration rates nationwide and in the state of Texas relative to native‐​born Americans
https://www.cato.org/publications/immig ... background

nobspeople
Prodigy
Posts: 3187
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
Has thanked: 1510 times
Been thanked: 824 times

Re: Invasion

Post #9

Post by nobspeople »

The Barbarian wrote: Sat Apr 30, 2022 10:16 am Years ago, a republican comptroller in Texas decided to find out what was the economic impact of illegal aliens in the state. She found that they added billions of dollars to the state economy, which had become dependent on them.

Immigration was a heated topic of debate leading up to the November elections and will continue to fuel discussion and action in 2007. This month, I released a special report, "Undocumented Immigrants in Texas: A Financial Analysis of the Impact to the State Budget and Economy," which clearly shows the state receives an economic benefit from the growing number of undocumented immigrants in Texas, but it also sheds light on the challenges facing local governments providing services to undocumented immigrants.

The report (online at www.window.state.tx.us) marks the the first time any state has done a comprehensive financial analysis of the effect of undocumented immigrants on its budget and economy, looking at gross state product, revenues generated, taxes paid and the cost of state services.

The absence of the estimated 1.4 million undocumented immigrants in Texas in fiscal 2005 would have been a loss to our gross state product of $17.7 billion. Undocumented immigrants produced $1.58 billion in state revenues, which exceeded the $1.16 billion in state services they received. However, local governments bore the burden of $1.44 billion in uncompensated health care and law enforcement costs not paid for by the state.

The report estimates that undocumented immigrants in Texas generate more in state taxes and fees than the costs incurred by the state in providing education, health care and emergency medical services, and incarceration.

https://alexrydr.blogspot.com/2020/01/s ... leave.html

And the state of Texas has found that illegal immigrants tend to be more law-abiding while here, than native-born Americans:

The vast majority of research finds that immigrants do not increase local crime rates and that they are less likely to cause crime and less likely to be incarcerated than their native‐​born peers.3 There is less research on illegal immigrant criminality, but what research there is shows that illegal immigrants have lower incarceration rates nationwide and in the state of Texas relative to native‐​born Americans
https://www.cato.org/publications/immig ... background
I've seen people in other countries, who have little, offering what little they have to outsiders visiting. While Americans seem to 'offer less' than what they can in the same situation.
I think this speaks to a lot of things, one of which you can gleam from the post you provided. Thanks for contributing!
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Invasion

Post #10

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

nobspeople wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 1:21 pm 1 : an act of invading
especially : incursion of an army for conquest or plunder
2: the incoming or spread of something usually hurtful

In recent years, there's been an ongoing issue at the southern border of the USA in regards to immigrants from Mexico. The below link seems to indicate some think this in an invasion (MW definition above):
https://www.yahoo.com/news/ex-trump-off ... 51955.html

Most would likely say legal immigration isn't an issue - it's the illegal immigration that's the problem. Why? Many of these people take advantage of what the country (in this case, the USA) has to offer, and giving little to nothing back in return.
A couple examples:
Getting paid to work and not pay taxes
Using the healthcare system without paying
Giving birth in the USA, so their children can be US citizens, then returning home, oft times not paying for the delivery

Many so-called liberals seem to think it's OK to have illegal immigration, saying they're taking jobs American's don't want and or 'their lives are so bad back there they're coming here to have a better life' and the like.

For discussion:
Should all immigrants (illegal or legal) be welcomed in your country, or should illegal immigrants be sent home as well as tried to be prevented from entering your country?
Why?
Well the country needs immigration, legal immigration is a huge source of skilled talent, also US citizens are free to marry foreign citizens and bring their spouse to the US.

As for "illegal" frankly there's no such thing as "illegal immigration" it is an oxymoron. The term "immigration" refers to step by step legal process. There are "illegal aliens" though and this the preferred term for these people.

The US has a bizarre immigration program though called the "Green card lottery" and it is selective in which countries can participate, that is prejudice IMHO.

As for the southern border, there is a long history there, we reap what we sow, or rather we reap what our political leaders sowed in the 60s and 70s.

Post Reply