|
On July 29 2010 14:47 ckw wrote: This is such a sensitive topic. I don't like the law because it's stupid, theres better ways to stop or hinder illegal immigration and this will do nothing to that effect. I do understand how the economy is screwed by these illegals tho. I work with a woman who admitted her grandfather and dad both came here, got social security and moved back to Mexico and she sends them the social security checks. Wtf?! I ratted her out to the authorities, can you say "Jail time!"? Those social security checks are being robbed and her family is living the high life in some Mexican village with U.S. money. Or at least, they were.... Lol. See I completely support what you did but it's important to point out it's completely different =P
|
Quote I got through another forum. My apologies if this was posted before.
You have two families: Joe Legal and Jose Illegal. Both families have two parents, two children, and live in Arizona.
Joe Legal works in construction, has a Social Security Number and makes $25.00 per hour with taxes deducted. Jose Illegal also works in construction, has NO Social Security Number, and gets paid $15.00 cash 'under the table.'
Ready? Now pay attention...
Joe Legal: $25..00 per hour x 40 hours = $1000.00 per week, or $52,000.00 per year. Now take 30% away for state and federal tax; Joe Legal now has $31,231.00..
Jose Illegal: $15.00 per hour x 40 hours = $600.00 per week, or $31,200.00 per year. Jose Illegal pays no taxes. Jose Illegal now has $31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays medical and dental insurance with limited coverage for his family at $600.00 per month, or $7,200.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $24,031.00.
Jose Illegal has full medical and dental coverage through the state and local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $31,200...00.
Joe Legal makes too much money and is not eligible for food stamps or welfare. Joe Legal pays $500.00 per month for food, or $6,000.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $18,031.00.
Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for food stamps and welfare. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays rent of $1,200.00 per month, or $14,400.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $9,631.00. Jose Illegal receives a $500.00 per month federal rent subsidy.
Jose Illegal pays out that $500.00 per month, or $6,000.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $ 31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays $200.00 per month, or $2,400.00 for insurance. Joe Legal now has $7,231.00.
Jose Illegal says, "We don't need no stinkin' insurance!" and still has $31,200.00.
Joe Legal has to make his $7,231.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, etc.
Jose Illegal has to make his $31,200.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, and what he sends out of the country every month.
Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part time job after work.
Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.
Joe Legal's and Jose Illegal's children both attend the same school. Joe Legal pays for his children's lunches while Jose Illegal's children get a government sponsored lunch. Jose Illegal's children have an after school ESL program. Joe Legal's children go home.
Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same police and fire services, but Joe paid for them and Jose did not pay.
|
On July 29 2010 14:47 ckw wrote: This is such a sensitive topic. I don't like the law because it's stupid, theres better ways to stop or hinder illegal immigration and this will do nothing to that effect. I do understand how the economy is screwed by these illegals tho. I work with a woman who admitted her grandfather and dad both came here, got social security and moved back to Mexico and she sends them the social security checks. Wtf?! I ratted her out to the authorities, can you say "Jail time!"? Those social security checks are being robbed and her family is living the high life in some Mexican village with U.S. money. Or at least, they were.... Lol.
what you did was lawful but unethical... I don't know if I would be able to rat someone out like that, even if I disliked her.
Sigh.. cases like these give the hard working mexican's a bad name.
|
![[image loading]](http://bourgy.com/images/not_this_shit_again.jpeg)
User was warned for this post
|
On July 17 2010 11:42 Chupacabra(UCSD) wrote: Guys, forgive me if I'm wrong but I'm under the impression that the original Arizona law was indeed racist and allowed for cops to pull someone over just because of their phenotype (which is currently federal law anyways). But the new revised law is more along the lines... if a cop pulls someone over for something they did that was illegal, and the cop has reasonable suspicion that that person might be in the states illegally. THEN they have the right to ask for their papers. I really don't see what's wrong with that. AND I'M MEXICAN. What pisses me off even more are the Mexicans here at home that complain about this all day and go to the states to protest... you don't go into your neighbors home and tell them how to run their household... that's just common sense. The law is the same as the day it was annouced. However they changed part of the law that wasn't specific enough about what a "legal contract" was. People thought it meant if an illegal reported a crime they could be arrested and deported. They made it more clear that it would only be if the person is detained for an illegal activity.
|
|
On August 01 2010 13:44 wxwx wrote:what you did was lawful but unethical... I don't know if I would be able to rat someone out like that, even if I disliked her. It's unethical to inform the authorities about thievery? lol
|
On August 01 2010 14:27 randomKo_Orean wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2010 13:13 Headlines wrote:Quote I got through another forum. My apologies if this was posted before. You have two families: Joe Legal and Jose Illegal. Both families have two parents, two children, and live in Arizona.
Joe Legal works in construction, has a Social Security Number and makes $25.00 per hour with taxes deducted. Jose Illegal also works in construction, has NO Social Security Number, and gets paid $15.00 cash 'under the table.'
Ready? Now pay attention...
Joe Legal: $25..00 per hour x 40 hours = $1000.00 per week, or $52,000.00 per year. Now take 30% away for state and federal tax; Joe Legal now has $31,231.00..
Jose Illegal: $15.00 per hour x 40 hours = $600.00 per week, or $31,200.00 per year. Jose Illegal pays no taxes. Jose Illegal now has $31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays medical and dental insurance with limited coverage for his family at $600.00 per month, or $7,200.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $24,031.00.
Jose Illegal has full medical and dental coverage through the state and local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $31,200...00.
Joe Legal makes too much money and is not eligible for food stamps or welfare. Joe Legal pays $500.00 per month for food, or $6,000.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $18,031.00.
Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for food stamps and welfare. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays rent of $1,200.00 per month, or $14,400.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $9,631.00. Jose Illegal receives a $500.00 per month federal rent subsidy.
Jose Illegal pays out that $500.00 per month, or $6,000.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $ 31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays $200.00 per month, or $2,400.00 for insurance. Joe Legal now has $7,231.00.
Jose Illegal says, "We don't need no stinkin' insurance!" and still has $31,200.00.
Joe Legal has to make his $7,231.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, etc.
Jose Illegal has to make his $31,200.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, and what he sends out of the country every month.
Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part time job after work.
Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.
Joe Legal's and Jose Illegal's children both attend the same school. Joe Legal pays for his children's lunches while Jose Illegal's children get a government sponsored lunch. Jose Illegal's children have an after school ESL program. Joe Legal's children go home.
Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same police and fire services, but Joe paid for them and Jose did not pay.
1) What the fuck? Really? You think they get paid $15 an hour? 2) How's that relevant to this issue at hand? My skin color should not be a reason for someone to pull me over and ask my immigration paper. And racist white people happens to ignore the fact that there are indeed Europeans that are considered illegal immigrants, such as from Ireland or what not.
Personally, I'm not sure how much the illegal immigrant gets paid, but I would not have posted the quote if I thought it was irrelevant to the topic. The quote doesn't seem too far off from what really happens in the blue job field. Perhaps this is one of the many issues as to why Arizona would enact an anti-immigration act?
There was a time in U.S. history when European immigrants were frowned upon (read up on the 1880's - 1920's). Europeans, Chinese, Japanese, now it's the Mexicans.
[Edit] Unrelated: Zealot @ 250 posts.
|
On August 01 2010 13:13 Headlines wrote:Quote I got through another forum. My apologies if this was posted before. Show nested quote + You have two families: Joe Legal and Jose Illegal. Both families have two parents, two children, and live in Arizona.
Joe Legal works in construction, has a Social Security Number and makes $25.00 per hour with taxes deducted. Jose Illegal also works in construction, has NO Social Security Number, and gets paid $15.00 cash 'under the table.'
Ready? Now pay attention...
Joe Legal: $25..00 per hour x 40 hours = $1000.00 per week, or $52,000.00 per year. Now take 30% away for state and federal tax; Joe Legal now has $31,231.00..
Jose Illegal: $15.00 per hour x 40 hours = $600.00 per week, or $31,200.00 per year. Jose Illegal pays no taxes. Jose Illegal now has $31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays medical and dental insurance with limited coverage for his family at $600.00 per month, or $7,200.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $24,031.00.
Jose Illegal has full medical and dental coverage through the state and local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $31,200...00.
Joe Legal makes too much money and is not eligible for food stamps or welfare. Joe Legal pays $500.00 per month for food, or $6,000.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $18,031.00.
Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for food stamps and welfare. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays rent of $1,200.00 per month, or $14,400.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $9,631.00. Jose Illegal receives a $500.00 per month federal rent subsidy.
Jose Illegal pays out that $500.00 per month, or $6,000.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $ 31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays $200.00 per month, or $2,400.00 for insurance. Joe Legal now has $7,231.00.
Jose Illegal says, "We don't need no stinkin' insurance!" and still has $31,200.00.
Joe Legal has to make his $7,231.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, etc.
Jose Illegal has to make his $31,200.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, and what he sends out of the country every month.
Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part time job after work.
Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.
Joe Legal's and Jose Illegal's children both attend the same school. Joe Legal pays for his children's lunches while Jose Illegal's children get a government sponsored lunch. Jose Illegal's children have an after school ESL program. Joe Legal's children go home.
Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same police and fire services, but Joe paid for them and Jose did not pay.
That's kind of wrong, illegals have to pay any indirect tax and land tax just as much. The issue with under the table income is not something exclusive nor mutual to illegal immigrant employment.
Many many illegals use fake SSNs to pay income taxes and get no tax returns, basically paying more than citizens even; others pay income taxes through an ITIN. And also, legal citizens can work under the table just as much too, so... even if you wanna say income taxes are a big deal, it's not because of illegal immigration, it's because the employer chose not to require w-4's
Illegal immigrants are just the scapegoats of the moment... especially when the government could make them all legal by tomorrow and have all those tax issues solved.
|
I completly agree with this law If i was an illegal Alien in some other country, i would not be getting food stamps and free medical attention. I would be in jail and probably deported. I am sick of not being able to find a Job in Az, because of such high % of Illegals. As a teen, it is almost impossible to get a job right now
|
On August 02 2010 05:18 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2010 13:13 Headlines wrote:Quote I got through another forum. My apologies if this was posted before. You have two families: Joe Legal and Jose Illegal. Both families have two parents, two children, and live in Arizona.
Joe Legal works in construction, has a Social Security Number and makes $25.00 per hour with taxes deducted. Jose Illegal also works in construction, has NO Social Security Number, and gets paid $15.00 cash 'under the table.'
Ready? Now pay attention...
Joe Legal: $25..00 per hour x 40 hours = $1000.00 per week, or $52,000.00 per year. Now take 30% away for state and federal tax; Joe Legal now has $31,231.00..
Jose Illegal: $15.00 per hour x 40 hours = $600.00 per week, or $31,200.00 per year. Jose Illegal pays no taxes. Jose Illegal now has $31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays medical and dental insurance with limited coverage for his family at $600.00 per month, or $7,200.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $24,031.00.
Jose Illegal has full medical and dental coverage through the state and local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $31,200...00.
Joe Legal makes too much money and is not eligible for food stamps or welfare. Joe Legal pays $500.00 per month for food, or $6,000.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $18,031.00.
Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for food stamps and welfare. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays rent of $1,200.00 per month, or $14,400.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $9,631.00. Jose Illegal receives a $500.00 per month federal rent subsidy.
Jose Illegal pays out that $500.00 per month, or $6,000.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $ 31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays $200.00 per month, or $2,400.00 for insurance. Joe Legal now has $7,231.00.
Jose Illegal says, "We don't need no stinkin' insurance!" and still has $31,200.00.
Joe Legal has to make his $7,231.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, etc.
Jose Illegal has to make his $31,200.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, and what he sends out of the country every month.
Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part time job after work.
Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.
Joe Legal's and Jose Illegal's children both attend the same school. Joe Legal pays for his children's lunches while Jose Illegal's children get a government sponsored lunch. Jose Illegal's children have an after school ESL program. Joe Legal's children go home.
Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same police and fire services, but Joe paid for them and Jose did not pay.
That's kind of wrong, illegals have to pay any indirect tax and land tax just as much. The issue with under the table income is not something exclusive nor mutual to illegal immigrant employment. Many many illegals use fake SSNs to pay income taxes and get no tax returns, basically paying more than citizens even; others pay income taxes through an ITIN. And also, legal citizens can work under the table just as much too, so... even if you wanna say income taxes are a big deal, it's not because of illegal immigration, it's because the employer chose not to require w-4's Illegal immigrants are just the scapegoats of the moment... especially when the government could make them all legal by tomorrow and have all those tax issues solved.
They are paying for the new salad bar, tennis courts, tv rooms etc at club fed before they are deported. They are getting a return for all the efforts of crossing illegally and working. This just speeds up the process of figuring out where they are from so they can go back home sooner and maybe decide to go through the process like my family had to do to become legal aliens.
|
This bill has just been passed upheld by the Supreme Court Source: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/supreme-court-upholds-key-part-arizona-immigration-law-141927514.html
The Supreme Court upheld a key part of Arizona's tough anti-illegal immigration law in a 5-3 decision on Monday that allows police officers to ask about immigration status during stops. That part of the law, which never went into effect because of court challenges, will now immediately be enforced in Arizona. Other parts of the law, including a provision that made it a state crime for illegal immigrants to seek work, will remain blocked, as the justices affirmed the federal government's supremacy over immigration policy.
[Yahoo News reporter Liz Goodwin will be answering your questions about the Supreme Court's immigration ruling today at 4 p.m. ET on Facebook.]
Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court's swing vote, wrote the opinion, and was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. Conservative Justices Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas partially dissented, saying the entire law or most of the law should have been upheld.
In the opinion, Justice Kennedy wrote that the federal government's "power to determine immigration policy is well settled." But he also showed concern for what he described as Arizona's outsize burden in dealing with illegal immigration, seeming to sympathize with the state's decision to butt in on immigration enforcement. "Arizona bears many of the consequences of unlawful immigration," he wrote. "Hundreds of thousands of deportable aliens are apprehended in Arizona each year." But, ultimately, the justices found that Arizona cannot mete out its own state punishments for federal immigration crimes.
"Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the State may not pursue policies that undermine federal law," Kennedy wrote in the opinion's conclusion.
The police immigration checks are allowed, however, because state police would simply flag federal authorities if they found an illegal immigrant. The federal government would then decide if they wanted to try to deport the suspect, or let him or her go. Kennedy did not rule out that these checks may be implemented in an illegal way, which means more lawsuits may be forthcoming.
Nevertheless, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer cast the decision as a "victory" for the state. "I am confident our officers are prepared to carry out this law responsibly and lawfully. Nothing less is acceptable," she said in a statement, adding that officers have been trained not to racially profile in their stops.
Erika Andiola, an activist and undocumented immigrant in Arizona, said that the Latino community will not be happy with the decision, as the immigration checks portion of the law was most unpopular with them. "It's another message to the Latino community that if you look brown you're a perfect target for the police," she said.
The Obama administration sued to block Arizona's law, called SB1070, shortly after it passed two years ago, saying it interfered with federal authority over immigration. The law made it a state crime for illegal immigrants to seek work or fail to carry proper immigration papers. It also requires police officers to check immigration status and make warrantless arrests for immigration crimes in some cases. A federal judge prevented those aspects of the law from going into effect, but the law became a lightning rod around the country, sparking boycotts and counterboycotts and opening up a debate about the nation's illegal immigrant population.
In oral arguments in April, many of the justices seemed deeply skeptical of the government's argument that local police officers would interfere with federal authority over immigration law if they began asking people about their immigration status during stops. Though much of the debate around the law has focused on "racial profiling"—whether Hispanic people would be stopped and questioned by police based on their ethnicity—the government did not even mention those words in its case against the law, instead focusing on the federal government's supremacy in immigration matters. Justices repeatedly criticized the government's argument against immigration checks. Even Sotomayor, part of the court's liberal wing, said she was "terribly confused" by the government's argument against the checks.
|
The police immigration checks are allowed, however, because state police would simply flag federal authorities if they found an illegal immigrant. The federal government would then decide if they wanted to try to deport the suspect, or let him or her go. Kennedy did not rule out that these checks may be implemented in an illegal way, which means more lawsuits may be forthcoming.
Interesting.. because the next major piece of news was this:
The Obama administration said Monday it is suspending existing agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws, and said it has issued a directive telling federal authorities to decline many of the calls reporting illegal immigrants that the Homeland Security Department may get from Arizona police.
Administration officials, speaking on condition they not be named, told reporters they expect to see an increase in the number of calls they get from Arizona police — but that won’t change President Obama’s decision to limit whom the government actually tries to detain and deport.
“We will not be issuing detainers on individuals unless they clearly meet our defined priorities,” one official said in a telephone briefing.
The official said that despite the increased number of calls, which presumably means more illegal immigrants being reported, the Homeland Security Department is unlikely to detain a significantly higher number of people and won’t be boosting personnel to handle the new calls.
“We do not plan on putting additional staff on the ground in Arizona,” the official said.
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Arizona may not impose its own penalties for immigration violations, but it said state and local police could check the legal status of those they have reasonable suspicion to believe are in the country illegally.
That means police statewide can immediately begin calling to check immigration status — but federal officials are likely to reject most of those calls.
Federal officials said they’ll still perform the checks as required by law but will respond only when someone has a felony conviction on his or her record. Absent that, ICE will tell the local police to release the person.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said the court’s decision frees police up to perform immigration checks. In anticipation of the ruling, she issued an executive order calling for guidance to be issued to every police department on how to fairly carry out the law.
“We will move forward, instructing law enforcement to begin practicing what the United States Supreme Court has upheld,” she said.
But the Obama administration is under pressure from immigrant-rights groups to cut down on the number of people it is deporting and has taken a number of steps to try to limit deportations of rank-and-file illegal immigrants and focus instead on those with criminal records or repeated immigration violations.
Last week, Mr. Obama said he would halt deportations for most illegal immigrants under 30 who were brought here as children.
On Monday the administration officials also said they are ending the seven 287(g) task force agreements with Arizona law enforcement officials, which proactively had granted some local police the powers to enforce immigration laws.
The task forces, named for the section of law that allows them, have proved popular among many localities but have been a political headache for the Obama administration, with immigrant-rights groups saying they led to abuses.
On Monday the administration officials said they had concluded the seven agreements they had signed with various departments in Arizona weren’t working and took the Supreme Court’s ruling as a chance to scrap them.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/25/homeland-security-suspends-immigration-agreements-/
|
There are still several suits against the law, so it isn't necessarily here to stay. The ACLU for one is sueing, and probably has better grounds for its suit than the injunction that was making its way through the court system.
|
the amount of illegal immagrants in the united states is staggering and is destructive, but this is not the way to go about fixing the problem.
on the other hand, tolerance goes both ways. maybe put up with ignorant idiots so things dont get even worse than they already are. more specifically; if you are here legally dont get yourself in trouble being disresptful with people who sought a position of power for respect or to treat those they percieve below them with contempt - with contempt.
|
Immigration in this country certainly needs to be reformed. I have plenty of friends who came here completely legally, and they all agree it was a bitch. Having said that, they still came here the legitimate way; so it's not impossible and at least they pay taxes and actually funnel money into our economy. Illegal immigrants are a burden to everyone here legally and are insulting to everyone that did immigrate the right way.
I'm all for making it easier to come in here, but until then this problem can't be solved by just letting them stay. This bill won't really help either, even with the Supreme Court decision. We need the federal government behind it to do anything about it.
|
On June 26 2012 04:37 Pyskee wrote: Immigration in this country certainly needs to be reformed. I have plenty of friends who came here completely legally, and they all agree it was a bitch. Having said that, they still came here the legitimate way; so it's not impossible and at least they pay taxes and actually funnel money into our economy. Illegal immigrants are a burden to everyone here legally and are insulting to everyone that did immigrate the right way.
I'm all for making it easier to come in here, but until then this problem can't be solved by just letting them stay. This bill won't really help either, even with the Supreme Court decision. We need the federal government behind it to do anything about it. This is oversimplified to the point of being completely distorted. Do illegal immigrants put a great deal of stress on public infrastructure? Sure. But they also serve as a labor lynchpin with which many US businesses continue to operate. Reality can be awfully insulting I'm afraid.
|
Speaking of oversimplification, I like how the OP just uses a snippet of history to set the tone for his post. The Mexican War was rather shit of us but the Republic of Texas openly rebelled against Mexico and asked to join the United States. Mexico disputed the territorial lines and attacked American soldiers inside of Texas. A war was had, horrible and short, and when the shots ended the US paid Mexico 18 million for Alta California and New Mexico and agreed to cessation of hostilities.
|
On June 26 2012 04:43 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2012 04:37 Pyskee wrote: Immigration in this country certainly needs to be reformed. I have plenty of friends who came here completely legally, and they all agree it was a bitch. Having said that, they still came here the legitimate way; so it's not impossible and at least they pay taxes and actually funnel money into our economy. Illegal immigrants are a burden to everyone here legally and are insulting to everyone that did immigrate the right way.
I'm all for making it easier to come in here, but until then this problem can't be solved by just letting them stay. This bill won't really help either, even with the Supreme Court decision. We need the federal government behind it to do anything about it. This is oversimplified to the point of being completely distorted. Do illegal immigrants put a great deal of stress on public infrastructure? Sure. But they also serve as a labor lynchpin with which many US businesses continue to operate. Reality can be awfully insulting I'm afraid.
Illegal immigrants don't contribute anywhere near enough into the societies in which they live to make up for their consumption of public services.
|
On June 26 2012 04:43 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2012 04:37 Pyskee wrote: Immigration in this country certainly needs to be reformed. I have plenty of friends who came here completely legally, and they all agree it was a bitch. Having said that, they still came here the legitimate way; so it's not impossible and at least they pay taxes and actually funnel money into our economy. Illegal immigrants are a burden to everyone here legally and are insulting to everyone that did immigrate the right way.
I'm all for making it easier to come in here, but until then this problem can't be solved by just letting them stay. This bill won't really help either, even with the Supreme Court decision. We need the federal government behind it to do anything about it. This is oversimplified to the point of being completely distorted. Do illegal immigrants put a great deal of stress on public infrastructure? Sure. But they also serve as a labor lynchpin with which many US businesses continue to operate. Reality can be awfully insulting I'm afraid.
So the few dollars less than minimum wage they make is going straight towards infrastructure and healthcare, right? Without the need to support illegals tax burdens on citizens would be reduced due to them not consuming education, health care, transportation, police resources, etc. Furthermore with that money recirculating rather than being mailed to family in Mexico the economy is stimulated and continues to flow. Sorry, we don't need illegal immigrants in the workforce.
|
|
|
|