So Who Is REALLY Responsible For The Illegal Mexican Invasion?

Teak · #**151** (**permalink**) 07-09-2008, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielpalos

What is opinion about simple math. Simply multiply the current number of illegals in the country by an arbitrary fine to get a product.

Consider twenty million illegals times (for example) one thousand dollars. This could be the revenue generated from fines. Under ideal conditions, the revenue generated from fines from twenty million people could result in revenue of twenty billion dollars from fines alone.

Fees would depend on the number of people wanting to try their luck in the US market for labor, and could be generated annually from those same participants. Let's use an arbitrary number such as five hundred dollars for a fee. The fee is less than the fine to induce people to come in legally or pay a higher fine.

Potentially, anyone who now obtains a tourist visa would be able to obtain a market friendly work visa. It could result in a potential revenue stream of twenty eight billion dollars if we use the numbers below.

Not talking about tourists there numb nuts. We talking about illegal aliens. I see you still cant counter this:

Quote:

Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household.
With nearly two-thirds of illegal aliens lacking a high school degree, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments, not their legal status or heavy use of most social services.
If illegal aliens were given amnesty,or a market friendly visa, and began to pay taxes and use services like households headed by legal immigrants with the same education levels, the estimated annual net fiscal deficit would increase from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for a total net cost of $29 billion.

Source: Center for Immigration Studies

jan · #**152** (**permalink**) 07-09-2008, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Not talking about tourists there numb nuts. We talking about illegal aliens. I see you still cant counter this:

Vasectomy day for daniel? Is he packin' the ice today?

danielpalos · #**153** (**permalink**) 07-09-2008, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teak

Not talking about tourists there numb nuts. We talking about illegal aliens. I see you still cant counter this:

I was referring to the numbers you mentioned. What is it you don't understand about something written in simple American English?

Was the math too complex?

danielpalos · #**154** (**permalink**) 07-09-2008, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jan

Vasectomy day for daniel? Is he packin' the ice today?

I was going to get one, but they made me wait at the end of the line, and I had some place else to go by the time they got to me.

In any event, ALL of the those with the opposing viewpoint have only responded with fallacy, instead of a rational rebuttal.

Why should I take them seriously about wanting a simple solution to our illegal problem, when all they really want is national, "socialized" public policy that requires the coercive use of force of the State?

Rooster · #**155** (**permalink**) 07-10-2008, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teak

Rooster, our congressmen can't even abide by the ethics rules they created. How in the world do you propose keeping them away from the lobbyists and their money?

By doing away with the lobbyists and their bribes. By removing the temptation. By treating them like children, if that's what it takes.

If there were no lobbies or contributions, (other than Gov't.) the pols would be guided by what is needed to get the vote to keep them in office, which means the peoples voice would once again be heeded. The people could get their country back and guide it themselves. At the moment, we are allowing others to steer our ship of state, doing others bidding. The pols don't care much what the prople think...they take office for the money in it...to come out wealthy. That's not the way it's supposed to work.

Rooster · #**156** (**permalink**) 07-10-2008, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielpalos

How do you do away with people exercising their First Amendment right to free speech and redress of grievances?

Market friendly is not about only about big business since small business and individual labor market participants can also benefit from market friendliness. It simply means using more "normal" market forces, instead of the command economics being advocated to solve simple scio-economic problems.

What if there were a hypothetical Capitalist Party that put their candidates on the ballot using their own party criteria; that of being either the richest person in the republic or the person who received the largest bonus? It would be market friendly since they can only meet that criteria by using market forces. It would be voter friendly since they would appear on the ballot, thus giving individuals another choice for that elected office.

Why do you ask how I do away with the first Amendment? Did I infer that?
Are you saying that's what lobbies are all about? If the lobbies were eliminated people would still have free speech...and a freer country and their speech would be heard better and have more import than it does now.

Rooster · #**157** (**permalink**) 07-10-2008, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielpalos

I was going to get one, but they made me wait at the end of the line, and I had some place else to go by the time they got to me.

In any event, ALL of the those with the opposing viewpoint have only responded with fallacy, instead of a rational rebuttal.

Why should I take them seriously about wanting a simple solution to our illegal problem, when all they really want is national, "socialized" public policy that requires the coercive use of force of the State?

Some people only understand force. Without it, they walk all over you, as is the case now with the immigrants. What kind of an answer is "without force"?
We have a military because we recognize the need for one. Is that fallacious also, in your mind?

What makes you so cocksure of your position?
I'm curious. I know it's a long shot, but tell me if you are a professor of Political Science in a small midwestern college?

danielpalos · #**158** (**permalink**) 07-10-2008, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rooster

Why do you ask how I do away with the first Amendment? Did I infer that?
Are you saying that's what lobbies are all about? If the lobbies were eliminated people would still have free speech...and a freer country and their speech would be heard better and have more import than it does now.

I would agree with you if "lobbies" were not composed of individuals. Consider the analogy to the Second Amendment. How can you have a Militia of people who keep and bear arms if those who would be in a militia are barred from service?

danielpalos · #**159** (**permalink**) 07-10-2008, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rooster

Some people only understand force. Without it, they walk all over you, as is the case now with the immigrants. What kind of an answer is "without force"?
We have a military because we recognize the need for one. Is that fallacious also, in your mind?

What makes you so cocksure of your position?
I'm curious. I know it's a long shot, but tell me if you are a professor of Political Science in a small midwestern college?

How are the relatively uneducated immigrants from a third world economy walking all over the citizenry of our first world economy? I would agree with you if we were Romans and it was the Huns coming to "walk" all over us, instead of simply wanting to work to improve their standard of living.

Some people are not educated enough to understand the difference between the "natural" rights of Nurture, and the natural rights of Nature where might makes right. I am of the opinion that any first worlders have an obligation to understand the "natural" rights of Nurture and leave the natural rights of Nature in the third world where they belong.

numenorean · #**160** (**permalink**) 07-27-2008, 01:22 PM

The jewish community is responsible. They support any ideology that undermines the white Christian established order. They have supported and push for 3rd world immigration for the last 70 years. It is only know they are sucessfully transforming the demographics of the US (and all western nations).