Went back a couple pages, couldn't find it.

Let's say you're right: they don't pay taxes. Here's a wild idea: naturalize them and let them pay taxes. Most of them already have jobs. They all apparently want (or wanted) to stay.

The "use the resources for Americans" argument doesn't really make sense when we all know that money will go straight to the wealthy in the form of tax cuts in six months or corporate tax cuts for corporations that have trillions in cash on-hand because they have so much they don't know what to do with it.

I realize that the people here are cold and mostly calculating, and that gets ruthless from time to time. Why don't we let these kids stay? This isn't about executive actions -- Trump has made enough of them so far that show he giveth no fucks. This isn't about respect for the rule of law -- the man just pardoned Arpaio. It's about his base, who he is doing nothing for but wants to show that he is.

Granting citizenship to those born within the country was a pretty revolutionary thing for the framers to do. For context, it wasn't even until the 1990's or so that Germany switched to such a system. The framers did it out of compassion and a sense of brotherhood and patriotism. Everybody in this country is pretty much from immigration, and the ones who aren't we fucked worst. For us to then turn around and hold that over the heads of Dreamers... perverse.

Then, again, we're in the age of Trump.

Posts 38, 40 and 46, along with a few in between.

So, they pay state and local taxes but are ineligible for benefits from the government... and you argue we should spend billions of dollars to deport them all? The Dreamers, right?

Is that the gist? Cause that's what I read, and that makes no financial sense.

This post was edited by Interesting on Sep 5 2017 06:13pm

I'm not "arguing" anything. Just pointing out the math.
Also, I don't know where you get "billions of dollars to deport them" either.

Except since DACA border crossings and illegal immigration have continued to go down at record rates. You're giving your analogy, but the results we have seen before us are the exact opposite



You're ignoring the part about how 75% of them are paying into Social Security, which is an entitlement they never benefit from. This is exactly what I've been talking about, people rejecting the reality in front of us so they can substitute their own. The fact of the matter is illegal immigrants are not given the same entitlements as legal residents, the only services that illegals are entitled to are at the local level, emergency room services, and in some places public schools. If these immigrants really were the financial drain that you claim they are, then the so called sanctuary cities would be the first places advocating for their removal. Instead we're seeing the exact opposite, the places that have a significant number of illegal residents (which would be the places paying the bulk of the expenses) are the ones advocating for having them stay.

This post was edited by TCassa89 on Sep 5 2017 07:24pm

The article is dated March 1, 2016...the start of the campaigning, more or less.


Here is a quote from the article...

The institute's report estimates about a third of such immigrants nationally are homeowners, subjecting them to property tax payments. Another 50 percent are believed to pay income taxes. And as much as 75 percent of the population is believed to pay into the U.S. Social Security system (a system of benefits they wouldn't be eligible to receive anyway unless they became U.S. citizens).


Sorry but during an election year, I'd want to see more that guesses pulled out of thin air.
Also, that quote is about illegal immigrants, NOT the 800,000 Dreamers.

It's not a guess, it is an analysis. It is better to base decisions on an analysis than to base decisions on assumptions.. always

This post was edited by TCassa89 on Sep 5 2017 08:05pm

Using a broken scale won't help you lose weight.

Yes, analysis is better than assumption. But facts are even better than analysis.
Here is the whole paragraph...




They switched the gist of the article in the middle. First they talked about Dreamers, then switched to talking about illegal immigrants.

Notice also, they use the words estimates and believed. If you were buying a car would you accept terms like "estimates" and "believed"? Then why would you, in an article about something this important?
Yes sir, this car is "believed" to have a 530cc engine.

The number of illegals currently in the United states is an estimate.

Oh, but that's not convenient is it? You would have to criticize trump for taking an estimate seriously.