(03-16-2016, 03:25 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Spot on post.
I honestly wish some of you (not mike) who are just casual observers of the immigration process. Please do some homework and talk to people who have done this process or even go to visa journey and get some info for yourselves. You can disregard this as a post from st Lucie and stay uninformed or you can take a little time and read up on the expierences from their forum if you don't believe me or even mike.
Morally speaking, I feel they all should be returned to their home countries.
Fiscally speaking, I think we would be ahead to keep people that were investigated and deemed good candidates for citizenship.
I also believe there should be quotas people coming from their respected regions.
Those already here and deemed good candidates should count against those quotas.
And as I stated earlier in the thread, all fees need to be paid as if they went through the process and determined fines should be applied/paid to remain.
(03-16-2016, 03:14 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Except this is pretty much all in your imagination. Many immigrants work hard in construction, lawn care, agriculture, and many other jobs. They are all not just sitting around 100% living on government benefits.
*sighs
Show me where I said that 100% of all Illegal Aliens are living off of government benefits, this is why it is so difficult to have a conversation with you, you constantly take one like out of context and try to make it absolute.
We're not talking about legal immigrants, we are talking about illegal immigrants.
Many Americans work hard in construction, lawn care, agriculture, and many other jobs as well, and pay taxes, what's your point?
I don't know why you have such a hard time with this, but there is no one job that illegals dominate in. [/url]
Basically that means that there are jobs that Americans aren't getting jobs because Illegals are working them. This is where we need to go after the Employer.
(03-16-2016, 04:14 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Morally speaking, I feel they all should be returned to their home countries.
Fiscally speaking, I think we would be ahead to keep people that were investigated and deemed good candidates for citizenship.
I also believe there should be quotas people coming from their respected regions.
Those already here and deemed good candidates should count against those quotas.
And as I stated earlier in the thread, all fees need to be paid as if they went through the process and determined fines should be applied/paid to remain.
I can live with this. This is basically the 1924 immigration policy. I would round up anyone who committed a crime and send them back operation wetback style.
What sucks for the legitimate people who want to follow the laws are getting the shaft because these illegals are able to enjoy the benefits without the sacrifice. I have zero respect for the illegals.
(03-16-2016, 04:49 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I can live with this. This is basically the 1924 immigration policy. I would round up anyone who committed a crime and send them back operation wetback style.
What sucks for the legitimate people who want to follow the laws are getting the shaft because these illegals are able to enjoy the benefits without the sacrifice. I have zero respect for the illegals.
Well..... reduced sacrifice, but I understand what you are saying.
I had also mentioned that fines may be reduced or eliminated with their help in rounding up illegals that were less than desirable.
I'd also waive any fines and fees, if one were to sign on to serve in the military.
If Trump were elected, I'd also waive them if they committed to help build "the wall".
(03-16-2016, 04:49 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I can live with this. This is basically the 1924 immigration policy. I would round up anyone who committed a crime and send them back operation wetback style.
I was reading something recently which made me think about you and your infatuation with the 1924 immigration policy. It was created and supported by the eugenicists you rail against for other things. It was their way of controlling the population externally while they worked on forced sterilization internally.
(03-16-2016, 04:55 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I was reading something recently which made me think about you and your infatuation with the 1924 immigration policy. It was created and supported by the eugenicists you rail against for other things. It was their way of controlling the population externally while they worked on forced sterilization internally.
Yes. But I am not trying to sterilize anyone. I do want an immigration policy which allows less in so we can get them assimilated properly. It's better for them and us. When they don't get assimilated they form their own areas and just integrate themselves and just add to the problems between groups we alread have within the black community.
2% per year based on native born legal citizens from that country is appropriate.
(03-16-2016, 04:55 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Well..... reduced sacrifice, but I understand what you are saying.
I had also mentioned that fines may be reduced or eliminated with their help in rounding up illegals that were less than desirable. I'd also waive any fines and fees, if one were to sign on to serve in the military.
If Trump were elected, I'd also waive them if they committed to help build "the wall".
I had also considered those as well, as for the wall though, Must work on wall for x amount of time and relatives can substitute for other relatives in order to allow them to remain at the home (ie have kids/Family).
but I really don't think we're gonna get a wall.
(03-16-2016, 05:51 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I had also considered those as well, as for the wall though, Must work on wall for x amount of time and relatives can substitute for other relatives in order to allow them to remain at the home (ie have kids/Family).
but I really don't think we're gonna get a wall.
Just a thought....
It would prove dedication and afford time for observation.
But yeah, I doubt a wall happens at all.
(03-16-2016, 05:58 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Just a thought....
It would prove dedication and afford time for observation.
But yeah, I doubt a wall happens at all.
I don't care about a wall. I would however want to round up illegal felons.
just throwing this out there since there's a few who think if illegal immigrants are granted amnesty, they'll be 11 million new people on welfare...
yall do realize most government aide, there are terms of prohibition. If you become a legal us citizen, it's years (5 in most cases) before they can become eligible to draw anything, including most food stamps. But I'm sure most of you knew that.
(03-16-2016, 06:10 PM)Benton Wrote: just throwing this out there since there's a few who think if illegal immigrants are granted amnesty, they'll be 11 million new people on welfare...
yall do realize most government aide, there are terms of prohibition. If you become a legal us citizen, it's years (5 in most cases) before they can become eligible to draw anything, including most food stamps. But I'm sure most of you knew that.
Links?
They were able to get 3 years of EIC right away thanks to a Loop Hole from Obama.
Why reward bad behavior? Blantant law breakers. And it's not like they didn't have a way to apply for legal citizenship.
Christian Baker refuses to make gay wedding cake run them out of business and break them financially because they might have broken a law. Even though it's murky at best. But if an illegal has broken an actual law for several years they are somehow forgiven and given a financial benefit to get citizenship with all past crimes forgiven.
Surprise, surprise; Census Bureau data reveals that most U.S. families headed by illegal immigrants use taxpayer-funded welfare programs on behalf of their American-born anchor babies. Even before the recession, immigrant households with children used welfare programs at consistently higher rates than natives, according to the extensive census data collected and analyzed by a nonpartisan Washington D.C. group dedicated to researching legal and illegal immigration in the U.S.
The results, published this month in a lengthy report, are hardly surprising. Basically, the majority of households across the country benefitting from publicly-funded welfare programs are headed by immigrants, both legal and illegal. States where immigrant households with children have the highest welfare use rates are Arizona (62%), Texas, California and New York with 61% each and Pennsylvania(59%).
The study focused on eight major welfare programs that cost the government $517 billion the year they were examined. They include Supplemental Security Income (SSI) for the disabled, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), a nutritional program known as Women, Infants and Children (WIC), food stamps, free/reduced school lunch, public housing and health insurance for the poor (Medicaid). Food assistance and Medicaid are the programs most commonly used by illegal immigrants, mainly on behalf of their American-born children who get automatic citizenship.
On the other hand, legal immigrant households take advantage of every available welfare program, according to the study, which attributes it to low education level and resulting low income. The highest rate of welfare recipients come from the Dominican Republic (82 %), Mexico and Guatemala (75%) and Ecuador (70%), according to the report, which says welfare use tends to be high for both new arrivals and established residents.
McNees contacted Judicial Watch after reading documents obtained by JW from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) detailing how the agency is working with the Mexican government to promote participation by illegal aliens in the U.S. food stamp program. The effort includes a Spanish-language flyer provided to the Mexican Embassy by the USDA ensuring that Mexicans in the U.S. don’t need to declare their immigration status to get financial assistance from Uncle Sam.
The average illegal immigrant is 34 years old. If he receives amnesty, he will receive government benefits for 50 years. Some amnesty proposals suggest restricting benefit access for the first 13 years after amnesty, but that limit would have little impact on long-term costs. Over the course of a lifetime, 11.5 million illegal immigrants granted amnesty would receive $9.4 trillion in government benefits after paying just $3.1 trillion in taxes.
Report: More than half of immigrants on welfare
7:21 p.m. EDT September 2, 2015
About 51% of immigrant-led households receive at least one kind of welfare benefit, including Medicaid, food stamps, school lunches and housing assistance, compared to 30% for native-led households, according to the report from the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that advocates for lower levels of immigration.
Those numbers increase for households with children, with 76% of immigrant-led households receiving welfare, compared to 52% for the native-born.
Quote:“If you’ve been in America for more than five years; if you have children who are American citizens or legal residents; if you register, pass a criminal background check, and you’re willing to pay your fair share of taxes -- you’ll be able to apply to stay in this country temporarily without fear of deportation. You can come out of the shadows and get right with the law. That’s what this deal is.”
Personally, if you're partaking in a loophole that allows you to draw extra money, you're part of the problem, and I'm not really sure what you're complaining about. It's like when Republicans complain about waste, then claim gambling losses or racehorses or yachts. If you're benefiting from the system, you don't have much room to complain.
Personally, if you're partaking in a loophole that allows you to draw extra money, you're part of the problem, and I'm not really sure what you're complaining about. It's like when Republicans complain about waste, then claim gambling losses or racehorses or yachts. If you're benefiting from the system, you don't have much room to complain.
Thanks for links. I will spending more time reading it tomorrow and look for my link about EIC.
But from a quick glance, their is exceptions listed, the key one being humanitarian reasons, so that leaves it up to the discretion of the case workers unless i read that part wrong.
(03-16-2016, 06:53 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I can't find anything that resembles what you are saying. Are you sure that you aren't visiting another one of those "debunked" sites again?
Just more proof that you live in an echo chamber that does not include any info that contradicts your opinion.
I found it in about 5 seconds, but I guess you would not accept information from the official site of the Department of Healtrh and Hiuman services
Basically, the majority of households across the country benefitting from publicly-funded welfare programs are headed by immigrants, both legal and illegal.
Basically this is a complete lie.
Only a very small percentage of households across the country benefiting from publicly-funded welfare programs are headed by immigrants, either legal or illegal.
Someone does not know how to read the study that was cited.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
