The anti-immigration argument that confuses me...

[YankeyMCC]

Perhaps I'm missing something but when I hear people complain that illegal immigrants use up resources without paying taxes I honestly do not understand.

I understand the proposition and I see how it applies to anyone who might be here illegally and earning over 3 times the poverty limit (I think that's the minimum you must earn to be taxed correct?) but the vast majority of the people we are talking about earn much less than that correct?

In other words if they were legal would they even be taxed? We're talking about people making less than minimum wage how much tax would we collect from these people anyway? Are the people who make this argument saying that they also resent the poor who happen to be citizens because they don't contribute to the tax revenue in their poverty?

I can see some serious issues that need to be resolved but this argument just seems completely off to me.

[Bridget Burke]

1. And EVERYONE pays sales tax....

Which can get pretty high in some states. Not to mention property tax--which renters pay indirectly.

[Der Blaue Engel]

2. You mustn't use logic

People's heads will explode at their own cognitive dissonance. ;)

[Warpy]

3. It's bogus

They are subject to withholding, they just use faked SSNs and don't get any of it back in refunds at year's end. They also pay OASDI. Then when they spend part of their pittance, they pay sales taxes. If they drive their own cars, they pay gas taxes.

They pay just as much tax as anyone else making that kind of money, and sometimes more.

Right wingers just can't help lying about everyting.

[Vincardog]

4. Have you heard of a Straw Man argument? That is where you put a BS

argument then "Prove" it is not true thus "PROVING" in theory the reverse. In this case you say ILLEGAL immigrants pay nothing in taxes we should get rid of them.

They someone else replies
"They pay more relative to income in sales tax than anyone else."

The logical conclusion is then that Illegal immigrants are good for the country.

[Robbie Michaels]

5. Let's Stop The Lies

I found links to debunk the myths a few days ago and posted them on my journal.

Click here to read my entry

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. 
[link:www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html|Click
here] to review the message board rules.

[Robbie Michaels]

8. Only 2 Posts To Put This Up

And you do it without a link for reference.

I think you're on the wrong message board, pal. Your board is here

[Viva_La_Revolution]

15. your sarcasm meter is malfunctioning

methinks. :)

[Richard Steele]

9. So, Limbaugh is in favor of a completely open border?

I feel SURPRISED, that's how I feel!

[YankeyMCC]

10. lol

[BonnieJW]

6. These kinds of resources

In California, two small hospitals had to close becuase of unreimbursed medical services incurred by illegals. Sorry, I don't have a link; I was visiting my sister in San Diego and heard this on the local news. The hospitals are not allowed to inquire whether patients are here legally, and cannot file for Medicaid when the people turn out to be illegal. Many classrooms are overcrowded, shortchanging ALL the students and frustrating the teachers.

[YankeyMCC]

11. Ok

but what if these same people who are needed here to do the work were legal? Those hospitals would still have the same costs? How does the illegal status of these people make it worse for the hospitals in terms of costs?

[Rosemary2205]

14. LEGAL immigrants are eligible for medicaid.

Illegals are not. Someone's legal status makes a HUGE difference on reinbursements for uninsured.

[YankeyMCC]

16. Ok see post 13 then

[OregonBlue]

64. Legals are ELIGIBLE but I guarantee many illegals are collecting!!

[treestar]

46. Exactly, and wouldn't it be offset by the taxes they don't pay but

never get a refund on, or the social security they can never collect.

These California hospitals are lying about why they closed, using immigrants as a scapegoat for their own management failure.

[sandnsea]

13. That's why we need a legal process

Right now the top 2% get all the economic benefit of exploited labor, leaving society stuck with the consequences. They're also getting all the tax breaks that went to social services and schools in the past. They're strangling this country to a slow death. The economy cannot mean how well the top 2% are doing and ignore everybody else. They will keep choking us out, one income level after another, until there's nothing but wealth and poverty all over the world. Wake Up.

It doesn't matter who takes these low wage jobs, they aren't going to be in any better position to pay their medical bills. The same people who prevent hospitals from getting reimbursement for undocumented workers are passing laws to cut Medicaid altogether. 40% of babies in this country are born with Medicaid reimbursement. What do you think would happen to those same hospitals if that were cut the way Republicans would like to?

This is a worker exploitation problem. Legal, illegal, insourced, outsourced, workers all over the world. Stand together or end up in a hut.

[tjwash]

18. The reason you can't provide a link, is that there is not one.

The closest thing to what you are saying, is some free clinics have closed because of budget cuts from the gropenaters office, and by awful budget mismanagement by our city council.

As for the crowded classrooms, that is another result of budget cuts from the gropenaters office. They have less teachers to accommodate more students,and refuse to expand classrooms, or even upgrade classrooms to accomodate positive population growth in then state, as well as trying to actively bust the teachers union.

For you to blame that kind of stuff on illegal immigrants, is laughable.

[Ron Mexico]

39. I'll provide one

There seems to be a fair amount of links available. Here's the first one I saw: http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/cosman.pdf . You're on your own for the rest, but Google searches under obvious terms are the way to start.

[Rosemary2205]

12. Correct

However, the argument that illegals are doing the work Americans will not do is equally inane. Bottom line, if corporate America can keep low skilled workers fighting with each other, it makes it much easier to screw the little guy.

[YankeyMCC]

17. I hardly think it's 'inane'

Unless your point is that the illegal immigration issue is tied up with a worker's rights issue. I would agree.

American's aren't/haven't taken these jobs because of the exploitive low pay, poor conditions, and lack of benefits. If these jobs had all that American's typically expect (rightfully) from honest jobs then there wouldn't be as much draw for illegals because people already here would fill up much of the jobs.

If that's what you're calling 'inane' the fact that it's corporate exploitation of workers that is part or core to the problem I think I agree.

If you mean that American's will fill these jobs as they exist under their current conditions then history has proven that assumption as incorrect.

[Rosemary2205]

19. The current conditions have deteriorated

businesses are importing illegals for the sole purpose of lowering wages and working conditions. Americans were willing do do those jobs under previous working conditions. Americans still do those jobs under difficult working conditions for the few upstanding employers that refuse to exploit illegal labor.

The whole argument that Americans are unwilling to perform certain jobs under the CURRENT conditions is IMHO inane because the fact is, if illegals were removed from the labor pool, the conditions of employment for these jobs would improve (slightly).

[YankeyMCC]

20. Show me the evidence

I don't disagree that businesses are importing illegals for their own benefit. What I don't accept without evidence is that American's would've filled those jobs under the existing conditions.

Basically you're still talking about workers rights. Either the government supports American workers by enforcing border controls so that only legals fill jobs and hope that market forces ensure workers rights (a dubious hope IMHO because there are legal immigrants doing these same jobs and history has shown that strong unions and enforced government regulation are the only reliable guarantees of worker's rights) or the government enforces labor rights for all workers in the nation regardless of anything other than the humanity and inherent rights of the workers.

[Rosemary2205]

21. "Enforced government regulation"

punishing businesses that exploit illegal workers would definately change the equation and improve the working conditions for legal immigrants and Americans.

Again, I'm a saying the argument that Americans will not do these jobs under the current conditions is inane because NO WORKER should do the job under the current conditions. IMHO the best way to improve the conditions is to enforce the current regulations and punish businesses that hire illegals for sub par wages and working conditions.

[YankeyMCC]

22. It seems to me we may be debating over

semantics.

"punishing businesses that exploit illegal workers" is definitely something I support. I'd more likely leave out one word though and say "punishing businesses that exploit workers" but I guess that's just because I like to look at the larger worker issue and that's usually how I think of this. Adding 'illegal' I guess is perfectly valid since the specific discussion is around people in that circumstance.

[Ron Mexico]

24. They don't take jobs "Americans won't do," they

accept salaries that Americans are not legally allowed to work for. Most (including me) wouldn't anyway, but Americans do restaurant work, landscaping work, construction work, warehouse work and so on. I lost my construction job because of illegals.

Did you hear John McCain tell a bunch of workers in the southwest that they wouldn't be able to pick lettuce for $50 an hour? What an asshole.

[YankeyMCC]

29. So in other words

You lost your job because that employer was allowed to get away with exploiting another group of workers.

[Ron Mexico]

30. Correct, I did, but

I refuse to blame the employer exclusively. I'd be perfectly happy to see his ass thrown in jail, but that doesn't mean I excuse people for being here illegally, either.

[YankeyMCC]

31. So you'd throw people who stole

to feed their families because they had no other choice into jail too.

[Ron Mexico]

32. Yes, especially

if they stole so much from me that I couldn't afford health insurance for my wife. I can now, but couldn't for weeks and still can't afford it for myself. There is no "right" to come into a country illegally and steal from others.

[YankeyMCC]

33. How are these people different from you?

When you held the job you "stole" the job from someone else because you were willing to work for less pay/benefits than them?

These people are just doing the same thing you do. Trying to find work to support their families. It's the businesses that are creating this artificial conflict between workers. Just because someone lives on the other side of an arbitrary line on a map doesn't make them less human or less in need of work and a means of supporting their families.

The problem isn't other people who want the same thing as you. It's the lack of those 'things' (in this case jobs) and the exploitive practices of the few who control access to those things that's the problem.

It's the free market correct? Well either it's a fair playing field or it's not. Sounds like you say it is not fair. I think you're correct. But the existence of other people who want a job like yours isn't what makes it unfair it's the rules, lack of rules, and practices of the rulemakers, that make it unfair.

If I had to illegally cross a border to feed my family I know I'd do it without hesitation.

[Ron Mexico]

34. First of all,

I'm here legally. They're not. If you or illegals want to pick and choose which laws to obey and blow off the ones which present an inconvenience, why not join the Republicans? It's a lot more profitable.

Second of all, it is not legal to work under the table and not pay income tax, as the people who work my former job are doing (and yes, I know that for a fact). Depending on the length of their work day, sometimes they wind up working for under minimum wage - which is also illegal. Just because someone was born somewhere else doesn't give them the right to come here and steal from me, either, whether they're "human" or not.

So if someone who was broke and hungry broke into your house and stole from you, would you turn them in, would you suck up the loss, or would you tell people that it was okay because they just wanted the same thing as you and that your property rights don't make the robber less human or in less need of a means of supporting his family? Or are property rights cool, but sovereignty and what's okay for a country's citizens simply nothing to consider if someone on the other side of the border is hungry, too? I'd really like to know where you draw the line here.

On that subject, I find it amazing how people can bitch about outsourcing jobs overseas, but it's perfectly okay with them when we outsource jobs to people who come here illegally (because they're poor and need to feed their families!). Do you see a difference there, or are both understandable?

[YankeyMCC]

35. So every law is just and should not be questioned eh?

I like to look not just at laws but how they affect people and how effective they hold society together.

These are people we are talking about not abstractions. You continually point to exploitive acts and place no blame on the people that commit those acts. Perhaps it is you who should join the republican party, they are much more forgiving of business transgressions. You're placing the lion share of the blame on people who are just chasing the same need to make a living as you and barely any acknowledgment of the responsibility of other people breaking the law the business owners.

And I haven't mentioned 'outsourcing' at all. So that's a red herring in this discussion.

If someone steals from me because they are forced to or face starvation no I'm not likely to press charges. If I also face starvation I will try and figure out why everyone is starving and fix the real problem. You want to fight your fellow starving people (to put it metaphorical) instead of figuring out why the crop failed.

That's just not how I approach life.

[Ron Mexico]

36. No, of course, any law inconvenient to you should be blown off.

I should have just stayed illegal instead of going through the immigration process. In that case, I could have gotten lots of support from people like you, saved myself a shitload of trouble probably avoided income taxes, and not even had to pay for my hospital bills when I had no health insurance. Quite frankly, in terms of employment, following the law and becoming a citizen wasn't just of no benefit to me, it was actually counterproductive.

As for outsourcing, I never said it had anything to do with what we were talking about beforehand. I was asking for your opinion on it. If you don't have one or don't want to tell me, fine, but you could have skipped the lame "red herring" line. However, I'd love to know your opinion on this after reading your "you're placing the lion share of the blame on people who are just chasing the same need to make a living as you and barely any acknowledgment of the responsibility of other people breaking the law the business owners." Your thread didn't address the business owners, so I didn't either. However, instead of jumping up and down saying "red herring," I'll answer it: I'd be perfectly happy to see them go to jail for hiring illegals and have said so (yesterday in response to http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1071320#1071904 , for example).

My problem isn't just with illegals, it's with politicians who do nothing about the influx and with employers who hire them - but that doesn't mean I'm willing to give illegals a pass at all. Your "they're hungry, they're human" tearjerking crap doesn't fly with me. I went through the process to become a citizen, it sucked, and I will never excuse people who think the law can be broken just because it's inconvenient. As I said, that's for Republicans, not for me. Had I stayed illegal, I may well be better off - and God knows I'd have your full support.

[YankeyMCC]

37. You'd be better off because

you could then be exploited and not have recourse??

And thinking of people as human is 'crap'?

Ok...I think I'm clear on your position now.

[Ron Mexico]

38. I'd have your support and not

have to explain anything. In fact, I'd have you on my side as these bastards who believe in obeying the law and sovereignty tried to strip me of my "rights."

Oh, and what is crap isn't thinking of them as human (that wasn't even a good try at twisting words on your part, why did you bother?), but thinking that their status as Homo Sapiens gives them an excuse for doing whatever they want - blowing off imnmigration law AND theft. If I ever decide that laws are too much of a pain in the ass for me, I sure hope you're my judge when I'm caught. All I'd have to do is hide my citizenship and I'd be home free.

[YankeyMCC]

40. So I guess that puts an end to this

now it's about attacking me.

No one stripped you of any rights. You're angry at what happened. You're angry at the wrong people and seem to have trouble identifying what the actual problem is so you strike out at what is there. Seems like you can only see things in black and white alla the neo-con mindset and yet still able to espouse a hypocrisy by holding individuals to a higher standard than businesses which are pieces of paper and not human beings.

But as I said seems the debate is over because now you've brought us down to personal attacks. And this post is the most time I'm willing to put into that sort of nonsense.

[Ron Mexico]

44. But in your case,

you have perfect clarity of vision (leaving me to assume your job isn't at risk). Those who break the law are okay if they're here illegally already, and whoever doesn't agree with you is engaging in "personal attacks." I think I understand now. I didn't expect an answer from you on the outsourcing question anyway, but it's funny to see how far you yourself digressed (after saying "red herring" to me) to defend your point that breaking the law is okay if it's not convenient.

I don't excuse employers either, but that wasn't the focus of your post, so it wasn't the focus of mine. I have a feeling that if I had railed against employers for hiring illegals, you'd have either called them racists or whined about lesser opportunities for people "just trying to feed their families" - because nothing they do is wrong, and it doesn't matter who gets shat on.

[rd_kent]

58. Choose to not have a family yet.

"If I had to illegally cross a border to feed my family I know I'd do it without hesitation."


Perhaps if you chose not to have a family you couldnt support, you wouldnt need to illegally cross the border!!!!!

[YankeyMCC]

59. You've got to be kidding me right

only rich people are allowed to have families?

Or how about families who were supporting themselves but then find themselves in dire straights.

How about a little dose of reality.

[rd_kent]

60. No, I'm not kidding.

And no, not only rich families are allowed to have families. But, If you cannot support a spouse and x amount of children, perhaps a little family planning will go along way.

"Or how about families who were supporting themselves but then find themselves in dire straights."
I think this example is the exception and not the rule, my friend. Thats reality for you. If one cannot afford 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 10 kids, DONT HAVE THAT MANY!!!!

[YankeyMCC]

61. Got news for you

you need to readjust your definition of 'rich'.

[rd_kent]

62. How do you know what my definition is?

I never attempted to define "rich" for you. If I had to define it, I would considier myself rich. I am 38, married, no kids, 1 dog, own my own home, have ZERO credit card debt (because I dont buy shit I cant afford), ZERO car payments ( I drive older cars that are paid for and dont use them as a status symbol) and pretty much want for nothing. My wife and I have average paying jobs (military and school teacher) and we live on what we make. If I tried to have 3 or 4 or 5 or more kids on our salaries, I would go into debt like you read about.
My point is, one does not have to be rich to be happy. One does not have to be rich to have a family. One DOES have to PLAN and live within a budget so as not to be come destitute. If people in other countries tried a bit of that before they had a herd of children KNOWING they only make 10 bucks a day, then maybe they wouldnt be in the dire starights they are finding themselves in right now. Then maybe they wouldnt have to go to another country, ILLEGALLY, and try to make more money.
The key to solving our illegal immegration problem lies in the countries they are coming from. THOSE countries need to take responsibility for their citizens, their education, thier lives, so that they dont HAVE TO LEAVE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

[LostinVA]

65. What kind of family planning? Having no sex?

Because, most health care plans don't pay for the BCP. And, most lower income people can't afford health insurance plans anyway. I have a niece and nephew who are products of my BIL and sister using condoms because they couldn't afford health insurance. So... I guess lower income people can't have sex, either. That's only for higher income people. Oh, wait! Many white collar workers can't afford health insurance any more, either! Hmmm... guess families and sex are only for rich people...

What an elitist attitude. And, you can be elitist and not make much money. I'm surrounded by them at work.

[rd_kent]

69. Look, dont get all high and mighty with me!

Birth Control, in its MANY forms, is very cheap. While not 100% effective, if used properly AND regularly, the chance of having and unplanned pregancy are very, very small. Using the many forms of over the counter birth control is not cost prohibitive to ANYONE. I think that your argument does not hold water. Anyone you try and use as an example I'm sure I could find things they spend money on that they could better use toward birth control. Things like booze, smokes, a dinner out, movies, etc, etc. Having to sacrifice a few unneeded things like that far outweighs the cost of an unplanned/unwanted pregancy.
And as far as being elitist? Maybe I am. But I never had any extra help growing up. I had the same opportunities that everyone else had. I made wise decisions and choices and now I get to enjoy the benefits of that. I dont think thats elitist at all. But I will admit that I look down my nose at a poor family with 6 kids living in poverty, only because I feel that maybe they are in that position because of poor decisions, not circumstance. Thats a genaralization by the way, not a hard fast rule.

[treestar]

47. Then these jobs are not available to Americans anyway.

Even if you shut down those employers who employe illegals, they will be shut down, not open and full of job openings.

That could have secondary negative impact on Americans, though. Some could lose their jobs due to lack of demand for whatever their employers produce, be it consumer goods the low paid Mexicans bought here because they were here, or because they had an upper management position that would not exist without the underlings.

[Ron Mexico]

53. Somebody had to do them before we started to

have a problem with illegals. Truth be told, I think they should be done by convicts, but that's another thing entirely. At any rate, if you shut down one bad employer, another one which will obey the law will take its place - it's not as if the job opportunity will sink into a black hole..

Not sure I understand where you're going on the second part, though. Upper management of illegal labor is not the kind of job I would structure law around saving, and if our economy is dependent on what people here illegally buy we may as well pack it in. As it stands, I don't think that would really hurt our economy at all, but I might not be understanding you correctly (or you may have data I don't).

[treestar]

57. The job market is not that static. If there were Americans doing

them before, they could have moved up the ladder. (Like prior immigrant groups who avoided being "illegal" just because the laws weren't so restrictive then.)

Upper management is dependent on lower level jobs being in existence. Take them away and they are gone, legal or not. That business activity has been shut off.

The job opportunity can sink into a black hole. The job market is not absolutely static. Laws can affect it. If something is made illegal when it was not before, those who made that product are now out of a job and their job has gone into a black hole.

[LostinVA]

66. Convict labor.... omg

[Ron Mexico]

23. I've never heard that one, but

I have heard that they take up more in social services than they put into the economy. True or not (I believe it is), are we really going to turn into Republicans and decide which laws to obey based on how profitable it is to break them?

[Bridget Burke]

25. You have heard it & you believe it....

Who needs facts?

[Ron Mexico]

26. If you can prove it wrong, please do me that favor. I'd be

very interested to know.

That said, even if the presence of illegals could be proven to be a massive benefit and that heads of lettuce would go to $10 without them, they don't get my support.

[Bridget Burke]

27. Why should I prove something wrong...

When you never even tried to prove it right?

[Ron Mexico]

28. You can't.

Otherwise, there is little value to a post that says nothing but "you've heard it and believe it, who needs facts?" I did write "true or not" because I am allowing the possibility that it might not be, and the question I asked still stands. At least my post contained something other than a baseless shot with no substance. If you can prove it wrong, fine. If you can't, fine.

My question still remains, and it's actually what I figured what would be addressed if I got a response. Instead, you posted nothing of value. What was I supposed to do, read what you wrote and say "Holy crap, she really didn't say anything, but what a killer point she has?" I've never been able to disprove the original notion I posted, and I've tried. Can you, or not? My bet is on the latter.

[FlaGranny]

41. To answer

your question - "Are the people who make this argument saying that they also resent the poor who happen to be citizens because they don't contribute to the tax revenue in their poverty?" - YES, they do.

And, actually, the tax issue is really a non issue, as other posters have said - sales tax is the highest tax that poor people pay.

Illegal workers, no matter where they come from, work cheap, which has driven down wages, and, while saving employers of illegals lots of money, has also caused a drop in collectable taxes because of the low wages. That can't be blamed on the illegals, but can be blamed on their employers and, most importantly, the federal government for not doing anything about it.

I'm thinking there should be a minimum wage law for various industries, farm workers, etc., and this should be a wage a worker could live on, and which would permit American workers to compete for the jobs. Better yet, Mexico should get its act together and make their own country more livable for their own citizens.

Edit: I am a bit surprised by all the support for law breaking lately. If a law is bad, we should try to change it. Perhaps we can convince the federal and state governments to rescind immigration laws for all poor people. I wonder how practical that would be? I have first-hand experience with how very poor farm workers survive in the US on extremely low wages. One person rents an apartment from a slum lord and then moves in 15 or 20 of his co-workers so they can afford the rent. They live on large bags of rice and beans. Living this way, they even manage to send money back home.

[YankeyMCC]

45. "blamed on their employers and, most importantly, the federal government"

Yes, this is exactly the issue.

The argument that "they just ignore the law (the immigration law) for convenience" sounds like the anti-abortionists who think women casually choose to get abortions just for 'convenience'.

As I said in the OP there are definitely issues around US immigration that need to be addressed but fighting the people who end up as illegal workers in this nation is a completely misdirected fight.

Of course I'm just blathering out bleeding heart liberal crap. ;)

[FlaGranny]

49. Yeah, you are.

:-) But, as much as I feel sorry for these workers, I'm still not in favor of the "illegal" part.

[mccoyn]

52. I agree with everything you've said in this thread.

It should be illegal to exploit any worker in the US, whether they are a citizen or not. This should be enforced.

The issue of workers being exploited in the US is a much bigger concern to me than people sneaking across the border because they are exploited even more on the other side.

[treestar]

48. There already is a minimum wage. If an employer cannot

afford to pay it, employer goes out of business. That leaves zero jobs for Americans anyway.

[FlaGranny]

50. The minimum wage we have is NOT

sufficient to live on for an American - unless the American wants to live like the illegal workers do - multiple unrelated people in a slum apartment.

[YankeyMCC]

51. It's not support for 'law breaking'

It's support for People.

It's not a good situation that laws are being broken. But what's more important - or rather more effective - enforce/strengthen laws punishing the employers who exploit these people or punishing the people who are in such dire straights that they have to risk not just breaking the law but often their lives just in the hopes of getting here to make a living and keep their family from starving?

It's a bit like the so called 'drug war' how effective is it to put all the users in jail? Not very.

If a law is unjust typically you work to change it as you say. But circumstances do not always allow for that time when you get down to the daily real life of individuals. Should a terminally ill person who wishes to end his or her pain hang on just because assisted suicide is illegal in their state? Should a cancer patient who only finds relief in smoking marijuana be made to continue to suffer because it's illegal to smoke marijuana?

To me the answers are clear. Work to change the laws but I'm not about to prosecute individuals who would otherwise unduly suffer - and I'm not talking about suffer minor things here, we're talking about lives and basic human needs - for breaking unjust laws. It's a waste of effort and ignores the core problem.

[redqueen]

42. Yeah, it's a pretty stupid talking point.

I won't even give it the honor of calling it an "argument". Arguments use LOGIC, not bull$#&@.

[treestar]

43. Very good point. And illegals don't qualify for government

benefits, let alone be able to collect them, in spite of what the right wingers say.

They would do better to worry about native born Americans making fraudulent claims, which would be happening a lot more often.

Right wing minds know no grey areas. If one illegal alien pulled off a scam and managed to collect welfare, they all do.

[Xithras]

55. Incorrect.

Illegals can collect most forms of government assistance in most states. Government offices in states like California are generally barred from checking an applicants immigration status. Proposition 187, passed by California voters many years ago, was supposed to correct that by requiring proof of legal residency or citizenship when applying for any state programs, but a judge overturned the proposition.

There is no check of legal residency for state and local aid programs.

[Xithras]

54. Let me be the dissent: It's a bad point.

As has been discussed to no end, it's not that illegals do jobs that Americans wont do, it's that they'll take them at wages that Americans wont accept. This throws the system out of balance and taxes everyone to make up the difference. Here's an example:

MegaAgCorp has a bunch of manual labor jobs that need to be completed in hot and dirty places. The Americans they ask about the jobs ask for $15 an hour with health benefits, and start muttering that evil "union" word. MegaAgCorp, to protect its stockholders vital interests, instead brings in a few hundred illegal immigrants and pays them $5 an hour to work in those same conditions.

Now for the difference: At $15 an hour, a legal American employee will be able to support their family in a single home. Their wages, through mortages or rent, will pay property taxes that support the schools educating the average 2.1 children that the home will house. When they get sick, their employer provided health insurance will cover their medical expenses.

At $5 an hour, the illegal employee isn't going to afford much of anything. To simply survive, he's going to move in with a few friends in a home that was originally designed to house a single family. Though he will still be paying taxes on the property, the odds are now much greater that the home will be sending far more children to the local schools, while paying no more in taxes (e.g. the children of two or three families will be coming out of a single tax paying home). Since even two or three families working at slave wages won't generate enough revenue to fully support these families, many of them will sign up for various types of government assistance and food programs. When these people get sick, they will go to the local emergency room and wait for hours to see an ER doctor. Since the patient will not have the money to pay the bill, the cost of the immigrants visit will be forwarded to the local government for reimbursement.

It's not just an immigration issue, but a low pay issue in general. When you underpay an employee, you are simply passing many of the costs of their existence on to society. This ties into illegal immigration because it is a practice that institutionalizes low pay conditions and seeks to normalize the entire situation. What NEEDS to happen is that wages need to be brought up to a level that permits average Americans to live without poverty. That cannot happen when there is a huge, dirt cheap labor force ready to replace anyone who asks for a raise.

[YankeyMCC]

56. "NEEDS to happen is that wages need to be brought up

to a level that permits average Americans to live without poverty"

I agree!

I don't necessarily agree with your assessment of the tax burden but it's more important I think that we agree on the identification of the actual problem.

[TheFarseer]

63. of course all situations are different but

I think in general they are talking about day laborers that are paid in cash. These wages would not have income taxes taken out (for a single person without any other deductions or credits you would need over $8200, married is double that, in income to pay taxes) and Social Security and Medicare taxes would not be taken out either. I know legal immigrants are subject to this tax. I do not know if they are entitled to benefits.

[LostinVA]

67. I know white Americans that work as day laborers under the table

And are exploited. And, this is in an area of the country not "overrun" with "Illegals." But, in an area with few jobs thanks to outsourcing. This is much more of a workers' rights arguments than an "illegals" one. Workers will STILL be exploited and wages driven down even if every single one is a "real" American. It was like that before unions and now, when union power has been eroded. Look at Ireland and the legal Polish workers -- same thing. The legal Irish, Italians, etc. were lambasted about driving wages down, too.

This whole thing is an anti-worker meme. If the corporations and employers were heavily fined AND imprisoned, the worst of the abuses would stop ASAP. But, it's easier to get everyone foaming at the mouth about Jose and Maria who work as a day laborer and an undocumented maid.

[APPLE314]

68. fica is always there -