What the he** is he talking about? Im sure its all just crap for votes, but wow.
Bush on Illegal Immigrants....WTF?
- Thread starter BurlyShirley
- Start date
3 year work Visas for immigrants.
will it cutdown on untaxed illegals? should those taxes go to pay medical bills of uninsured injured workers here so as to not drain the economy any longer?
will it cutdown on untaxed illegals? should those taxes go to pay medical bills of uninsured injured workers here so as to not drain the economy any longer?
It's OK to enter the US illegally as long as you are here to to the $hit jobs that no one here will do.
Ironically, illegal immigrants probably end up contributing far more money to the system than is spent on them. For example, most of the illegals use fake social security numbers to work, thus much of their income goes to the government via social security and other taxes. However, because they are illegals, they are not elligible for benefits / services (and rightly so). Thus, they tend to contribute to services they never use. True, some illegals manage to abuse the system and obtain free medical care, but those tend to be mostly emergency cases. In general it is almost impossible to obtain free long-term care if you are here illegally. (long-term care is a significant, if not the largest portion of medical expenses)
Furthermore, most Americans would be unwilling to work the jobs that illegal immigrants have. Not oblivious to popular sentiment, Mr. Bush intends to include a provision in the immigration reform that will somehow ensure that Americans have first dips on jobs. However, I am probably as much at a loss as you on how he plans to ensure that.
In conclusion, I am not entirely sure that illegal immigrants are as much a drain on the economy as is alleged. Without specific statistics to the contrary, I will remain unconvinced. Nonetheless, illegal immigrants do pose signifcant problems (for example as uninsured motorists, etc.) Hopefully Bush's proposal will help alleviate those problems.
However, in my opinion, the whole family based immigration laws are somewhat anitquated. An immigration system should be based on education and ability to contribute economically to America as well. The immigration laws, as they are set up right now, do not promote immigration of the best and brightest. Sure, we should allow relatives to be able to come to the U.S., but why not also allow automatic immigration of PhDs, MDs, etc. They would probably contribute more than most Americans.
I'm no macro-economist, but it seems that in the long run it would be better to have those sorts of jobs stay here rather than having companies ship manufacturing operations to other countries.
as much as i'd like to give him a slap on the back for this politically savvy move, i cannot be convinced that a rich texan would come up with this on his own.
Counterpoint, he doesn't want his friends' sons & daughters doing the "dirty work that belongs to wetbacks", or some such divisive parlance whispered in the wings of country clubs (this was a blatant bash on texans in gen'l - not bush)
that being said, i think it's not just savvy, but the right thing to do.
i hope a corollary to this will be a honey-pot to trap would be terrorists ("smoke 'em out - git 'em runnin'")
Counterpoint, he doesn't want his friends' sons & daughters doing the "dirty work that belongs to wetbacks", or some such divisive parlance whispered in the wings of country clubs (this was a blatant bash on texans in gen'l - not bush)
that being said, i think it's not just savvy, but the right thing to do.
i hope a corollary to this will be a honey-pot to trap would be terrorists ("smoke 'em out - git 'em runnin'")
I just watched "The Border" with Jack Nicholson...not a bad flick.
Can anyone offer any figures on what effect illegals have on the economy? My guess would be like most (all?) immigration, the effect is positive.
Can anyone offer any figures on what effect illegals have on the economy? My guess would be like most (all?) immigration, the effect is positive.
It all depends on the details, if executed well it will be a good thing. If executed poorly it will be a disaster.
I heard a blurb on the radio about how he guaranteed them social security
. The government can't even guaranty me social security. I could not find any info on this, anyone else know about it??
I heard a blurb on the radio about how he guaranteed them social security
. The government can't even guaranty me social security. I could not find any info on this, anyone else know about it??
i think it might be one of the few vehicle of SS, not just retirement (disability, f'rinstance). Also, the US currently spends ~$8000/child on public education (a bit pricey for the quality, but not nearly as expensive as the effects of ignorance). Factor in the estimated 5,000,000 illegal immigrant children (i need a factcheck on this, i'm blatantly parroting something i heard), and that comes to 80B/yr spent on illegal immigrant education.Originally posted by Westy
I heard a blurb on the radio about how he guaranteed them social security
normally, i'd freak out over this seemingly fiscal irresponsibility, but it's education, and that's an investment.
i'm pretty bi-polar: i hate the NEA & similar labor unions, but recognise the need for education. What's a brother to do?
Put your money where your morals are and pay to have have your children educated at private schools. I'm sure there are a boat load of private schools in the springs.
Private schools have no problem paying their teachers less than standard wages, providing no medical insurance and not a having retirement plan.
My wife spent the first six years of her career teaching a private Christian school making 10K less a year than a public schoo teacher, having no medical insurance and no retirement. But it was a ministry...
She felt at peace to serve according to her faith and then she felt at peace to have medical insurance, retirement and the 10K jump in pay didn't suck either.
well, how many PotUS actually come up with every idea they sign off on, on their own?
If Bush is doing it to get more votes, well, that's a good thing. Isn't that what politics is supposed to be about? I mean, he's supposed to listen to the constituents... all of 'em and if he does something he doesn't necessarily care about or believe in, but is good for society, then more props to him.
"him" being any PotUS, not just Bush.
The election will still come down to Florida in the end. It is highly unlikely that states like California, Texas, New Mexico or Arizona are going to go that much differently than they did in the last election.
In the last election that portion of the Hispanic vote that he took from Gore in Florida as compared to previous elections was absolutely key in winning the election. If this allows him to hold that portion of the vote there then it is well calculated. However, if it backfires on him for lack of details or if it is exposed or preceived as political pandering it could cause serious issues for him.
In the end these illegals hold jobs that most Americans are unwilling to hold, farm and basic construction labor. They are hard workers and come cheap for profit strapped businesses.
In the last election that portion of the Hispanic vote that he took from Gore in Florida as compared to previous elections was absolutely key in winning the election. If this allows him to hold that portion of the vote there then it is well calculated. However, if it backfires on him for lack of details or if it is exposed or preceived as political pandering it could cause serious issues for him.
In the end these illegals hold jobs that most Americans are unwilling to hold, farm and basic construction labor. They are hard workers and come cheap for profit strapped businesses.
the focus will surely be on Florida, but i'm not convinced it'll be as close as 2000 for these reasons:
- the left hasn't kept up the momentum from "being cheated" in '00 - it's now a footnote
- a great portion of the knee-jerk dems (retirees formerly from the north) have died off in the last 4 years
- realized appreciation of the lack of state income tax favors bush in light of our stimulated economy (debatable, but playable nonetheless)
- Jeb expected to curry favor by reminding floridians of his marriage to a latina, in conjunction with...
- thinly veiled pandering to latinos via yesterdays development
Hopefully the Republicans on a National level are smarter than the Dem's in CA were in regard to latinos. It seems that those wacky buggars actually think for themselves and don't vote as a group. (whodda thunk it?)
Contrary to the apparent belief of Cruz Busta-Rhymes-Mante and the rest of his icky ilk.
Contrary to the apparent belief of Cruz Busta-Rhymes-Mante and the rest of his icky ilk.
So Arnuld getting 37% of the Hispanic vote is a big deal?
Well historically its not. Since 1972, the Hispanic vote for Republican candidates is typically in the 35 to 40% range. Even Prop 187, drew 37% of Hispanic votes. So the recent election is not anything new in regards to Hispanic voters.
Nor do I believe that Bush will see any real improvement. Where California could show some promise for Republicans is the improvement in the turn out percentages for White voters, which is where Arnuld really pulled out his victories.
The point is that Busta-Rhymes and the Dems assumed that they had the hispanic vote all to themselves based on some silly La-Raza connection.
No I don't think that they did. Again the democrats have been fairly use to the loss of that 35%. Even with a Hispanic candidate, it had to be assumed that it would occur. Again 37% of the Hispanic population voted for Prop 187.
He lost a ton of votes because of his stance with Nativo Lopez and issues related to it. Which pointed to one of Busta-Rhymes (pretty good) biggest problems his focus on only one portion of the Hispanic community, the recent immigrants. In doing so he is ignoring a larger and more important percentage of the Hispanic community (the one that can vote.)
Sound familar?