7. You heard me, they pay taxes.
8. TAAAA X EEEEES.
I read through the Forbes article and was disgusted by that exact point. With that kind of reporting in the Forbes article we could prove that rich white old men are costing the country money or any other group. If all you look at were the costs and not the contributions! I was then going to do the research to prove the xenophobia for what it was but thought, "Wait, I should see if rojimbo responded first."
HAHAHA! Thank you!
Over 430 threads discussing labyrinth problems with over 1040 posters in support (thread # 1702621) Thank you all! GGG will implement a different method for ascension in PoE2. Retired!
Last edited by Turtledove#4014 on Dec 12, 2018, 2:40:49 PM
Of course illegals use less healthcare than legal citizens, that's obvious. That other quote I dunno where you got from and makes no sense. Which illegals supposedly pay more taxes than receive? How about their spouses / children / extended family / unemployed, were they counted in the metric? If illegals were such an economic boon and net positive, why do sanctuary cities in USA look like the 3rd world? Why are the most liberal parts of USA (eg NY & CA) also the ones with the highest income inequality? How about factoring in expenses of crime too?
I recommend this paper
Becerra, D., Androff, D. K., Ayon, C., & Castillo, J. T. (2012). Fear vs. facts: Examining the economic impact of undocumented immigrants in the US. J. Soc. & Soc. Welfare, 39, 111.
Previous studies have found that violent and non-violent
crime rates among undocumented immigrants decreased
during the late-1990s and mid-2000s (Bailey & Hayes, 2006;
Butcher & Piehl, 2007; Nadler, 2008; Rumbaut & Ewing, 2007).
According to Rumbaut and Ewing (2007), even as the number
of undocumented immigrants in the United States doubled
during the late 1990s, the rates of violent and property crimes
decreased 34% and 26%, respectively. Using data from the
annual Federal Bureau of Investigation Unified Crime Reports,
Nadler (2008) compared the differences in total crime rates
between High Immigrant Jurisdictions (HIJs) (defined as the
19 states with the most resident immigrants) whose resident
populations include the highest proportion of immigrants and
highest percentage influx of immigrants, and non-HIJs in the
United States between 1999 and 2006. The study found that the
total crime rates decreased by a little more than 10% across the
nation (3808.1 per 100,000 residents in 2006 versus 4273.8 per
100,000 residents in 1999). Crime, both violent and non-violent,
decreased at a faster rate in the 19 HIJs than in the non-HIJs.
In 2006, the total crime rate in HIJs was lower than non-HIJs
(3807.1 per 100,000 residents versus 3809.4 per 100,000 residents).
Finally, the total crimes rate decreased from between
7 to 15 percent across all of the jurisdictions between 1999 and
2006. When examining the incarceration rate of undocumented
immigrants, researchers found that the rate is lower than that
for native-born citizens (Bailey & Hayes, 2006; Butcher & Piehl,
2007; Rumbaut & Ewing, 2007). Furthermore, there is evidence
that immigration does not increase crime rates and actually
reduces crime rates in urban areas (Reid, Weiss, Adelm)
Healthcare
Spoiler
"
Although there are
costs associated with health care provision to undocumented
immigrants, due to their lower rates of use of health care services,
these expenditures account for only 1.5% of U.S. medical
costs (Okie, 2007) and the estimated tax burden per household
was only $11 per year for providing health care to undocumented
immigrants (Goldman, Smith, & Sood, 2006). While
some may argue that no tax dollars should go toward providing
services to a population who many believe should not
even be in the U.S., the $11 annual per household tax burden
is not the overwhelming financial burden that the media and
many politicians claim.
Economic benefits
Spoiler
"
There are economic costs and benefits of having undocumented
immigrants and their children living in the United
States. The CBO reported that on a federal level, revenues
generated by undocumented immigrants are greater than the
expense of providing services because undocumented immigrants
do not qualify for federal programs (CBO, 2007). In
addition to the additional revenue generated through taxes,
undocumented immigrants contribute to the U.S. economy in
other ways.
The financial solvency of the Social Security and Medicare
programs in the U.S. relies on payroll tax revenue (Segal, 2010).
Despite the public discourse to the contrary, the majority of
undocumented immigrants pay income taxes through the
use of Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs) or
through false Social Security numbers (National Council of La
Raza [NCLR], 2008; U.S. Chamber of Commerce, n.d.). As a
result, undocumented immigrants contribute over $7 billion
annually to Social Security and over $1.5 billion to Medicare
(NCLR, 2008).
Although some undocumented immigrants receive Social
Security and Medicare benefits, the majority do not receive
any benefits from those programs (NCLR, 2008; Sommers,
2010). Since false Social Security numbers are not appropriately
linked to an individual who can take advantage of
Social Security benefits, the majority of contributions to Social
Security from undocumented immigrants go into an earnings
suspense file. The Social Security Administration factors in the
over $7 billion annual contributions from undocumented immigrants
into the Social Security Administration's calculations
and projections for the solvency of Social Security (Porter, 2005;
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, n.d.). The retirement of the baby
boom generation will lead to increased expenditures for Social
Security (Abel, 2003) and additional tax revenue is needed to
provide Social Security benefits to current and future retirees.
Since undocumented immigrants are ineligible to receive government
services, it is estimated that undocumented immigrants
pay an average of $1,800 per household, per year more
to Social Security and Medicare than they utilize in services
(Camarota, 2004). Therefore, undocumented immigrants actually
contribute to the solvency of Social Security and Medicare
and help to provide services to current and future retirees.
A finite minority you don't have to pay a penny for. A minority that is slowly degrading the demographic, cultural & thus political structure of USA. "infinity" is a figure of speech, because people like you want USA & Europe to take on unlimited streams of migration, without any restrictions. Thus theoretically "infinite".
What stats do you want? That USA is the most crime-ridden developed country on the planet? That central & south america, the source of most migration, is one of the most crime-ridden areas on the planet (but somehow these people "lower" the crime in USA, sure). How and where do you think the MS-13 gang originated, for example? You can google all this yourself.
Do you think these people live in some meadow somewhere and don't consume public resources? Do you think they don't send their kids to public schools or live in subsidized housing? Do you know that illegal aliens have access to free healthcare?
Do you think illegal workers pay any payroll tax? Do you think their family members still find ways to benefit from social services? Note that the 22+ mio figure is just illegal immigrants, not counting legal ones (visa workers, etc). Yet you still demand USA to allow in everyone that shows up at the border.
Dude... if I was actually American, I'd be really offended by your rather arrogant attitude "let this Euro explain to you 'murcans what is really going on in your country"... Because Europistan is notorius for free press and free speech, esp. in places like Germany & UK ;)
Liberals love immigrants, how liberals spend their money is not your concern. State government doesn't have to cooperate with national government; they are considered separate sovereigns. $18.5 Billion For Unauthorized Immigrants? But Consider this, If you stop paying Health Care for Americans you save $3.5 Trillion a year.
Their crime rate is probably lower (if we ignore that crossing the border illegaly is a crime) but in absolute numbers those are still crimes which shouldn't've happened in the first place. We're talking for example about hundreds of homicides per year.
GGG banning all political discussion shortly after getting acquired by China is a weird coincidence.
Their crime rate is probably lower (if we ignore that crossing the border illegaly is a crime) but in absolute numbers those are still crimes which shouldn't've happened in the first place. We're talking for example about hundreds of homicides per year.
I don't see any data about illegal immigrants there.
Build of the week #9 - Breaking your face with style http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_EcQDOUN9Y
IGN: Poltun
Their crime rate is probably lower (if we ignore that crossing the border illegaly is a crime) but in absolute numbers those are still crimes which shouldn't've happened in the first place. We're talking for example about hundreds of homicides per year.
THe CIS report is deeply flawed.
CIS= Center for Immigration Studies; a conservative (more like radical rightwing) think tank, with dubious science credentials, promotes race science by the way
Many times their non-peer reviewed non-scientific methodologies were debunked.
The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) released a new report this morning on immigrant welfare use. CIS found that immigrants use far more welfare than natives do. CIS’ methodology, parts of which are suspect, is what produced this result – as we’ve pointed out to CIS multiple times. They also omitted a lot of information that would make for a better comparison between immigrants and natives. Simply put, the CIS study does not compare apples to apples but rather apples to elephants.
The first issue is that CIS counts the welfare use of households, which includes many native-born American citizens, rather than individuals. There might be some good reasons to do this but the immigrant-headed household variable CIS uses is ambiguous, poorly defined, and less used in modern research for those reasons. To CIS’ credit they try to separate out households with children but didn’t separate out American-born spouses. There is debate largely over whether to count the American born children of immigrants as a welfare cost of immigration. If we should count them, shouldn’t we also count the welfare use of grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and great-great-grandchildren of immigrants? Such a way of counting would obviously produce a negative result but it would also not be informative.
Another problem with counting households rather than individuals is that immigrants and natives have different sized households. According to the American Community Survey, immigrant households have on average 3.37 people in them compared to 2.5 people in native-born households. All else remaining equal, we should expect higher welfare use in immigrant households just because they’re larger. CIS should have corrected for household size by focusing on individual welfare use – which is included in the SIPP.
The second issue with the CIS report is that it does not correct for income. Since means-tested welfare programs are designed for those with lower incomes, it makes sense to only compare use rates among those with lower incomes. It is not enlightening to statistically compare the welfare use rates of rich immigrants and Americans like Bill Gates or Warren Buffett to poorer immigrants and Americans as the CIS report does.
The interesting question is not whether poor people use more welfare than rich people but whether poor immigrants are more likely to use more welfare than poor natives. Our research found that poor immigrants are less likely to use welfare than poor natives. The CIS report isn’t very useful because it doesn’t correct for this.
The third issue with the CIS report is that they omitted the cash value of welfare benefits consumed by immigrant and native households. CIS only analyzed the use rates for each welfare program but they do not tell you how much welfare was actually consumed. For instance, the cash value for many welfare benefits are determined by the number of eligible members living in the household. If only half of the members of a household are eligible then the benefits are reduced. Furthermore, CIS does not report how long immigrant households are in these benefit programs compared to natives. Immigrants could be on these programs more frequently but for shorter periods of time and with fewer beneficiaries per household – which is roughly what we found.
Last edited by rojimboo#7480 on Dec 12, 2018, 5:51:41 PM
Their crime rate is probably lower (if we ignore that crossing the border illegaly is a crime) but in absolute numbers those are still crimes which shouldn't've happened in the first place. We're talking for example about hundreds of homicides per year.
Over 430 threads discussing labyrinth problems with over 1040 posters in support (thread # 1702621) Thank you all! GGG will implement a different method for ascension in PoE2. Retired!
Last edited by Turtledove#4014 on Dec 12, 2018, 6:02:01 PM
I'm thinking he's confusing the word 'revolt' with 'rejoice'.
Still, I'm more than eager to find out either way.
I think Trump believe he is protected by the power of his presidency.
Robert Mueller supposedly believe they don't have the power to indict the president under the Justice Department rules. And Trump Administration know they're not going to indict.
What Mueller would do is write a report about the president’s conduct that Congress might use as part of impeachment proceedings. Would Trump get impeached for any criminal wrongdoings? Maybe not. Impeachment proceedings is more of a political process not a judicial one.
Oh, he absolutely feels he is -- he never saw it as a responsibility or a burden, but as a throne. And if it is a throne, then the people must respect that. Regarding this 'revolt' he imagines, he's also managed to convince himself that the people are still on his side. That's part and parcel of his textbook narcissism and pathological lying addiction. I don't plan to rehash what I summarised from the only attempt at psychoanalysing the man, so I won't.
What he's missed is, historically, how much people love a good dethroning of a puppet king and would-be tyrant.
By almost any metric, the people are *not* on Trump's side. He's struggling to fill key positions in his government. The media has formed ranks against him for his committing their idea of the worst crime possible, that being his declaring their long-standing tradition of truth-seeking as spreading falsehood and fake news. He failed the popular vote and while I think that's irrelevant, I'm willing to bet his ego never got over it, never quite reconciled that fact. Pretty much anyone in his inner circles who aren't family have turned on him, because that's what happens when you promise the world and deliver only frustration and deception. The man is increasingly alone and politically has very few left people on his side. Only those who care about their immediate windfalls and can't think past that continue to support the man, who is adept at selling short term wins but, much like his constituents, can't think past that. Can't see the cost of a short term win is very often a long term loss.
Then again, it's amusing to see polls that reveal the people aren't on anyone's side at all. Approval ratings are an interesting concept in that they don't provide much in the way of an expected balance. It's entirely possible for everyone to just vote 'nope, don't trust any of them' because polls very rarely force people to choose one over another.
And for good reason: when you do that, you end up with President Trump.
That is not how the law work. It requires a two-thirds super majority to impeach him. The Republicans could block his impeachment. Democracy be damned.
