Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

Illegal Immigration solutions

Todd0611
Posts: 99
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 7:28:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Seems like the topic du-jour lately is immigration. For those who would consider their position as "lenient" towards illegal immigration, I'd like to discuss just the legal aspects of the topic. Meaning, I personally believe that the majority of the people coming into the country illegally, are just looking for work, and trying to provide for their families back home. I live in Houston, and we see plenty of illegals daily. It seems like the media, and a lot of the politicians avoid the fact that the law was broke by these people. I think the policy makers could come up with a workable solution, that doesn't involve deporting everyone here illegally, but I think we first have to start with acknowledging that the law was broken. In the US, we generally fine, and/or punish people that break the law. I think more persuasive arguments could be made if the media, and those discussing immigration would start with recognizing the law was violated. It just seems that most of the media stories ignore the FACT that people broke the law by coming into the country illegally. Why couldn't these people come forward, apply for work visas, but pay a fine for breaking the law?
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 7:41:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 7:28:59 PM, Todd0611 wrote:
I think the policy makers could come up with a workable solution, that doesn't involve deporting everyone here illegally, but I think we first have to start with acknowledging that the law was broken. In the US, we generally fine, and/or punish people that break the law.

Yes, we punish them, within the bounds of written law. The written law clearly states, they will be deported; and they should be.

I think more persuasive arguments could be made if the media, and those discussing immigration would start with recognizing the law was violated. It just seems that most of the media stories ignore the FACT that people broke the law by coming into the country illegally. Why couldn't these people come forward, apply for work visas, but pay a fine for breaking the law?

Because work visas are not cheap and they are usually reserved for folks with skills like IT workers so companies can hire them at a MUCH cheaper rate.

Think about this: Currently in the United States, we have a 10.4% unemployment rate; the U6 stat which includes all categories, not the U3 stat which the media and President pass off as truth which discounts a lot of unemployed citizens. Furthermore, we have a 19% underemployment rate across the nation; totaling a whopping 29.4% of U.S. citizens not able to find work.

Now, remembering that for every 1 illegal immigrant you provide a work permit to, that is 1 more American citizen out of work; do you really think this will turn out well for legal citizens let alone the nation as a whole?

And I haven't even pointed out how many Americans are on food stamps or other subsidies, nor have I addressed the tax rates paid out vs the expenditures.
InsertAliasHere
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 7:41:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 7:28:59 PM, Todd0611 wrote:
Seems like the topic du-jour lately is immigration. For those who would consider their position as "lenient" towards illegal immigration, I'd like to discuss just the legal aspects of the topic. Meaning, I personally believe that the majority of the people coming into the country illegally, are just looking for work, and trying to provide for their families back home. I live in Houston, and we see plenty of illegals daily. It seems like the media, and a lot of the politicians avoid the fact that the law was broke by these people. I think the policy makers could come up with a workable solution, that doesn't involve deporting everyone here illegally, but I think we first have to start with acknowledging that the law was broken. In the US, we generally fine, and/or punish people that break the law. I think more persuasive arguments could be made if the media, and those discussing immigration would start with recognizing the law was violated. It just seems that most of the media stories ignore the FACT that people broke the law by coming into the country illegally. Why couldn't these people come forward, apply for work visas, but pay a fine for breaking the law?

I don't think anyone involved in the national debate on immigration denies that these people broke the law, though I think there are varying levels of moral outrage contingent on how one views the circumstances of these individuals' arrival. For instance, I agree with you: I think these immigrants are here, by and large, to find work, to contribute to the economy (which they do), and to secure brighter futures for their children; I think it's a good sign that the U.S. is still viewed as the "place to be," in spite of our economic problems, though the rest of the world at the moment is doing much worse. But, for people like Donald Trump, the line is that these people are being "dumped on us" by the Mexican government, who doesn't want them and is in some way "punishing" us. That rhetoric tends to yield untenable positions which extend a lot further than back taxes.

But I agree with you. The debate has to involve (and I think it does) legal implications for people who did break the law, though I think, insofar as our laws are unjust, we ought to reevaluate them. The immigration reform bill brought forward by the "Gang of Eight" included a series of back taxes and fines, and required immigrants to wait for about 14 years prior to applying for citizenship. I think that's overly harsh, but I do think there are ought to be some restrictions to that effect.
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 8:02:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 7:41:47 PM, InsertAliasHere wrote:
But I agree with you. The debate has to involve (and I think it does) legal implications for people who did break the law, though I think, insofar as our laws are unjust, we ought to reevaluate them. The immigration reform bill brought forward by the "Gang of Eight" included a series of back taxes and fines, and required immigrants to wait for about 14 years prior to applying for citizenship. I think that's overly harsh, but I do think there are ought to be some restrictions to that effect.

Everyone really needs to stop thinking with their emotions on this one and start using reasoning and logic. With 30% of the nation's citizens unemployed or underemployed, 40 million of food stamps, 25% of citizens (up to $24,999 salary) only paying a grand total of 3.1% tax rates, and the next 25% of citizens (up to $49,999 salary) only dishing out 7.1% tax rate (numbers may be very slightly off as I am going off the numbers I from last month) and all kinds of other stuff going on;

HOW WILL INJECTING ANOTHER 12 MILLION PEOPLE INTO THE WORKFORCE, AND BENEFIT SYSTEMS HELP US IN ANY WAY?

Sorry for the caps, bold and underline there but it seems like nobody is seeing the big picture. So I figured I would make it REALLY BIG.
Todd0611
Posts: 99
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 8:22:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 7:41:42 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 8/20/2015 7:28:59 PM, Todd0611 wrote:
I think the policy makers could come up with a workable solution, that doesn't involve deporting everyone here illegally, but I think we first have to start with acknowledging that the law was broken. In the US, we generally fine, and/or punish people that break the law.

Yes, we punish them, within the bounds of written law. The written law clearly states, they will be deported; and they should be.

I think more persuasive arguments could be made if the media, and those discussing immigration would start with recognizing the law was violated. It just seems that most of the media stories ignore the FACT that people broke the law by coming into the country illegally. Why couldn't these people come forward, apply for work visas, but pay a fine for breaking the law?

Because work visas are not cheap and they are usually reserved for folks with skills like IT workers so companies can hire them at a MUCH cheaper rate.

Think about this: Currently in the United States, we have a 10.4% unemployment rate; the U6 stat which includes all categories, not the U3 stat which the media and President pass off as truth which discounts a lot of unemployed citizens. Furthermore, we have a 19% underemployment rate across the nation; totaling a whopping 29.4% of U.S. citizens not able to find work.

Now, remembering that for every 1 illegal immigrant you provide a work permit to, that is 1 more American citizen out of work; do you really think this will turn out well for legal citizens let alone the nation as a whole?

And I haven't even pointed out how many Americans are on food stamps or other subsidies, nor have I addressed the tax rates paid out vs the expenditures.

good point about the work visas, I didn't know they cost that much. I guess my point is that if the media would start portraying illegal immigration as a crime, then people in general would start viewing it differently. The media impacts so many people's views, and I am guilty as well, because we do not all take the time (nor have it) to research into the issues as deep as needed to make a valid, educated, and informed opinion. I think you also have to take in the reality, that some people do not want to work, they'd rather get their "government check". Another reality, is that there are jobs being done be illegals, because some people do not want certain types of work. That could be addressed if pay was improved for certain jobs, but that's another topic. Again, my main point is that I believe too many people are not considering the fact that the law was broke in the first place.
InsertAliasHere
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 8:34:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 8:02:07 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 8/20/2015 7:41:47 PM, InsertAliasHere wrote:
But I agree with you. The debate has to involve (and I think it does) legal implications for people who did break the law, though I think, insofar as our laws are unjust, we ought to reevaluate them. The immigration reform bill brought forward by the "Gang of Eight" included a series of back taxes and fines, and required immigrants to wait for about 14 years prior to applying for citizenship. I think that's overly harsh, but I do think there are ought to be some restrictions to that effect.

Everyone really needs to stop thinking with their emotions on this one and start using reasoning and logic.

I reject the notion that I'm "thinking with my emotions" on immigration, especially when there are tangible benefits to allowing skilled labor into the United States. There are moral arguments which tend to emanate from a Rawlsian basis, and many of those I find compelling, though that isn't the crux of my argument.

With 30% of the nation's citizens unemployed or underemployed,

Where is this figure coming from? The headline unemployment rate is 5.3 percent, and several studies suggest that the part-time for economic reasons and marginally attached components of the U6 (currently 10.4 percent, as you noted, for a gap of 5.1 percentage points) are largely structural in nature. The only statistic I can think of which even matches this number is the non-employment to population ratio, though that includes high schoolers, college students, and the elderly, so those people are not "unemployed" in the conventional sense that labor-market dynamics have denied them the opportunity to find employment, in spite of their attempts to the contrary.

40 million of food stamps,

I agree; this is an issue, and there's an endemic problem of poverty in this country. However, there is no evidence at all that immigrants are "welfare magnets," and plenty of evidence that they increase incomes of natives, which would tend to reduce poverty.

25% of citizens (up to $24,999 salary) only paying a grand total of 3.1% tax rates,

I don't know where this figure comes from, but there is no way at face value that this is true. Poor people tend to pay regressive sales taxes, and many (who are able to, given their skill level) work, in which case they pay regressive sales taxes. I would love to see a source for this, or even an explanation for how thi ties to the debate.

and the next 25% of citizens (up to $49,999 salary) only dishing out 7.1% tax rate (numbers may be very slightly off as I am going off the numbers I from last month) and all kinds of other stuff going on;

Again, I would like to see a source for this, or even an explanation for how this ties to this debate. Are you arguing that we don't have enough tax revenue? We can discuss better ways to collect revenue, if so, but this is non-topical to the discussion of immigration, because we know the growth effects from that are overwhelmingly positive.

HOW WILL INJECTING ANOTHER 12 MILLION PEOPLE INTO THE WORKFORCE, AND BENEFIT SYSTEMS HELP US IN ANY WAY?

Sorry for the caps, bold and underline there but it seems like nobody is seeing the big picture. So I figured I would make it REALLY BIG.

First, I don't think this is a question of "injecting" 12 million people in the workforce. If we were to reform the immigration system, more immigrants might flock to the U.S. (especially with the global economy in shambles), but merely doing something about the people who are already here so that we aren't stuck with a permanent underclass of citizens whom corporations can pay slave-labor wages. There's a moral and economic case for capitalizing on their skills and their labor. And, global fertility rates are on the downside, so I don't think there is a case for suggesting that X million people will immediately flock to the United States should we pass immigration reform.

Second, there just isn't a case for deporting 11 million people. Not only is the idea of separating families reprehensible, but it would be unbelievably expensive and counter-productive.

Third, labor force growth has been tepid in recent years. The labor force is only growing by about 0.8 percent to 1 percent per year, and this is in part because of an aging population and the depth of the Great Recession. This has negative ramifications for productivity and long-term growth, which are falling on a global basis and which economists Robert Gordon, Tyler Cowen, Lawrence Summers and others have coined "the Great Stagnation." Reasonable immigration reform isn't a panacea, but it can certainly help, particularly if we're letting in skilled labor.

Fourth, immigration is good for the U.S. economy. A report from the Council of Economic Advisors found the following:

"Independent studies affirm that commonsense immigration reform will increase economic growth. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that enacting the Senate immigration reform bill will increase real GDP relative to current law projections by 3.3 percent in 2023 and 5.4 percent in 2033 " an increase of roughly $700 billion in 2023 and $1.4 trillion in 2033 in today"s dollars. A larger labor force; higher productivity and investment; and stronger technology, tourism, hospitality, agriculture, and housing industries are just some of the key ways that immigration reform strengthens the
U.S. economy."

Here is the link: https://www.whitehouse.gov...

This would help with job creation, federal tax revenue, productivity, labor force (and subsequently labor force participation) and the long-term problem of Social Security and Medicare, since immigrants would pay payroll taxes.

Here's a good article explaining some of the benefits, including cutting the federal deficit by $820 billion over 20 years: http://www.thedailybeast.com...

There's a study from the National Bureau of Economic Research finding that each new immigrant to the United States creates 1.2 new jobs: http://www.vox.com...

Here's another study finding in 20 different countries welfare gains of 1.25% to 1% from high-skilled and low-skilled immigration, respectively: http://www.voxeu.org... Note that many immigrants perform low-skilled jobs that Americans have no interest in performing (such as agricultural work), in which case there is no direct competition with Americans over domestic labor and no "crowding out" effect.

Finally, here's a good article by Matt Yglesias of Vox: http://www.vox.com...

He cites a study from George Borjas, who is a skeptic on immigration. Even he finds that immigration reform would increase GDP by $1.6 trillion. Of that, 97.8 percent would go to the immigrants themselves, but the remaining 2.2 percent would go to native borns. This flies in the face of the narratives that Americans would suffer under immigration if we can't exactly quantify the effects, which other economists find to be higher.

In conclusion, I don't believe that I'm reasoning from a place of emotion. Immigration reform would be a boon to the U.S. economy, and I support it on both moral and economic grounds. I think it would be foolish for the Republican Party to give into Donald Trump's rhetoric which is not only empirically false, but highly fallacious to any capable person who can readily research and name off these studies I just provided for you.
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 8:49:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 8:22:01 PM, Todd0611 wrote:
I guess my point is that if the media would start portraying illegal immigration as a crime, then people in general would start viewing it differently. The media impacts so many people's views, and I am guilty as well, because we do not all take the time (nor have it) to research into the issues as deep as needed to make a valid, educated, and informed opinion.

I agree 100% here. The mainstream media has been very irresponsible and negligent with a lot of things for a long time now, and it's only getting worse. Once they started injecting political ideology and bias into media organizations, journalism started losing its validity. It's gotten so bad at this point that mainstream media journalists are getting fired for flat out lying, I mean fabricating entire environments and situations to get views; some are even starting to jump ship and move over to Fox News.

I think you also have to take in the reality, that some people do not want to work, they'd rather get their "government check".

I am well aware of this and it is horrible. I wish people were more motivated in life, then again, if everyone were like me, we would have nothing to debate and in turn, no debate site.

Another reality, is that there are jobs being done be illegals, because some people do not want certain types of work.

Never proven. In fact, there were a bunch of factories in TX (I believe TX) that were shut down by the government because they employed nothing but illegal immigrants. When they reopened for business and started hiring, there was a line out the door and around the building of hundreds of men and women that had been looking for jobs but couldn't find any. The truth is, employers would rather pay below market wages than hire Americans.

That could be addressed if pay was improved for certain jobs, but that's another topic.

This leads to the thought process of is it really that healthy for the economy for us to create a federal minimum wage? Specially $12 or $15 an hour? In CA, they are gearing up for $15 an hour minimum wage coming up here shortly. So, to get ahead of the game, a pizza company who has been in business for over 10 years (may be 19 years but not sure so I'll play it safe), they are hiking their employee's wages up to $15 an hour right now. In order to offset the cost for customers, they refuse tips for waiters now. But most importantly, a pizza now goes for $30....just 1 single pizza.

Funny thing is, now that the Unions in CA got the $15 they were fighting for, now they are petitioning for exemption from the $15 an hour wage because "they can't afford it, it's not reasonable."

Again, my main point is that I believe too many people are not considering the fact that the law was broke in the first place.

How is the law broken? I believe it is very clear and straightforward: We are a sovereign nation with laws and processes. You come in illegally, you get deported under federal law. Then each consecutive time after the first violation comes with increasing penalties of jail time.

If you are referencing how long it takes to get legal immigration status and eventually nationalization, I would argue that we are allowing in more today than ever before. We actually only used to open the borders to a few thousand immigrants a year, for a period of 3-5 years. After 3-5 years, we would close our borders for 10-15 years in order to keep the population at a rate that could sustained by employment and resources. It's only been since I believe the 1980's that we just opened the flood gates and never closed them; not for the betterment of the nation, but for cheap labor and assured minority votes for the Democrats.

I can provide data if necessary, but I would rather you take the time to research this one. Maybe it will open your eyes up to the reality of immigration in this nation. :)
Todd0611
Posts: 99
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 8:56:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 8:49:13 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 8/20/2015 8:22:01 PM, Todd0611 wrote:
I guess my point is that if the media would start portraying illegal immigration as a crime, then people in general would start viewing it differently. The media impacts so many people's views, and I am guilty as well, because we do not all take the time (nor have it) to research into the issues as deep as needed to make a valid, educated, and informed opinion.

I agree 100% here. The mainstream media has been very irresponsible and negligent with a lot of things for a long time now, and it's only getting worse. Once they started injecting political ideology and bias into media organizations, journalism started losing its validity. It's gotten so bad at this point that mainstream media journalists are getting fired for flat out lying, I mean fabricating entire environments and situations to get views; some are even starting to jump ship and move over to Fox News.

I think you also have to take in the reality, that some people do not want to work, they'd rather get their "government check".

I am well aware of this and it is horrible. I wish people were more motivated in life, then again, if everyone were like me, we would have nothing to debate and in turn, no debate site.

Another reality, is that there are jobs being done be illegals, because some people do not want certain types of work.

Never proven. In fact, there were a bunch of factories in TX (I believe TX) that were shut down by the government because they employed nothing but illegal immigrants. When they reopened for business and started hiring, there was a line out the door and around the building of hundreds of men and women that had been looking for jobs but couldn't find any. The truth is, employers would rather pay below market wages than hire Americans.

That could be addressed if pay was improved for certain jobs, but that's another topic.

This leads to the thought process of is it really that healthy for the economy for us to create a federal minimum wage? Specially $12 or $15 an hour? In CA, they are gearing up for $15 an hour minimum wage coming up here shortly. So, to get ahead of the game, a pizza company who has been in business for over 10 years (may be 19 years but not sure so I'll play it safe), they are hiking their employee's wages up to $15 an hour right now. In order to offset the cost for customers, they refuse tips for waiters now. But most importantly, a pizza now goes for $30....just 1 single pizza.

Funny thing is, now that the Unions in CA got the $15 they were fighting for, now they are petitioning for exemption from the $15 an hour wage because "they can't afford it, it's not reasonable."

Again, my main point is that I believe too many people are not considering the fact that the law was broke in the first place.

How is the law broken? I believe it is very clear and straightforward: We are a sovereign nation with laws and processes. You come in illegally, you get deported under federal law. Then each consecutive time after the first violation comes with increasing penalties of jail time.

If you are referencing how long it takes to get legal immigration status and eventually nationalization, I would argue that we are allowing in more today than ever before. We actually only used to open the borders to a few thousand immigrants a year, for a period of 3-5 years. After 3-5 years, we would close our borders for 10-15 years in order to keep the population at a rate that could sustained by employment and resources. It's only been since I believe the 1980's that we just opened the flood gates and never closed them; not for the betterment of the nation, but for cheap labor and assured minority votes for the Democrats.

I can provide data if necessary, but I would rather you take the time to research this one. Maybe it will open your eyes up to the reality of immigration in this nation. :)

I didn't mean that the way the law was written was broke, I simply meant that the people that came here illegally broke the law in the first place.
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 9:42:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 7:41:47 PM, InsertAliasHere wrote:
But I agree with you. The debate has to involve (and I think it does) legal implications for people who did break the law, though I think, insofar as our laws are unjust, we ought to reevaluate them.

What is unjust about our laws?

The immigration reform bill brought forward by the "Gang of Eight" included a series of back taxes and fines, and required immigrants to wait for about 14 years prior to applying for citizenship. I think that's overly harsh, but I do think there are ought to be some restrictions to that effect.

You fail to mention the ability of these amnestied illegals to immediately start collecting social security, unemployment and other benefits funded by tax payers.

Additionally, where would these poor illegals get all this money to pay these high back taxes and fees?

I reject the notion that I'm "thinking with my emotions" on immigration, especially when there are tangible benefits to allowing skilled labor into the United States.

Yes skilled labor...but that's not what's coming over the border.

There are moral arguments which tend to emanate from a Rawlsian basis, and many of those I find compelling, though that isn't the crux of my argument.

Morality is based on emotions, not logic
Morals - Standards of behavior or beliefs on what actions are acceptable. Beliefs = feelings, not fact

With 30% of the nation's citizens unemployed or underemployed,
Where is this figure coming from? The headline unemployment rate is 5.3 percent, and several studies suggest that

The Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://www.bls.gov...

The U6 numbers they use for U6 are all people who want to work and want to work full-time. Look at the footnote just under U6 stats. Also, studies should never "suggest" they should prove.

and plenty of evidence that they increase incomes of natives, which would tend to reduce poverty.

Nobody said the illegals were welfare magnets but let's face it, for every 1 illegal getting a job, that's 1 more American on welfare. In easy math terms:

50 jobs available, 75 Americans unemployed; 75 - 50 = 25 Americans on welfare.
Next scenario;
50 jobs available, 75 Americans unemployed, 50 illegals given legal status;
(75+50) - 50 => (125-50)=75 people on welfare.

Increase the population, jobs stay stagnant or decrease equals higher unemployment rate...no matter if you have third world citizens or a population filled with Einsteins

25% of citizens (up to $24,999 salary) only paying a grand total of 3.1% tax rates,

I don't know where this figure comes from, but there is no way at face value that this is true.

http://pgpf.org...

Keep in mind, as this site states, they do NOT take into account all of the deductions, credits and other handouts for lower income individuals -- including the ability to be credited for sales tax. This particular site is for federal only as showing all 50 states would be cumbersome.

Taxes are VERY important. I don't know if you have ever worked for the first 25% or less than $25,000 salary, but when you do your taxes at the end of the year, you get them all back, then some. It's like another federally funded benefit...and guess whose pocket that comes out of.

First, I don't think this is a question of "injecting" 12 million people in the workforce. If we were to reform the immigration system, more immigrants might flock to the U.S.

This is the problem. Historically, we used to have a very small number of years where we accepted immigrants into the nation. We also had a very limited number of spots available. We would go say 3-5 years and let in say 100,000 immigrants, then we would close the border for 10-15 or so years. This kept a healthy balance between economy, job market and population. As of around the 1980's (I believe) we have just let the flood gates stay open, flooding the markets.

So where exactly would all these jobs appear from to support the increase in population?

so that we aren't stuck with a permanent underclass of citizens whom corporations can pay slave-labor wages.

E-Verify would fix that real fast...and the illegal problem

Second, there just isn't a case for deporting 11 million people

They are here illegally, they are inherently criminals, their families can join them if they want or they can apply as a sponsor to bring back their families legally, we can send the bill to their home nations for gross negligence. Remember, they ran ads telling their citizens if they made it to the U.S. illegally, Obama would give them amnesty.

Third, labor force growth has been tepid in recent years. The labor force is only growing by about 0.8 percent to 1 percent per year, and this is in part because of an aging population and the depth of the Great Recession. This has negative ramifications for productivity and long-term growth

Exactly the reason why we need to close up shop down south, get everyone out, and let America heal for a while; and it's not magic. Please explain where these jobs will magically com from

Fourth, immigration is good for the U.S. economy. A report from the Council of Economic Advisors found the following:

Don't let them fool you. Look, we've watched illegal immigration explode for almost 9 years under Obama now; where is this boom at? Even being illegal, by the logic of your source, they should be buying up houses, apartments, food, clothes, vehicles, etc. and our economy should be booming...it's not. So what's going to change exactly?

This would help with job creation, federal tax revenue, productivity, labor force (and subsequently labor force participation) and the long-term problem of Social Security and Medicare, since immigrants would pay payroll taxes.

You still ignore the same exact fact that is blindingly obvious and nauseatingly ignored: Where are these magic jobs going to appear from? The sky? Should we start sacrificing virgins to the Gods so they toss jobs from the sky?

Again, No jobs + 10.7% Americans unemployed + 12 million illegals given amnesty and looking for work = higher unemployment rate which = more subsidy dependence which = higher taxes to cover cost which = business owners raising costs, lowering wages and raising prices to cover losses

There's a study from the National Bureau of Economic Research finding that each new immigrant to the United States creates 1.2 new jobs:

LOL, again....HOW? Higher population does not equal more jobs...ask China

Here's another study finding in 20 different countries welfare gains of 1.25% to 1% from high-skilled and low-skilled immigration, respectively:

Did you even look at the countries listed in the research? Every one of them are going bankrupt, in fact Greece is imploding. The only ones on the list that have good economies are the ones listed as decreasing their immigrant population; which also coincidentally are the same nations that the EU blasted for denying another bailout for Greece.

Finally, here's a good article by Matt Yglesias of Vox: http://www.vox.com...

He cites a study from George Borjas, who is a skeptic on immigration. Even he finds that immigration reform would increase GDP by $1.6 trillion. Of that, 97.8 percent would go to the immigrants themselves, but the remaining 2.2 percent would go to native borns.

Again, how...how many virgins do we need to sacrifice to Apollo? And how does 2.2% to us and 97.8% to the immigrants help America...if you could magically produce jobs? Almost the entire 97.8% would get sent right back to friends and family in their native countries...it wouldn't get spent here.