Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

Our Southern Border

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by mrblond, Jun 13, 2014.

  1. mrblond

    mrblond Salem OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,944
    Likes Received:
    1,775
    What can we do? I am getting the feeling that all is lost. with all these kids coming over to the cartels the border is lost. Will this be a major thing for you when deciding who you vote for in 2016?
     
  2. Rocky C

    Rocky C Portland Metro Active Member

    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    67
    Yes deciding factor. Condone amnesty and lose my support at any level.
    The current government is deliberately overloading the system.
     
  3. rocky3

    rocky3 oregon coast Active Member

    Messages:
    243
    Likes Received:
    161
    darn, I thought you were talking about our[ state Oregon] border and Californians coming to muck up our state.
    Time to get Tom McCall volunteers to patrol our southern borders. heh
     
    Rocky C likes this.
  4. Rocky C

    Rocky C Portland Metro Active Member

    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    67
    3MTA3 likes this.
  5. Rocky C

    Rocky C Portland Metro Active Member

    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    67
    That too.. LOL
    I just read a quote from him (Tom McCall) the other day that said something to the effect of "come to Oregon , vacation, spend money and go home,but don't move here"
     
  6. OLDNEWBIE

    OLDNEWBIE State of Flux Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,827
    Likes Received:
    3,957
    http://nbclatino.com/2013/03/12/pol...party-latino-voters-support-gun-control-laws/
    In a national survey of Latino registered voters, 84 percent of Latinos support background checks before buying a gun in a store or in a gun show, 69 percent agree on establishing a national database of gun owners, and 64 percent favor making it illegal for people with documented mental illness to purchase and own guns. Sixty-two percent favor limiting the capacity of magazines and 54 percent support a ban on semi-automatic and assault weapons. Fifty-seven percent oppose having teachers carry weapons.
    “Our results demonstrate that gun violence and gun control matter to Latinos,” stated Latino Decisions’ Adrian Pantoja. “We contend the perspectives of the Latino electorate should not be lost on lawmakers tasked with the critical effort to address the tragedies of gun violence in the United States.”



    Not good for our side when they get their chance to vote. And they will one day. The gun prohibitionists are a patient bunch and they have the latinos on their side in droves.
    Even if hispanics change their minds down the road on 2nd Amendment issues they will be obliged to vote in politicians who preach minimum wage, amnesty and the other generous social programs that they often use.
    These same politicians of course are mostly anti-gun. So in my mind unchecked mass immigration and amnesty is a big 2nd Amendment issue.
     
    BigBull 301 and 3MTA3 like this.
  7. Rocky C

    Rocky C Portland Metro Active Member

    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    67
    I am quite certain that a large portion of the current illegals vote already. Illegally!
     
    BigBull 301 and 3MTA3 like this.
  8. 3MTA3

    3MTA3 DMZ between Liberty and Tyranny Behind Enemy Lines Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    2,533
    Likes Received:
    5,609
    The troops coming home should be used to secure our southern border along with those A10's they are mothballing. It's a disgrace that the most powerful country on Earth can't even secure it's own borders. It's so bad that large areas inside the US are now under the control of Mexican drug cartels.

    Giving citizenship to people illegally in the country is a slap in the face and a kick in the crotch to those who follow the rules and wait years for citizenship.
     
    BigBull 301 and Rocky C like this.
  9. Chee-to

    Chee-to Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,288
    Likes Received:
    1,704
    When you have a weak lying lawbreaker for prez, can we expect anything less ? This MOOK is getting away with what Nixon could only dream about ........
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2014
    coyote223 likes this.
  10. MikeE

    MikeE Portland Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,092
    Likes Received:
    500
    53% of the people who put food on our US tables 3x per day are undocumented immigrants. My Mom trained me to thank the person who provided me a meal, but there's no accounting for some people's manners.

    http://www.doleta.gov/agworker/report9/chapter1.cfm
     
  11. OLDNEWBIE

    OLDNEWBIE State of Flux Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,827
    Likes Received:
    3,957
    So what's so hard about documenting them with a guest worker program? It's not about being bigoted or ungrateful. It's about mass unchecked immigration.
    At some point the benefits are far outweighed by the costs, financial and cultural. The politicians allow this and the people who blindly vote them in office is who I'm angry with not the workers.
    Our education and health system is suffering now and it will eventually cause us the loss of our 2nd Amendment rights as these "dreamers" beholding to those who got them citizenship, get the right to vote.
    The only bigots in this situation are the ones perpetuating it for votes IMHO.
     
    BigBull 301 and ogre like this.
  12. Chee-to

    Chee-to Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,288
    Likes Received:
    1,704
    How about thankin' them with these "FREEBIES ??" ,,,,,,,,,,, SHEESH...:eek:
    Who should be thanking who ???

    Executive Summary

    Unlawful immigration and amnesty for current unlawful immigrants can pose large fiscal costs for U.S. taxpayers. Government provides four types of benefits and services that are relevant to this issue:

    • Direct benefits. These include Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, and workers’ compensation.
    • Means-tested welfare benefits. There are over 80 of these programs which, at a cost of nearly $900 billion per year, provide cash, food, housing, medical, and other services to roughly 100 million low-income Americans. Major programs include Medicaid, food stamps, the refundable Earned Income Tax Credit, public housing, Supplemental Security Income, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.
    • Public education. At a cost of $12,300 per pupil per year, these services are largely free or heavily subsidized for low-income parents.
    • Population-based services. Police, fire, highways, parks, and similar services, as the National Academy of Sciences determined in its study of the fiscal costs of immigration, generally have to expand as new immigrants enter a community; someone has to bear the cost of that expansion.
    he cost of these governmental services is far larger than many people imagine. For example, in 2010, the average U.S. household received $31,584 in government benefits and services in these four categories.
    The governmental system is highly redistributive. Well-educated households tend to be net tax contributors: The taxes they pay exceed the direct and means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services they receive. For example, in 2010, in the whole U.S. population, households with college-educated heads, on average, received $24,839 in government benefits while paying $54,089 in taxes. The average college-educated household thus generated a fiscal surplus of $29,250 that government used to finance benefits for other households.

    Other households are net tax consumers: The benefits they receive exceed the taxes they pay. These households generate a “fiscal deficit” that must be financed by taxes from other households or by government borrowing. For example, in 2010, in the U.S. population as a whole, households headed by persons without a high school degree, on average, received $46,582 in government benefits while paying only $11,469 in taxes. This generated an average fiscal deficit (benefits received minus taxes paid) of $35,113.

    The high deficits of poorly educated households are important in the amnesty debate because the typical unlawful immigrant has only a 10th-grade education. Half of unlawful immigrant households are headed by an individual with less than a high school degree, and another 25 percent of household heads have only a high school degree.

    Some argue that the deficit figures for poorly educated households in the general population are not relevant for immigrants. Many believe, for example, that lawful immigrants use little welfare. In reality, lawful immigrant households receive significantly more welfare, on average, than U.S.-born households. Overall, the fiscal deficits or surpluses for lawful immigrant households are the same as or higher than those for U.S.-born households with the same education level. Poorly educated households, whether immigrant or U.S.-born, receive far more in government benefits than they pay in taxes.

    In contrast to lawful immigrants, unlawful immigrants at present do not have access to means-tested welfare, Social Security, or Medicare. This does not mean, however, that they do not receive government benefits and services. Children in unlawful immigrant households receive heavily subsidized public education. Many unlawful immigrants have U.S.-born children; these children are currently eligible for the full range of government welfare and medical benefits. And, of course, when unlawful immigrants live in a community, they use roads, parks, sewers, police, and fire protection; these services must expand to cover the added population or there will be “congestion” effects that lead to a decline in service quality.

    In 2010, the average unlawful immigrant household received around $24,721 in government benefits and services while paying some $10,334 in taxes. This generated an average annual fiscal deficit (benefits received minus taxes paid) of around $14,387 per household. This cost had to be borne by U.S. taxpayers. Amnesty would provide unlawful households with access to over 80 means-tested welfare programs, Obamacare, Social Security, and Medicare. The fiscal deficit for each household would soar.

    If enacted, amnesty would be implemented in phases. During the first or interim phase (which is likely to last 13 years), unlawful immigrants would be given lawful status but would be denied access to means-tested welfare and Obamacare. Most analysts assume that roughly half of unlawful immigrants work “off the books” and therefore do not pay income or FICA taxes. During the interim phase, these “off the books” workers would have a strong incentive to move to “on the books” employment. In addition, their wages would likely go up as they sought jobs in a more open environment. As a result, during the interim period, tax payments would rise and the average fiscal deficit among former unlawful immigrant households would fall.

    After 13 years, unlawful immigrants would become eligible for means-tested welfare and Obamacare. At that point or shortly thereafter, former unlawful immigrant households would likely begin to receive government benefits at the same rate as lawful immigrant households of the same education level. As a result, government spending and fiscal deficits would increase dramatically.

    The final phase of amnesty is retirement. Unlawful immigrants are not currently eligible for Social Security and Medicare, but under amnesty they would become so. The cost of this change would be very large indeed.

    • As noted, at the current time (before amnesty), the average unlawful immigrant household has a net deficit (benefits received minus taxes paid) of $14,387 per household.
    • During the interim phase immediately after amnesty, tax payments would increase more than government benefits, and the average fiscal deficit for former unlawful immigrant households would fall to $11,455.
    • At the end of the interim period, unlawful immigrants would become eligible for means-tested welfare and medical subsidies under Obamacare. Average benefits would rise to $43,900 per household; tax payments would remain around $16,000; the average fiscal deficit (benefits minus taxes) would be about $28,000 per household.
    • Amnesty would also raise retirement costs by making unlawful immigrants eligible for Social Security and Medicare, resulting in a net fiscal deficit of around $22,700 per retired amnesty recipient per year.


    In terms of public policy and government deficits, an important figure is the aggregate annual deficit for all unlawful immigrant households. This equals the total benefits and services received by all unlawful immigrant households minus the total taxes paid by those households.

    • Under current law, all unlawful immigrant households together have an aggregate annual deficit of around $54.5 billion.
    • In the interim phase (roughly the first 13 years after amnesty), the aggregate annual deficit would fall to $43.4 billion.
    • At the end of the interim phase, former unlawful immigrant households would become fully eligible for means-tested welfare and health care benefits under the Affordable Care Act. The aggregate annual deficit would soar to around $106 billion.
    • In the retirement phase, the annual aggregate deficit would be around $160 billion. It would slowly decline as former unlawful immigrants gradually expire.


    These costs would have to be borne by already overburdened U.S. taxpayers. (All figures are in 2010 dollars.)

    The typical unlawful immigrant is 34 years old. After amnesty, this individual will receive government benefits, on average, for 50 years. Restricting access to benefits for the first 13 years after amnesty therefore has only a marginal impact on long-term costs.

    If amnesty is enacted, the average adult unlawful immigrant would receive $592,000 more in government benefits over the course of his remaining lifetime than he would pay in taxes.

    Over a lifetime, the former unlawful immigrants together would receive $9.4 trillion in government benefits and services and pay $3.1 trillion in taxes. They would generate a lifetime fiscal deficit (total benefits minus total taxes) of $6.3 trillion. (All figures are in constant 2010 dollars.) This should be considered a minimum estimate. It probably understates real future costs because it undercounts the number of unlawful immigrants and dependents who will actually receive amnesty and underestimates significantly the future growth in welfare and medical benefits.

    The debate about the fiscal consequences of unlawful and low-skill immigration is hampered by a number of misconceptions. Few lawmakers really understand the current size of government and the scope of redistribution. The fact that the average household gets $31,600 in government benefits each year is a shock. The fact that a household headed by an individual with less than a high school degree gets $46,600 is a bigger one.

    Many conservatives believe that if an individual has a job and works hard, he will inevitably be a net tax contributor (paying more in taxes than he takes in benefits). In our society, this has not been true for a very long time. Similarly, many believe that unlawful immigrants work more than other groups. This is also not true. The employment rate for non-elderly adult unlawful immigrants is about the same as it is for the general population.

    Many policymakers also believe that because unlawful immigrants are comparatively young, they will help relieve the fiscal strains of an aging society. Regrettably, this is not true. At every stage of the life cycle, unlawful immigrants, on average, generate fiscal deficits (benefits exceed taxes). Unlawful immigrants, on average, are always tax consumers; they never once generate a “fiscal surplus” that can be used to pay for government benefits elsewhere in society. This situation obviously will get much worse after amnesty.

    Many policymakers believe that after amnesty, unlawful immigrants will help make Social Security solvent. It is true that unlawful immigrants currently pay FICA taxes and would pay more after amnesty, but with average earnings of $24,800 per year, the typical unlawful immigrant will pay only about $3,700 per year in FICA taxes. After retirement, that individual is likely to draw more than $3.00 in Social Security and Medicare (adjusted for inflation) for every dollar in FICA taxes he has paid.

    Moreover, taxes and benefits must be viewed holistically. It is a mistake to look at the Social Security trust fund in isolation. If an individual pays $3,700 per year into the Social Security trust fund but simultaneously draws a net $25,000 per year (benefits minus taxes) out of general government revenue, the solvency of government has not improved.

    Following amnesty, the fiscal costs of former unlawful immigrant households will be roughly the same as those of lawful immigrant and non-immigrant households with the same level of education. Because U.S. government policy is highly redistributive, those costs are very large. Those who claim that amnesty will not create a large fiscal burden are simply in a state of denial concerning the underlying redistributional nature of government policy in the 21st century.

    Finally, some argue that it does not matter whether unlawful immigrants create a fiscal deficit of $6.3 trillion because their children will make up for these costs. This is not true. Even if all the children of unlawful immigrants graduated from college, they would be hard-pressed to pay back $6.3 trillion in costs over their lifetimes.

    Of course, not all the children of unlawful immigrants will graduate from college. Data on intergenerational social mobility show that, although the children of unlawful immigrants will have substantially better educational outcomes than their parents, these achievements will have limits. Only 13 percent are likely to graduate from college, for example. Because of this, the children, on average, are not likely to become net tax contributors. The children of unlawful immigrants are likely to remain a net fiscal burden on U.S. taxpayers, although a far smaller burden than their parents.

    A final problem is that unlawful immigration appears to depress the wages of low-skill U.S.-born and lawful immigrant workers by 10 percent, or $2,300, per year. Unlawful immigration also probably drives many of our most vulnerable U.S.-born workers out of the labor force entirely. Unlawful immigration thus makes it harder for the least advantaged U.S. citizens to share in the American dream. This is wrong; public policy should support the interests of those who have a right to be here, not those who have broken our laws.
    http://www.heritage.org/research/re...ful-immigrants-and-amnesty-to-the-us-taxpayer
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2014
    ogre likes this.
  13. 3MTA3

    3MTA3 DMZ between Liberty and Tyranny Behind Enemy Lines Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    2,533
    Likes Received:
    5,609
    I lived for several years in the Hispanic community and knew several illegals who were related to my legal significant other. Their illegal status made them victims of their employers who could and would threaten to have them deported if they didn't accept crap pay and living conditions. I've actually spent time in the s**thole housing that migrant workers use in Florida. The guest worker program needs massive overhaul.

    Looking the other way perpetuates their persecution.

    I also knew several Hispanics who emigrated legally or were in the process as well as several from others countries and I can tell you first hand their feelings on "amnesty" when they were following the rules.

    Right on!
     
  14. MikeE

    MikeE Portland Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,092
    Likes Received:
    500
    That would be an improvement. I'm not advocating that the people who raise our crops be undocumented and exploited. I'm saying it's reality. Anyone who thinks working in the fields is getting freebies needs to grab a shovel and pitch in:
    http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/07/news/economy/farm_worker_jobs/index.htm
     
  15. Chee-to

    Chee-to Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,288
    Likes Received:
    1,704
    Anybody that thinks that the "illegal" aliens in this country are not taking advantage of our school systems, welfare systems, in fact every freebie system this country offers it's "legal" citizens, needs to get their head outa the pudding...
    BTW I earned the money for my first car working the fields and carrot sheds in Santa Maria Calif. before it changed it's name to Commiefornia.....Then they made it illegal for anybody under 18 to work the fields , now who did that benefit ?
     
    3MTA3 and Mikej like this.
  16. OLDNEWBIE

    OLDNEWBIE State of Flux Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,827
    Likes Received:
    3,957
    Voting for the people that encourage illegal immigration is like "advocating that the people who raise our crops be undocumented and exploited."
    We need SOME immigration as our birth rate is declining and our population aging but what's going on now is purely political and will take this Country down a rocky road to something other than the system of Government we have enjoyed for so long. We won't get back easily what we are now losing. We may never get back what we have already lost.
     
  17. Modeler

    Modeler Molalla, Oregon Soccer Fan

    Messages:
    2,538
    Likes Received:
    1,515
    Seems to me that we should build a fence along the 42nd parallel with checkpoints along all the major travel routes to keep them from migrating north :D
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.