Immigration Reform

[Eileen Sellers]

Here are my thoughts and both parts of the subject:

Immigration Reform
By Eileen Sellers


There should be clear and sufficient benefits to becoming a US Citizen. An American citizen should have the highest and best benefits in their country. There should be clear and sufficient differences between citizens and non-citizens. At the present time the only difference is the right to vote. It is our duty to make sure that the laws by which we govern ourselves benefit the citizens of the country.


1. Babies born in the US are not automatically US citizens. The child would only be a citizen if the mother of the child is a citizen or married to a citizen. The undocumented mother (and child,if that is the case) would be returned home to her country of origin.

2. All non- citizens are visitors, and are entitled to the rights of visitors, until such time as they become citizens.


3. Green Cards for permanent residents would have a 7yr and 6month expiration date. During the last 6months the resident alien would have to apply for citizenship or leave the country at the end of the term. No re-application during the following 10 years. This will allow slots for those who want to become citizens.

4. Non -citizens would pay a flat tax. After becoming a citizen they would be eligible for tax deductions. This would improve the yield on our tax base, without increasing taxes for citizens. The government could easily check on the legal status of the worker by the tax document.

5. Non -citizens would have to pay for public education and health care and other social services.

6. Non- citizens are not eligible for social security. Social security is available to them from their country of origin, as is schooling and medical care.

7. Legal permanent residents currently in the country would be exempt from the 7year rule, but will revert to the flat tax and social security benefits would be frozen at the cut off point when the tax law changes. This will encourage existing permanent residents to apply for citizenship when they are eligible.

8. Illegal immigrants will be promptly returned the country of origin at the expense of the employer if one is involved.

9. Companies employing un-documented workers will be fined 1% of their gross sales per incident.

10. Illegal immigrants will be banned from applying for legal entry for 10 years. If caught a 2nd time felony charges will apply with jail time involved, before being return to their country.


What to do with the current Illegals.

1 Due to the huge number of illegals from Mexico no green card will be issued to anyone from Mexico for then next 20 years beginning immediately.

2 Current illegals in the country will have 6months to identify themselves, and register for a green card which will be valid for 7years and 6months. At the end of the term, they must apply for citizenship or leave the country.

3 They must be employed full time, speak English and have no criminal record.

4 They are not eligible for un-employment benefits or any benefits associate with citizenship until they are citizens.

5 They will not be allowed to sponsor any other person coming into the country.

6 If they fail to register they will be promptly deported.

7 The companies of these workers will pay a $5,000.00 fine per worker, which will be used for the public schools in that state.

[deangreenhoe]

All I can say is that I'm absolutely speechless. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[john225]

Eileen, you had me in total agreement with you until you hit upon the 20 year moritorium(sp) on green cards/immigration from Mexico for 20 years.

While I tend to agree that most of the illegal immigration problem in the US is with Mexican nationals, I don't think that you can use blanket penalization for everyone in the country. Other than that, I think you have some good ideas.

[Arkstfan]

Originally posted by Eileen Sellers@May 1 2006, 05:45 PM
1. Babies born in the US are not automatically US citizens. The child would only be a citizen if the mother of the child is a citizen or married to a citizen. The undocumented mother (and child,if that is the case) would be returned home to her country of origin.*

There is a pesky little document called the United States Constitution that would have to be altered to make that happen. Besides that under YOUR rule if I were married to a woman who is a foreign national my children would not be US citizens. But if I were a foreign national and my wife a US citizen my kids would be US citizens. Small equal protection problem.

2. All non- citizens are visitors, and are entitled to the rights of visitors, until such time as they become citizens.

I've no problem with lesser rights for non-citizens or better stated, lesser due process rights.

3. Green Cards for permanent residents would have a 7yr and 6month expiration date. During the last 6months the resident alien would have to apply for citizenship or leave the country at the end of the term. No re-application during the following 10 years. This will allow slots for those who want to become citizens.

Interesting idea. Very interesting.

4. Non -citizens would pay a flat tax. After becoming a citizen they would be eligible for tax deductions. This would improve the yield on our tax base, without increasing taxes for citizens. The government could easily check on the legal status of the worker by the tax document.

Eh not such a good idea. First of all its an enforcement nightmare. I'm in tax enforcement and you don't want this headache. Second you just created an enormous incentive for some professional positions to outsource directly to foreign states. An Indian computer engineer will stay home for less pay if the tax system works better for him. Further you've provided a disincentive for foreign nationals to not reside here. Many in the entertainment industry live here because of our favorable tax structure. If it is not to their advantage to record their songs or make their films in the US you've created an additional incentive to move those businesses off-shore.


5. Non -citizens would have to pay for public education and health care and other social services.

Education is typically funded mostly via property tax, if the foreign national owns or rents property in the US he/she is already paying for public education. If employed legally he/she is already paying for our health services and other social services via the payroll taxes for FICA and Medicare. With the exception of students or the unemployed, you are asking non-citizens to pay twice rather than just once.


6. Non- citizens are not eligible for social security. Social security is available to them from their country of origin, as is schooling and medical care.

OK so they work and they pay for social security but they don't get it.

1 Due to the huge number of illegals from Mexico no green card will be issued to anyone from Mexico for then next 20 years beginning immediately.

Guilt by association?

2 Current illegals in the country will have 6months to identify themselves, and register for a green card which will be valid for 7years and 6months. At the end of the term, they must apply for citizenship or leave the country.
This conflicts with #1 above.


3 They must be employed full time, speak English and have no criminal record.

Vast number of current Americans are the descendants of people who couldn't meet all three of those criteria. Thank goodness they got in early. Of course speaking English is a vital skill for killing chickens.

4 They are not eligible for un-employment benefits or any benefits associate with citizenship until they are citizens.

Once again you want to steal from these people. You make them help pay the tax but won't let them get the benefits of THEIR tax dollars.

[john225]

Originally posted by Arkstfan@May 10 2006, 10:16 AM
There is a pesky little document called the United States Constitution that would have to be altered to make that happen. Besides that under YOUR rule if I were married to a woman who is a foreign national my children would not be US citizens. But if I were a foreign national and my wife a US citizen my kids would be US citizens. Small equal protection problem.
Once again you want to steal from these people. You make them help pay the tax but won't let them get the benefits of THEIR tax dollars.
25996



Constitutional amendment. There are lots of them. I agree that if the father is a US citizen then the child should be one also.

The employee does not pay un-employment tax, the employer does.

[deangreenhoe]

Of course speaking English is a vital skill for killing chickens.


Sorry, but this one really made me laugh for some reason. :lol:

I have a million jokes in my head but I won't muddy up the topic.

But on a more serious note, I really don't think learning at least basic English is such a bad thing to encourage. Like it or not, it's become the accepted language of international communication and commerce. Doing so would open up far more opportunites in the employment arena for immigrants. By not doing so, any immigrant is forced to live in an insular "society within a society" and never truly integrates into the merry culture of their new home. To me it's a more practical rather than emotional (or civil rights) issue.

[ARTraveler]

Eileen - I like your ideas.

Arkstfan - property owners pay property/school taxes. If the property owner rents out the property, it's still the property owner who pays the tax. I'm sure it is figured in the rent, but the renter's name usually doesn't appear on the property tax list. I've been in all three categories - renter, slumlord (but we really tried to do right by our tenants!) and homeowner in several different states - so if it's different out there somewhere, mea culpa!

[Eileen Sellers]

Perhaps we shouldn't call it a flat tax. Perhaps we could term it residency dues.

When they become citizens then they can pay tax.

Besides that under YOUR rule if I were married to a woman who is a foreign national my children would not be US citizens. But if I were a foreign national and my wife a US citizen my kids would be US citizens. Small equal protection problem

If the man a US citizen and married to a foreign national, the child is a US citizen.

If the man is a US citizen married to an illegal national, then he has a choice.
a. raise his family in his wife's country until she can immigrate legally, in which case the children can get to know mom's family, which would be nice for them.

b. raise his child here by himself until she can immigrate.
There are plenty of US citizens living abroad and raising families, it's not a problem.


Actually, this wouldn't be a problem at all if the US used civil union licenses instead of marriage licenses. The civil union license can be legislated where as a marriage license can't. But that is another subject.

I know it sounds mean to ban Mexico from further green cards, but the numbers are staggering. The US generally allows 200,000 per year for immigration, that is across all nations. Mexico has 15-20 million illegals in the US. So they are well over all limits and have used future limits. 20 years probably isn't long enough.
However, if the Mexican government would help enforce border control, then maybe 10 years would be fine.

OK so they work and they pay for social security but they don't get it.

They don't need to work for social security, they can get social security from their
home country. The country that they pledge allegiance to.

When they become citizens then they would be eligible for social security.
Why should we pay for social security for a non-citizen? If all the non-citizens were off the social security roll, we probably wouldn't have a social security crisis.
It just doesn't make any sense.

[clarkef]

There are 4 issues besides the ones that Arkstfan so wonderfully articulated

1. Why should citizenship automatical flow from the American mother under all circumstances, but not from the American Father.

2. How can we justify making someone pay social security tax but denying them its benefits.

3. You have to pay into social security to get social security. Social security is currently running a surplus. You cannot blame illegals for any social security issues.

4. While it may seem sexy to deny illegal immigrants education and other services, you must consider the overal public benefit. I would rather have the illegals in school and meaningfully occupied and invested in the community that hanging out at the street corner waiting to become gangbangers. Similarly, I would rather provide health coverage than see an epidemic like TB ravage our communities

[Ned]

Originally posted by clarkef@May 10 2006, 06:01 PM
There are 4 issues besides the ones that Arkstfan so wonderfully articulated

1.* Why should citizenship automatical flow from the American mother under all circumstances, but not from the American Father.

2.* How can we justify making someone pay social security tax but denying them its benefits.

3. You have to pay into social security to get social security. Social security is currently running a surplus. You cannot blame illegals for any social security issues.

4. While it may seem sexy to deny illegal immigrants education and other services, you must consider the overal public benefit.* I would rather have the illegals in school and meaningfully occupied and invested in the community that hanging out at the street corner waiting to become gangbangers. Similarly, I would rather provide health coverage than see an epidemic like TB ravage our communities
26033

Hi Clarke,

1. Before DNA testing to determine parenthood, there was no reasonable way to prove a man was the father in court. Proving motherhood was easy. It was whose uterus the kid came from. These concepts actually originated from "Halakah", loosely meaning legal interpretations of the ancient law from the first 5 books of the Bible (Genesis through Deuteronomy). Now that we can successfully determine paternity via DNA testing I agree that a if a child is automatically a US Citizen if the mother is a citizen, then the same should be true if the father is a US Citizen.

2. I agree with you, I don't think we should deny someone Social Security benefits if we require them to pay the Social Security taxes.

3. I think you're right about not blaming illegal aliens for the problems of Social Security, however, whether the SS system is currently running a surplus at this time, I think is irrelevant to any questions at hand about immigration or tax issues. If we are going to place blame for Social Security's problems, I think can blame every President and member of Congress at the time of the creation of Medicare and since then. By the way, my problem is not with Medicare per se, but about how it is funded and by how much it is funded. Since then, our government has made one bonehead, wrong-headed Social Security decision after another, and has never halted the double dipping increase of Social Security benefits without commensurate increases in taxes, due to a lack of indexing. This ensures severe future problems of paying benefits once a significant number of baby boomers have retired, and are collecting their Social Security benefits. Of course, their are other things the Presidents and Congress have done or not done, which have severely impaired the future of Social Security benefits too.

4. I would agree with your assessment here except I rather send most home. I also think our "family policy" of giving absolute priority to "family members" to become legal immigrants makes no sense. The priority for immigration should be skills we need for jobs here, with "family" only a secondary priority. Wholesale amnesty makes no sense whatsoever to me. There should be a critically created set of requirements for an illegal to get amnesty, and once we create, then finish the amnesty period, all new illegals and remaining illegals should be deported. I do think once this has been pretty well cleared up, we should raise the number of immigrants we accept each year, and make it a skills needed lottery without regard to country of origin. I have other ideas about this, but it would take too long to type them in and too much space on the server, so I'll leave it at this.

[weblet]

Just an FYI regarding education funding. Here in MI education is not funded mainly thru property taxes, but through state sales taxes. As you can imagine, with the economy being in the crapper, the schools are having an immensely hard time....

[clarkef]

Originally posted by Ned@May 10 2006, 06:35 PM
4. I would agree with your assessment here except I rather send most home.* I also think our "family policy" of giving absolute priority to "family members" to become legal immigrants makes no sense.* 26035

We in agreement at 87.5 percent. I think that's a new record for me.
Philisophically, I have no problem with sending illegals home. Practically it can't happen. 10-14 million people is far too many for a round-up. I would also be concerned about that we would effectively be turning US citizens of Mexican heritage into 2nd class citizens since that would be the targetted community via profiling. I can see the posts, a la the terrorism thread, "Hey, I'm a blond American, why are you checking my citizenship status."

Another concern is that immigration is a federal perogative, education is a state concern. Until such time as the feds determine what to do with illegals, I think it is on our best interest to try to bring these people into society. Not that we have a moral obligation to do so, but in both the short term and long term, its much cheaper to educate than incarcerate.

I can understand the outrage over the family policy and it needs to be revised. Again, the reasoning is that people with families tend to form much more stable communities which is better for America than broken families.

[Ned]

Originally posted by clarkef@May 11 2006, 08:57 AM
We in agreement at 87.5 percent.* I think that's* a new record for me.*
Philisophically, I have no problem with sending illegals home.* Practically it can't happen.* 10-14 million people is far too many for a round-up.* I would also be concerned about that we would effectively be turning US citizens of Mexican heritage into 2nd class citizens since that would be the targetted community via profiling. I can see the posts, a la the terrorism thread, "Hey, I'm a blond American, why are you checking my citizenship status."

Another concern is that immigration is a federal perogative, education is a state concern.* Until such time as the feds determine what to do with illegals, I think it is on our best interest to try to bring these people into society. Not that we have a moral obligation to do so, but in both the short term and long term, its much cheaper to educate than incarcerate.

I can understand the outrage over the family policy and it needs to be revised.* Again, the reasoning is that people with families tend to form much more stable communities which is better for America than broken families.
26058

I know that we won't be sending most of the illegals home. It isn't practical. I do resent how they're going to get citizenship and that so many Mexican Americans are not really integrating themselves into American society. I especially see this in their reluctance to learn and use English. If I was a Mexican American I would be totally unwilling to give up Spanish, but I would want to learn and use English too. If they really want to be a citizen of the country, then they must truly be part of this country, in my opinion.

I agree with you about bringing these illegals into our society while they are here, and to make sure we don't shut them out of education. I agree because we, as a nation, will be better off if we do this.

As far as the "family policy" being our immigration policy, I don't resent that, I just think it's wrong headed. It doesn't particularly help this country as other criteria would. I would make "family" a secondary criteria, not a primary criteria.

Finally, I think it would be impossible for us to always disagree, just some of the time. :rolleyes:

[bodega]

The point mentioned that illegal immigration is a Federal issue and not a state or local one was a surprise to me a few years ago. I live in the CA wine country. Everyday in certain locations we have Mexican men who gather along roads hoping for work. Near my home we have a fire station across the road from one of these areas of congregation and I had often seen a sheriff deputy's car sitting in the driveway. I couldn't figure out why this wouldn't frighten the men and make them scatter, until I learned that the cost of arresting an illegal is high and the
US government doesn't pay the county to cover these costs. As in many areas, money is tight and they have decided on which battles to fight and immigration isn't it.

The US Government makes laws, such as the No Child Left Behind and state and local officals are expected to enforce such laws, but the bottom line is that money becomes the issue. Be it immigration or education, without proper funding, we get the usual, rob Peter to pay Paul situation and something ends up being on the back burner or not addressed fully to not addressed at all.

[Eileen Sellers]

but the bottom line is that money becomes the issue

Money is the immediate issue. Quality of life is an issue. It is more important that the current citizens of the United States and the future citizens of the United States have their interests put first.

If we put the money issue first, then the rest of the problem is pretty easy.

The stumbling block is that we keep trying to solve the unpleasant consequences of breaking the law before we try to find a way to make the law work for the citizens. Our lawmakers and politicians seem to think that permanent residents, and citizens are the same. And the permanent residents seem to think so too.
And we are not, and our laws need to reflect the difference.

Getting an ammendment to the constitution to change the instant baby citizen will take time. In the meantime we can and should take care of the money.

We can implement a law that NCR (non-citizen residents) do not pay any tax. They pay "resident fees". This fee can be a fixed percentage of their income. In addition to residenst fees, those who need school can pay a fee to the school that they will attend. Whereas, those NCR who don't need school aren't paying unnecessarily. The local government can set the fee to be collected for schools.

[clarkef]

Originally posted by Eileen Sellers+May 11 2006, 01:51 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Eileen Sellers @ May 11 2006, 01:51 PM)</div>
Getting an ammendment to the constitution to change the instant baby citizen will take time.
26119
[/b]

The last amendment took over 200 years.
<!--QuoteBegin-Eileen Sellers@May 11 2006, 01:51 PM
We can implement a law that NCR (non-citizen residents) do not pay any tax. They pay "resident fees". This fee can be a fixed percentage of their income.
26119


That's bogus. Its still a tax any way you slice it. Besides everyone pays taxes on income earned in the US regardless of your citizenship status. That's because as an illegal or permanent resident, you use many of the same services that citizens use.

Originally posted by Eileen Sellers@May 11 2006, 01:51 PM
In addition to residenst fees, those who need school can pay a fee to the school that they will attend. Whereas, those NCR who don't need school aren't paying unnecessarily.
26119

Yet citizens have to pay for schools regardless of whether they have children or not. Why give non-citizens better breaks?

[Eileen Sellers]

That's bogus. Its still a tax any way you slice it. Besides everyone pays taxes on income earned in the US regardless of your citizenship status. That's because as an illegal or permanent resident, you use many of the same services that citizens use.

Exactly! That's why we have to change the way it is. It's not bogus to charge NCR a flat fee to reside in the country. Nor is it bogus to charge NCR a fee to use our schools. As to the illegals, it will go a long way to stopping them. Schools being the big stopper. They would have to pay whether they are legal or illegal.

NCR with no children, still pay the NCR fee. For the purposes of discussion, let's set the fee at 10% of their income. This is pure revenue for our country.

It is important to recognize that the United States of America isn't Disneyland for the rest of the world. They can't immigrate here without becoming a citizen. We have to change that part of the immigration law.

[trojan]

Check your Con Law, folks.

The current (and long time precedent) is a Supreme Court decision. There is no direct language in the Constitution regarding the status of a "home born" person.

All that is needed is a successful challenge of the law. An amendment is not required.

[clarkef]

Originally posted by Eileen Sellers@May 11 2006, 04:33 PM
Exactly! That's why we have to change the way it is. It's not bogus to charge NCR a flat fee to reside in the country. Nor is it bogus to charge NCR a fee to use our schools. As to the illegals, it will go a long way to stopping them. Schools being the big stopper. They would have to pay whether they are legal or illegal.

NCR with* no children, still pay the NCR fee.
26129

I don't even know where to begin

1. Calling a tax a resident fee doesn't change it from being a tax. There is nothing wrong with imposing an additional tax by virtue of one's citizenship status, but let's not be dishonest and try to pretend that its not a tax.

2. As to stopping illegals, that's just not true. Illegals come here first and foremost for jobs. Schools, healthcare, etc. are gravy. As long as employers hire illegals, they will come. Period.

3. Again, if US citizens have to pay for schools where they have children or not. NCR's (to use your term) w/o children get a break that US taxpayers do not. Hardly seems fair, or even consistent with your other positions.

I strongly believe that the US immigration policy should first and foremost consider what is best for the US, not what's best for Mexico, Canada, or BF Egypt.

We need to 1) secure the board; 2)Integrate those people who are already here, not because they deserve it, but because the logistics of mass deportations would be a nightmare and probably not best for the US.

[Ned]

Originally posted by clarkef@May 12 2006, 02:48 AM
I don't even know where to begin

1. Calling a tax a resident fee doesn't change it from being a tax. There is nothing wrong with imposing an additional* tax by virtue of one's citizenship status, but let's not be dishonest and try to pretend that its not a tax.

2. As to stopping illegals, that's just not true.* Illegals come here first and foremost for jobs. Schools, healthcare, etc. are gravy. As long as employers hire illegals, they will come. Period.

3. Again, if US citizens have to pay for schools where they have children or not.* NCR's (to use your term) w/o children get a break that US taxpayers do not. Hardly seems fair, or even consistent with your other positions.

I strongly believe that the US immigration policy should first and foremost consider what is best for the US, not what's best for Mexico, Canada, or BF Egypt.

We need to 1) secure the board; 2)Integrate those people who are already here, not because they deserve it, but because the logistics of mass deportations would be a nightmare and probably not best for the US.
26144

Clarke, I agree with everything you've said here. Lou Dobbs in a column yesterday said, referring to the Bush government, "But here is the official record of your sense of duty: 318 employers out of five and a half million in this country have been fined for hiring illegal aliens since 2001. In 2004, only three employers were fined. That is a dismal record, Mr. President, as dismal as the fact that the number of ICE agents assigned to enforce immigration laws in the workplace has declined from only 240 back in 1999 to now less than 100."

We could enforce our immigration laws, but our government has decided not to enforce them. The Bush government has basically said to Mexicans, in particular, "Come on In. Thumb your nose at US laws. We want illegal immigrants pouring into our country." The place for enforcement is at the businesses that hire illegals. If we stop illegals from getting jobs then we stop the vast majority illegals from coming here in my opinion.

I want to emphasize your last point. "US immigration policy should first and foremost consider what is best for the US."

[Kairho]

Originally posted by trojan@May 11 2006, 05:44 PM
Check your Con Law, folks.*

The current (and long time precedent) is a Supreme Court decision.* There is no direct language in the Constitution regarding the status of a "home born" person.

All that is needed is a successful challenge of the law.* An amendment is not required.
26130

Uh, the Fourteenth Amendment... "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

[Eileen Sellers]

We need to 1) secure the board; 2)Integrate those people who are already here, not because they deserve it, but because the logistics of mass deportations would be a nightmare and probably not best for the US.

Secure the border yes, integrate illegals no. What is best for the US is what is best for US Citizens. It would be best if we overhaul our immigration policy. Unitl then those that are here illegally, stay illegal.

You would allow 15 million illegals to tell us that because they "pay tax like everyone else" (which they shouldn't pay tax like everone else) and work they can be here illegally. That they can demonstate in our streets and tell us to accept it "or else". Quite frankly, I'm willing to deal in the "what else" category.

If we are afraid to deal with the consequences of illegal action, then why have any laws at all?

People demanding rights that they don't have and then threatening us with "or else" just doesn't cut it. It's un-American.

So we have to devise new ways to revamp the system and we can do it with our vote. The same vote that visitors don't have. It's a big difference. We need to upgrade the value of citizenship so the country can move forward.

As for tax, I don't care what it is called, but people who simply reside here should pay for the privilege. In fact if we could think of a way for our visitors to pay for enough, then we could eliminate income tax for middle class citizens. I bet everyone who could vote, would vote yes for that.

[clarkef]

If your reply is to my post, then you didn't read it at all. Even the portion that you quoted is contrary to your reply.

I never suggested that illegals should dictate American policy. Quite the contrary, I stated quite clearly that American immigration policy should be based solely on what's best for the US.

I also stated that the reason for integrating the 10-14M illegals is for the benefit of American society, not the benefit of the illegals. For example, the presence of illegals hurt working class Americans as they can be paid much lower wages than Americans. Numerous studies indicate that illegals depress working class wages by as much as 10 percent. It also contributes to unemployment of the working class. Why hire an American at minumum wage who knows his rights, when you can hire an illegal, pay him less than minimum wage, and he won't complain.

As far as taxes go, illegals should pay taxes like everyone else. However, if someone is paying taxes, it is difficult to deny them the benefit of those tax dollars.

As far as demonstrating goes, who cares.

[Arkstfan]

To catch up.

Renters pay the property tax to the owner in the form of rent. If you can't get enough rent to cover that you let the bank have the building (see. S&L disaster in United States).

In a state that relies on sales tax to fund education even illegals are paying for education unless they are buying out-of-state.

English shouldn't be mandatory though self-interest ought to lead folks to learn it.

Lastly what everyone seems to miss is that our green card system isn't coming close to responding to the need.

The current system favors computer engineers, other engineers, doctors and nurses. The illegals ain't in those fields. They are the ones killing chickens for Tyson, and putting a roof on your neighbor's house or mowing their lawn or laying sod.

Congress has shown little hesitancy to allow foreign nationals to compete with citizens for high paying skilled jobs and little inclination to help resolve the labor shortages in the unskilled markets. We have taken the position that low skill labor is to be paid a low wage and we will pay a low price for those services.

Either the market has to change so that we can get citizens and legal residents to pick tomatos, pluck chickens, and lay sod by paying higher wages and higher prices or we have to legalize the illegals doing the work.

[bodega]

Either the market has to change so that we can get citizens and legal residents to pick tomatos, pluck chickens, and lay sod by paying higher wages and higher prices or we have to legalize the illegals doing the work.
__________________________________________________
This is an interesting comment coming from a board where many people book their travel online and do not want certain services so their fare is kept low :unsure: Here in the US, what people want but want they are willing to shell out from their wallets is often like night and day.

[Arkstfan]

Originally posted by bodega@May 13 2006, 11:51 AM
Either the market has to change so that we can get citizens and legal residents to pick tomatos, pluck chickens, and lay sod by paying higher wages and higher prices or we have to legalize the illegals doing the work.
__________________________________________________
This is an interesting comment coming from a board where many people book their travel online and do not want certain services so their fare is kept low :unsure:* Here in the US, what people want but want they are willing to shell out from their wallets is often like night and day.
26240


Actually a logical comment to me.

If you want cheap chicken nuggets then you have to have an open immigration system. If you want a closed system then a trip to the store means you pay more to buy a tomato.

If I want an agent's service I pay for it. If it's a simple booking and I want cheap, I do it myself take on the hassles and don't expect silver platter service.

[clarkef]

Originally posted by Arkstfan+May 13 2006, 09:43 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Arkstfan @ May 13 2006, 09:43 AM)</div>To catch up.

Renters pay the property tax to the owner in the form of rent. If you can't get enough rent to cover that you let the bank have the building (see. S&L disaster in United States).

In a state that relies on sales tax to fund education even illegals are paying for education unless they are buying out-of-state.
26229
[/b]

Absolutely.
Originally posted by Arkstfan@May 13 2006, 09:43 AM
English shouldn't be mandatory though self-interest ought to lead folks to learn it.
26229


I'm going to have to disagree. In a nation of immigrants from every corner of the world, English is one of the things that bind us together as Americans and enriches our lives. People who do not speak English cannot become part of the larger society and we end up with little ethnic enclaves. Even more onerous, children who do not learn English will be denied entry into most high paying occupations.

Originally posted by Arkstfan@May 13 2006, 09:43 AM
Lastly what everyone seems to miss is that our green card system isn't coming close to responding to the need.

The current system favors computer engineers, other engineers, doctors and nurses. 26229


If you are talking about the H1B program, that's a non-immigrant visa program. By itself that program does not lead to citizenship.


Originally posted by Arkstfan@May 13 2006, 09:43 AM
The illegals ain't in those fields. They are the ones killing chickens for Tyson, and putting a roof on your neighbor's house or mowing their lawn or laying sod.26229

True


Originally posted by Arkstfan@May 13 2006, 09:43 AM
We have taken the position that low skill labor is to be paid a low wage and we will pay a low price for those services. 26229

Low skill labor gets paid a low wage because of the oversupply of labor (legal and illegal combined).

<!--QuoteBegin-Arkstfan@May 13 2006, 09:43 AM
Either the market has to change so that we can get citizens and legal residents to pick tomatos, pluck chickens, and lay sod by paying higher wages and higher prices or we have to legalize the illegals doing the work.
26229

Part of the problem is that the presence of illegals makes it harder for unskilled Americans to get work. As I previously pointed out, research suggests that illegals depress wages by about 10 percent. Which makes sense. Why hire an American who knows his rights when you can hire an illegal who will work harder and will never complain

The belief that Americans won't do the work is just silly. Latins are the largest immigrant group and accordingly get the most press. But the minute you leave the West Coast, you notice that there are many places where others groups do the work. Some by Americans, other by other immigrant, but legal, groups.

[BarkingLeopard]

Originally posted by Arkstfan@May 13 2006, 10:43 AM
English shouldn't be mandatory though self-interest ought to lead folks to learn it.
26229


The debate over whether English should be mandatory is similar to the debate going on in some universities, where ethnic minorities often receive criticism for "self-segregating" themselves, i.e. interacting primarily with those of their own race/nationality.

I agree with much of what Clark says, with the exception of the language requirement. Arkstfan is right on with that one: people who are at all amibitious for a better life (and what immigrant isn't) will quickly realize that English skills are the key to it.

IMHO, America is NOT (and I cannot stress this enough) a "melting pot", as the old analogy goes, but rather more of a salad bowl. From a distance, it all looks the same, but as you get closer you see that no matter how finely you chop or mix it, there are still distinct groups in our society (class, ethnicity, race, nationality, etc, etc). This will probably always happen, and always be this way, and it adds flavor (continuing with the food analogy here) to the table of American society.

While I would again recommend learning English (as well becoming better educated) as the key to a better life for immigrants (actually, to anyone, no matter where they live), I don't think that it should be mandatory for citizens to know it, and you can bet that the 2nd and 3rd generation Americans are going to know it quite well. I value American's many distinct cultures (go to Chinatown in San Fran on a Saturday morning and you'll understand), and believe that forcing English down people's throats will lead to the loss of some of these more colorful aspects of America, as well as increased resentment by our new fellow citizens for American culture.

Also, I heard somewhere (sorry, forgot where, might have been the WSJ) that many immigrants are giving up decent jobs in Mexico because they want a better (higher-paying) job in the USA. As long as this wage difference in relatively unskilled labor is substantial (high enough to be worth the risk of getting caught), people will flee Mexico and Mexican jobs because of it. It's just a really big example of the Invisible Hand working itself out across borders.

Finally, while I do not know what the crime rates are for illegals (anyone want to dig up some reliable stats on this?), I'm suprised that no one appears to have brought homeland security into this. I enjoy relatively "hassle-free" borders (if by "hassle free" you mean waiting in line 30-40 minutes on the highway and talking to the Customs people for a few minutes before you cross into or out of Canada, but I'll take it), but what strikes me is that it would probably not be substantially more difficult to smuggle in a SAM (or small WMD, or ..., you get the idea) than to smuggle in a person. On the corollary, we have put a lot of money and manpower into guarding borders that isn't available for our other wars (or for the private sector), so there are costs to this as well. Anyhow, something to discuss further here.

[clarkef]

Originally posted by BarkingLeopard@May 14 2006, 10:28 PM
The debate over whether English should be mandatory is similar to the debate going on in some universities, where ethnic minorities often receive criticism for "self-segregating" themselves, i.e. interacting primarily with those of their own race/nationality.

I agree with much of what Clark says, with the exception of the language requirement.* Arkstfan is right on with that one: people who are at all amibitious for a better life (and what immigrant isn't) will quickly realize that English skills are the key to it.
26310


I'm one of those ethnic minorities. I remember in law school, many people self segregated. I found it offensive beyond belief.

I strongly believe in English as the national language. But we need to define the parameters carefully into the various groups

1. School age children
2. Immigrants who want to be citizens
3. Immigrants not on the citizenship path

The first group.: They must absolutely learn English. They are too young to make an educated decision for themselves. That's why we require all kids to go to school. A curriculum that doesn't teach the dominant language is an inferior curriculum. We had that warm and fuzzy bilingual education nonsense in CA. All it did was produce an underclass of latin citizens who were not employable beyond minimum wage. What a crime against these people. At first opportunity they got rid of it in California. My friend's son was put in ESL because he's part latin. When my friend ( a latina) found out, she went to his school and threatened to b-slap everyone from the principal to the janitor if he wasn't taken out. They moved him back.

The second group. If you cannot speak the dominant language, you impose a huge cost on the society, both economically and socially. Immigration should be based solely on what is best for the US. Having people who speak English is best for the national unity and treasury. Speaking other languages is good, but speaking English is more important.

The third group. Who cares. They're visitors.

[Ned]

Originally posted by clarkef@May 15 2006, 03:00 AM
I'm one of those ethnic minorities. I remember in law school, many people self segregated.* I found it offensive beyond belief.

I strongly believe in English as the national language. But we need to define the parameters carefully into the various groups

1. School age children
2. Immigrants who want to be citizens
3. Immigrants not on the citizenship path

The first group.:* They must absolutely learn English.* They are too young to make an educated decision for themselves. That's why we require all kids to go to school.* A curriculum that doesn't teach the dominant language is an inferior curriculum.* We had that warm and fuzzy bilingual education nonsense in CA. All it did was produce an underclass of latin citizens who were not employable beyond minimum wage.* What a crime against these people.* At first opportunity they got rid of it in California. My friend's son was put in ESL because he's part latin. When my friend ( a latina) found out, she went to his school and threatened to b-slap everyone from the principal to the janitor if he wasn't taken out. They moved him back.

The second group.* If you cannot speak the dominant language, you impose a huge cost on the society, both economically and socially.* Immigration should be based solely on what is best for the US.* Having people who speak English is best for the national unity and treasury.* Speaking other languages is good, but speaking English is more important.

The third group. Who cares.* They're visitors.
26318

Clarke, I agree with you that immigrants must learn English and that English should be the national language. As you said, bilingual education, does nothing more than create a permanent economic underclass. Not requiring immigrants to learn English on the way to citizenship does the same thing. Our country does a huge diservice to immigrants, the children of immigrants, and the country itself, by not requiring them to learn English. Furthermore, as I have said in earlier posts, as you said above "Immigration should be based soley on what is best for the US."

This is not to say immigrants should give up their culture or native language. It merely means immigrants must learn English, for their good and the country's. My own family never gave up its culture or its language, but there is no doubt that as a US Citizen, English is our primary language.

[Eileen Sellers]

Adding 15-20 million low- income workers to the ranks of our permanent guest residents hardly seems like it will provide a benefit to American society. 15 million more will follow in their stead and then you have 30 million. We need to do 2 things simultaneously, one shut down the companies that hire illegals and secondly shut down the borders that allow them to come in illegally.

10% wage depression in a few certain fields is hardly an incentive to add 15 million illegals to our society. A shortsighted approach to simply sweep the problem under the rug until a later time will really cost us. Shutting down the businesses that hire illegally is the first step to stemming the tide. This won’t hurt our economy at all because competing business will pick up a bigger share of the pie, which will enable them to pay better wages. Companies that hire illegally simply dilute the market for honest business and perpetuate the growing problem.

But the problem goes beyond money. Our guest residents, legal and illegal, have the option to go home if they don’t like it here, or if America ceases to work for them anymore. And they should go home under those circumstances, voluntarily and legally. This is America, it belongs to American Citizens, those citizens who have been born and bred here for the past 200 years. These are the same citizens whose forefathers wrote the Constitution. America belongs to her citizens and to immigrants who come here legally to become American Citizens and to uphold American values. American citizens don’t just wave a flag, we are the flag, we are the fabric of our flag, and the soul of our country. There is no higher interest in America than the best interest of her citizens. No ethnic group, no corporation, no special interest, no guest services issues are higher than citizens rights. We are a nation of people committed to obeying the laws by which we govern ourselves.

We have 15 million illegal residents here today. 15 million people, who entered the country illegally, live here illegally, work here illegally and can die here illegal, or go home legally. They should first be good citizens in their country, and then immigrate legally if it is their quest to be an American citizen.

We will have a hard enough time raising the children of our illegal guests. When the children grow up hopefully, they will approve of the reasons why we didn’t wave a magic wand and ignore our own laws. They will understand the principles upon which the country is founded. In the meantime, we need to make an adjustment in the language of our constitution dealing with baby citizens. If the last amendment was 200 years ago, then I think we due for another. Every 200 years is just about right.

[clarkef]

Eileen

With respect, that's pie in the sky thinking. How do you propose to accomplish any of the things that you are mentioning? How do you propose expelling 15 million people from our great nation. Remember, these 15 million include women and children.

You cannot shut down overnight every business which has hired an illegal immigrant. You need to understand that numerous businesses hire illegals. Walmart, most hotels, most restaurants. The entire agricultural and garment industries rely on these low wage workers. Many small businesses who cannot tell a fake green card from a real one would be at risk.


Nor would competing business take up the slack. First, there are a host of economic reasons why that doesn't happen. Remember the UPS strike. FedEx and the USPS were overwhelmed and simply couldn't take up the slack. Moreover, its not individual business which hire illegals, but rather entire industries. The reason should be obvious. If I hire illegals and you don't you go out of business as my cost basis is lower than yours. Thus you have to hire illegals to compete.

Finally, I strongly reject that European-oriented nonsensical fantasy about American belongs those who were here 200 years ago and wrote the Constitution, etc. American belongs to US citizens regardless of how you became a citizen, whether through incident of birth or through the legal naturalization process. Whether you come over on the Mayflower, a slave ship, fled the Communist in Eastern Europe, or snuck out of Iran under cover of darkness and naturalized, you are an American 100 percent, once you are granted citizenship.

[Kairho]

Originally posted by Eileen Sellers@May 15 2006, 10:47 AM
Shutting down the businesses that hire illegally is the first step to stemming the tide. 26352

I don't think this is what you really want. The objective is to provide incentive for illegal aliens to return home, not to cripple American commerce. Plus, shutting down is probably unreasonable seizure...

[ebrener]

I've just been reading this thread for the first time, and debated whether to chime in or not, since I bring a different perspective to the table, being one of those "non citizen residents".

First of all, I think we need to make severak distinctions: It's one thing to talk about legal immigrants vs illegal immigrants. It's also a different thing to talk about those currently in the country vs those yet to arrive.

I think some of Eileen's points may be interesting, but I disagree with most for reasons I won't go into detail here. Let's just say throwing all immigrants in the same bucket is plain discriminatory. To illuminate the subject of what happens with legal immigrants, let me give you my background:

I came to the US in 1989, fresh out of high school, and accepted into several universities. Being a foreigner, I did not qualify for any financial aid, I had to pay out of state tuiton, and my attendance to the university was subject to my being able to prove that I had the financial needs to pay for it. Nothing wrong here...But hey, I couldn't work to support myself either (only up to 20 hours/week on campus).

After getting a bachelor's and master's degrees in engineering, I was hired by a consulting firm in Miami, working through the Practical Training the first year, then applying and receiving an H1-B non immigrant visa. Throughout this time, I was obviouslly paying rent (until I bougth a condo), spending my money here, paying sales taxes, paying income taxes, social security taxes, medicare taxes, etc. Mind you, at this point, and until 2001, I was a non-immigrant who would technically never benefit from Medicare or social security.

I mentioned the condo I bought in 1997. Well, it turns out that I wasn't elegible to claim the Homestead exemption for my property taxes because I wasn't a permanent resident, so in fact, I paid higher taxes than my neighbors for 4 years.

After 5 years working through the H1-B visa, and 4 after applying for permanent residence, I was granted that status. I can finally claim that Homestead exemption, I can finally end my worries about having to leave this country for the one I left because I couldn't stay out at night after midnight (military curfew), because there were periodic bombs that resulted in this curfew (1 of which exploded a block from where I was standing at the time, another wich exploded not 200 feet from my grandmother's apartment, etc.), with an inflation of 2700% per year at the time (no, it's not a typo), where a professional has very little chance of living a middle class life comparable to ours here, simply because there is no middle class in the country, etc. I still love my country, but realize the opportunities are much better here, and decided to follow the laws and procedures to be where I am now.

Now, 3 years ago I "got married". I "got married" in quotations because we didn't have a civil wedding until last month. We had a religious ceremony in my wife's country, and that was it. Why? Because I'm "just" a permanent resident, who can sponsor his new wife to immigrate to the US, only it takes 5 to 6 years to get that approval, and there's no way for her to live with me in this country in the meantime (unless like she did, she could get a work non-immigrant visa). We didn't get married because the only way for her to live with me was to get a non-immigrant visa, to come and live with her permanent resident husband. So how can she justify having a non-immigrant visa when you're living with someone who has declared an intent to stay here permanently? That's the lawyers' argument, and the reason they recommended that we don't get married. In the meantime, since we're not married, we can't file taxes as a couple, resulting in paying more taxes than our neighbors.

After 17 years in this country, 5 of being a permanent resident, I am on the verge of becoming a citizen (just waiting to have my oath ceremony scheduled). I will finally be able to get everything a lot of you take for granted.

Now, as for some of the arguments mentioned before:

Why do immigrants come? For better opportunities, for better jobs, for better lives. Do some come for the wrong reasons? Yes. Do some break the law? Yes. Are they the only ones who break the law, the only ones on welfare, etc.? You answer that one.

Should residents pay a "fee" instead of the same bracketed taxes citizens do? I don't see why this is necessary. If Eileen's intention is to discourage new legal immigrants, whe should read her history books and perhaps the constitution and bill of rights. Equality is a premise in this country, and if she doesn't like immigration (legal or otherwise) perhaps she can let us know which tribe she descends from.


Should immigrants learn English? Absolutely.

As for what to do with illegal immigration? For starters, secure the border and keep the issue from becoming even more critical. Then, do away with anachronistic differences (why is a Cuban legal when he is caught in the beach, but a Mexican who crossed the river is not?).

How to deal with those already in the country? That is the difficult question, isn't it? You can't deport them, for reasons several people have mentioned. The answer may be in integrating them to the legal society through their employers. Make it easier for those employed to enjoy the benefits of living here. Have their employers pay them competitive wages, garnering part of it as a fine prorated to the time they have been in the country illegally. This fine should pay for the costs incurred up to the point by the government, and in retribution, allow them to gain a temporary residency, subject to a clean criminal record from that point on, including the payment of all taxes. Also, fine the employers for hiring illegal immigrants in the first place, with escalating fines if they do it again. In order to be fair, do audits by industry and region, so one business is not favored over another.

Is this a perfect solution? I'm sure it isn't. Is there one?

Just my 2 or 10 cents for now...

Regards,

Enrique

[Eileen Sellers]

How do you propose expelling 15 million people from our great nation. Remember, these 15 million include women and children.

I didn't propose expelling, them. They are free to go home, or stay illegally, unitl we achieve a reform of our laws and can effectively deal with the problem.

You cannot shut down overnight every business which has hired an illegal immigrant. You need to understand that numerous businesses hire illegals. Walmart, most hotels, most restaurants. The entire agricultural and garment industries rely on these low wage workers. Many small businesses who cannot tell a fake green card from a real one would be at risk.

Yes, it's a real problem isn't it. I don't think we could do it overnight, but it might be easier than trying to collect a fine from them. The only thing that is easy is doing nothing or looking the other way, which we did for too many years.


Nor would competing business take up the slack. First, there are a host of economic reasons why that doesn't happen. Remember the UPS strike. FedEx and the USPS were overwhelmed and simply couldn't take up the slack. Moreover, its not individual business which hire illegals, but rather entire industries. The reason should be obvious. If I hire illegals and you don't you go out of business as my cost basis is lower than yours. Thus you have to hire illegals to compete.

So the only way is the wrong way? Is that it? I wouldn't mind fining Wal Mart at all. I don't think we need 40 Pizza restaurants per town, 30 would do nicely.



Finally, I strongly reject that European-oriented nonsensical fantasy about American belongs those who were here 200 years ago and wrote the Constitution, etc. American belongs to US citizens regardless of how you became a citizen, whether through incident of birth or through the legal naturalization process. Whether you come over on the Mayflower, a slave ship, fled the Communist in Eastern Europe, or snuck out of Iran under cover of darkness and naturalized, you are an American 100 percent, once you are granted citizenship.

That's what I said, I'm glad you agree. But I never heard it called European Oriented non sensical fantasy.

This is America, it belongs to American Citizens, those citizens who have been born and bred here for the past 200 years. These are the same citizens whose forefathers wrote the Constitution. America belongs to her citizens and to immigrants who come here legally to become American Citizens and to uphold American values.
Once you become a citizen you become part of the fabric of our flag and soul or our country.

According to the bureau of statistics 30 % of the eligible permanent residents in the United States do not apply for citizenship. Apparently, citizenship isn't a priority of getting a green card.

[Eileen Sellers]

Should residents pay a "fee" instead of the same bracketed taxes citizens do? I don't see why this is necessary. If Eileen's intention is to discourage new legal immigrants, whe should read her history books and perhaps the constitution and bill of rights. Equality is a premise in this country, and if she doesn't like immigration (legal or otherwise) perhaps she can let us know which tribe she descends from.

She decends from the tribe of American citizens. You know, the ones, who have been here for 200 years. After all that I have said here, how could you possibly question my intentions regarding legal immigration? There is a difference between those who come here to live and those who come here to become citizens. All citizens should be taxed equally, all non citizens should be taxed equally. All non citizens should not be taxed as citizens. It's not to fault those who choose not to become citizens, we have allowed this to happen. You know when Disney World first opened they sold passes with no expiration date. Today you have 14 days to use the pass. Our green card system has to have an expiration date. Our green card system has to have a purpose, and that is to offer the opportunity to become a citizen. And if the opportunity is declined, then the green card is no longer valid. And in between the time you get a green card and the time you decided to become or not to become a citizen, you pay taxes on a different program. These are the changes that need to be made in our Immigration Laws.

[ebrener]

Originally posted by Eileen Sellers@May 15 2006, 09:25 PM
She decends from the tribe of American citizens. You know, the ones, who have been here for 200 years. After all that I have said here, how could you possibly question my intentions regarding legal immigration?* There is a difference between those who come here to live and those who come here to become citizens...

Our green card system has to have an expiration date. Our green card system has to have a purpose, and that is to offer the opportunity to become a citizen. And if the opportunity is declined, then the green card is no longer valid. And in between the time you get a green card and the time you* decided to become or not* to become a citizen, you pay taxes on a different program. These are the changes that need to be made in our Immigration Laws.
26403


Eileen, your previous comments about a new citizen becoming part of the fabric of the country really contradicts your "200 years" argument. Why should there be a difference between you and your 200 years, and my uncle and his 2 years? Or with me, and my hopefully-not-more-than-2-months-before-I-become one?

Also, greencards do have an expiration date, even if they are renewable. However, if you're not living in the country, it is revoked. As long as you're residing permanently here, you can keep it. The idea is that you eventually will seek citizenship status, but that is sometimes not practical for some, and a very lengthy process for most.

I do disagree with you in that I think legal permanent residents should be taxes just the same as citizens. Most people come here with the ideal of being treated as an equal, not being inferior in any way (race, religion, national origin, etc.). Perhaps your family came for the same reasons? And now you propose to take that away? I still don't understand your rationale for the different tax for permanent residents. We pay as much as you (or more), we get the same benefits as you (except voting and having a US passport, of course). If you charge us more, what are you giving us in return? We have already had to pay fees for getting every visa along the way, not to mention attorney fees to help us navigate through immigration law. We have had to justify our presence and permanence in this country. Why more?

[Eileen Sellers]

Eileen, your previous comments about a new citizen becoming part of the fabric of the country really contradicts your "200 years" argument. Why should there be a difference between you and your 200 years, and my uncle and his 2 years? Or with me, and my hopefully-not-more-than-2-months-before-I-become one?

Not at all. There is no difference between 2 years and 200 years, except that with time and generations comes the passion and the love of country. Everyone comes to America for a chance, a better opportunity in life, and other self serving reasons. All of which are fine, the pilgrims did the same thing. But, your children and their children and their children, will acquire a love and passion for this country, because it will be their home country. That love of country doesn't necessarily come with the green card. Sometime it takes generations to evlove. It is that sense of country that prompts people's sense of duty, obedience to the laws and disdain for those who disrespect the laws, especially the laws of immigration. These are the laws by which previous immigrants/early settlers have set in place to differentiate an American citizens from all other citizenships. And down through the generations that sense of country has been instilled in American born citizens. It is the heritage of America and is that sense of country which binds the nation together. Nobody makes it up, it is real and it exists within the person. And it is the same sense of country that exists in other people in other countries. It is no different in America. If I immigrated to China tomorrow, I would be a Chinese citizen, but I wouldn't be a Chinese person.

I didn't have time to collect any additional data, but 30% of green cards not applying for citizenship is a huge number. 53% of the foreign born population comes from Latin America, which includes Mexico, Caribbean, Central/S America.
That is about 33 million people, which means that 10 million don't want to be citizens. There are 15 million illegals who would probably love to be citizens.
That how it boils down. There has to be an incentive to become a citizen, or go home. And going for the money is one way to do it and do it easily. It would have many benefits including bringing in new undiluted revenue, without upsetting the voters. We can learn from other countries in they way they treat their immigrants. They all differentiate the citizen from the rest of their population, so it is not a new idea at all. It just depends how you put it into action.

[ebrener]

Originally posted by Eileen Sellers@May 16 2006, 02:42 PM
There has to be an incentive to become a citizen, or go home.* And going for the money is one way to do it and do it easily. It would have many benefits including bringing in new undiluted revenue, without upsetting the voters. We can learn from other countries in they way they treat their immigrants. They all differentiate the citizen from the rest of their population, so it is not a new idea at all. It just depends how you put it into action.
26485


There already is. It's gaining the right to vote for your elected officials and to travel with a US passport. On the other hand, the incentive for permanent residents who no longer want to livein this country is that if they go back and surrender the residency status, they no longer have to pay taxes. You are discounting the fact that for some people, it may not be practical to become citizens (for example, some countries do not allow dual citizenship, so they would have to surrender their original one; this can have an impact on their families, or on their ability to own properties or businesses in their country of birth).

I just don't understand what your issue is with legal, permanent residency laws staying the way they are.

[Eileen Sellers]

The legal permanent resident is an old idea. It was way to encourage people to come to America at time when life was hard. They could live here forever with no allegiance. Life in America isn't hard anymore. We've grown up quite nicely. So that category of green card isn't necessary and doesn't provide the country with the benefit that it did in the old days.

[Kairho]

Originally posted by Eileen Sellers@May 16 2006, 04:54 PM
The legal permanent resident is an old idea. It was* way to encourage people to come to America at time when life was hard. They could live here forever with no allegiance. Life in America isn't hard anymore. We've grown up quite nicely. So that category of green card isn't necessary and doesn't provide the country with the benefit that it did in the old days.
26492

An old idea for sure but still valid in this day and age. Freedom to travel and live where one prefers.

I fail to see how the difficulty of life affects where someone wants to live. If someone from another country wishes to set up residence in the US and be a productive part of society, why not? Citizenship brings voting rights but as Enrique noted there are many reasons not to get US citizenship (mainly one then has to renounce their previous citizenship).

The street runs both ways, too, as many Americans have set up residency in other countries. Basically it is the freedom to travel and visit wherever one would like for as long as one would like. Why should retirees who live in Costa Rica be forced to renounce their American citizenship?

If the US eliminated permanent residency status, so would a lot of other countries and a lot of Americans would be forced to return to the US. And there goes the freedom to travel.

[Eileen Sellers]

You make some really good points. Travel and toursim is big draw. This is why taxing them differently would be a big benefit. A luxury tax if you will. Then people can come and enjoy our country and leave when they tire of it. While they are here they enjoy the same personal freedoms as everyone else.

You mentioned retirees going to Costa Rica, more than that they go to Nicaragua. Remember how scared people used to be of that. Not any more. The country wants the money, so they make it easy for Americans to retire there. It's a good deal. But when they don't need or want the money any more, they will change their rules. Like the old days in America. People wouldn't have come here at all if they had to stay. So it's just history repeating itself in a different part of the world.


I fail to see how the difficulty of life affects where someone wants to live
You made me laugh a little..tell that to the 15 million illegals in the country.

[clarkef]

Enrique

Thanks for your comments, you make a lot of good points.

Eileen

I strongly disagree about your supposition that because your family has been here for 200+ years (so has mine), you have a stronger love of this country than someone who is more recent.

The stronger argument can be made in reverse. You, and I, merely inherited our American citizenship by the grace of God that our parents are American. Others have had to work hard and sacrifice to be Americans. That sacrifice can make someone really appreciate what it means to be an American.

I have friends from India, Vietnam, Korea, China and Cuba that are all first generations Americans who are fervent in their love for America.

That's why I called it European non-sensical fantasy. The belief that somehow European Americans are more American than others, non-European American

[Ned]

Originally posted by clarkef@May 17 2006, 01:49 AM
Enrique

Thanks for your comments, you make a lot of good points.

Eileen

I strongly disagree about your supposition that because your family has been here for 200+ years (so has mine), you have a stronger love of this country than someone who is more recent.

The stronger argument can be made in reverse. You, and I, merely inherited our American citizenship by the grace of God that our parents are American.* Others have had to work hard and sacrifice to be Americans. That sacrifice can make someone really appreciate what it means to be an American.

I have friends from India, Vietnam, Korea, China and Cuba that are all first generations Americans who are fervent in their love for America.

That's why I called it European non-sensical fantasy. The belief that somehow European Americans are more American than others, non-European American
26520

Clarke, I think you've summarized this right on the money.

My family has been in this country for quite sometime. Part of my family has been in this country since 1827. Most came between 1912 and 1920. The last of our family to make it here came between 1937 and 1939. Anyone left in Germany, where my family came from, after that, was murdered in the "Holocaust," 39 people, all together. Following WWII, our family found that no one in Europe was left. The Nazi's had done to our family what they desired to do, exterminate all of the ones left in Europe.

That being said, how could I say that my family has a corner on a love for America or patriotism compared to a new citizen who took the oath yesterday. The answer is clearly, I can't.

A citizen is a citizen. We're all the same in that regard and deserve the same regard and treatment, figuratively and in actuality. There's nothing more to be said on the matter.

[Eileen Sellers]

There's nothing more to be said on the matter.

So much for freedom of speech and expression in America.

This is why elections are won and lost. The silent majority gets silenced until election day.

[weblet]

Just found this interesting tidbit:

---Citizen Tests to Become Harder and More Expensive

Germany, home to 2.3 million guest workers of Turkish origin, is proposing a new nationwide citizen test to test an immigrant’s in-depth knowledge of German history. Last year, Germany expanded a citizenship law which requires immigrants to take 600 class hours of the German language, and 30 hours of German history, culture, and way of life.

Holland started requiring immigrants to take a Dutch citizen test based largely on a two-hour video tape, which introduces the Dutch way of life and values. The citizen test costs $420 each time it is taken. The kit to study for it, including the video, costs an additional $80.

THE Culture Chronicles
April 2006 Newsletter

www.culturelinkpress.com

[ebrener]

Originally posted by weblet@May 17 2006, 07:05 PM
Just found this interesting tidbit:
THE Culture Chronicles
April 2006 Newsletter

www.culturelinkpress.com
26653


Here in the US, the cost for applying is around $400, plus the cost of getting to the point of being able to apply for citizenship. All in all, I've probably paid around $5000 in fees (both to the government and attorneys who process the applications), plus expenses in traveling to Peru to actually get the visas.

As for the test, I agree it should be improved, and a better effort should be made at ensuring English and US History proficiency (which some age and health allowances). The test is based on passing 6 out of 10 questions, which come out of a 100 questionnaire. Some of the questions I was asked 2 months ago were:

1. How many members in the House of Representatives?
2. Who was the president during the civil war?
3. What is the introduction to the Constitution called?
4. Who can declare war?

These are OK, but then some other questions (which were also on the set of 10 I got) were:

1. What are the colors in the flag
2. What is the National Antehm called
3. How many stars are there in the flag

You get the drift...As for proficiency in Engligh, they ask you to read a sentence and write one the interviewer dictates. Mine was "I drink too much coffee".

Eileeen, I still don't understand why you're so hung up on additional taxes for permanent residents.

Regards,

Enrique

[mercwyn]

The irony about the 2.3 million Turkish guest workers is that many of them are 3rd and 4th generation workers who were born and raised in Germany and haven't ever lived in Turkey. These people are more German then Turkish yet because of xenophobia they will probably never become German citizens.

[Eileen Sellers]

France is having their problems with immigration as well.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4964472.stm



Eileeen, I still don't understand why you're so hung up on additional taxes for permanent residents.

We need to generate more revenue from our tax base. This is one way to do that without raising taxes for voters. In fact it might even generate enough tax to eliminate federal tax for low/middle income citizens. Once you are a citizen I'm sure you would like that. Wouldn't you?

[clarkef]

Originally posted by Eileen Sellers+May 18 2006, 03:04 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Eileen Sellers @ May 18 2006, 03:04 PM)</div>France is having their problems with immigration as well.
26723
[/b]
The French problem is completely different from the US. The North Africans and other muslims are wholly unintegrated into French society. More importantly they don't have jobs. The illegals in the US have jobs.

<!--QuoteBegin-Eileen Sellers@May 18 2006, 03:04 PM
We need to generate more revenue from our tax base. This is one way to do that without raising taxes for voters. In fact it might even generate enough tax to eliminate federal tax for* low/middle income citizens. Once you are a citizen I'm sure you would like that. Wouldn't you?
26723

Taxing the unrepresented unfairly is unamerican. A phrase comes to mind "Taxation without representation". I believe we fought a war when we were the recipients of that.

[Kairho]

Originally posted by clarkef@May 19 2006, 02:25 AM
Taxing the unrepresented unfairly is unamerican. A phrase comes to mind "Taxation without representation". I believe we fought a war when we were the recipients of that.
26751

I agree but now we have to extend the argument to tourist taxes which are levied on those who are not represented. Things such as bed taxes and taxes with the avowed purpose of bringing in more tourists!

Orlando is today considering an additional tax on tourist activities and facilities for the purpose of building an arts center which would mostly benefit the locals.

[Eileen Sellers]

Taxing the unrepresented unfairly is unamerican. A phrase comes to mind "Taxation without representation". I believe we fought a war when we were the recipients of that.

The citizens of the United States have representation. The war we fought separated us from England and brought about citizenship in the United States.
Are you suggesting that the United States doesn't have the right to change her tax law because it might upset those who visit our country.


I agree but now we have to extend the argument to tourist taxes which are levied on those who are not represented. Things such as bed taxes and taxes with the avowed purpose of bringing in more tourists!

Tourist taxes are state and local tax not federal tax.

[Kairho]

Originally posted by Eileen Sellers@May 19 2006, 07:53 AM
Tourist taxes are state and local tax not federal tax.
26755

True. But that doesn't affect the argument of taxation without representation.

[ebrener]

Originally posted by Eileen Sellers+May 18 2006, 03:04 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Eileen Sellers @ May 18 2006, 03:04 PM)</div>We need to generate more revenue from our tax base. This is one way to do that without raising taxes for voters. In fact it might even generate enough tax to eliminate federal tax for* low/middle income citizens. Once you are a citizen I'm sure you would like that. Wouldn't you?
26723
[/b]

The fact that something benefits me doesn't make it fair, does it? And again, there is not much difference between a permanent resident and a citizen in terms of rights and civic responsibilities.

<!--QuoteBegin-Eileen Sellers@May 18 2006, 03:04 PM
Are you suggesting that the United States doesn't have the right to change her tax law because it might upset those who visit our country.
26723


You're confusing the issues again. We're not talking about visitors. We're talking about permanent residents, who intend to stay here for the rest of our lives.

[travel]

I seem to remember a quote inscribed somewhere fairly important. Let's see if I can remember it. "'Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!' cries she, with silent lips. 'Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore; send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door'"

Unless you are 100%, full-blooded Native American, your ancestors came here because they thought those words rang true, not hollow. I wonder how many of our ancestors would have been considered "illegal immigrants" by the suggested rules some of you have put forth here, and how many would have been sent back home.

I agree that we have let our immigration laws run unchecked, but that's our fault, not the fault of others. We should take responsibility for it and fix it, not blame everyone else and abuse them as though it is their fault.

The lady with silent lips is crying today.

[Eileen Sellers]

True. But that doesn't affect the argument of taxation without representation. Yes it does.

The fact that something benefits me doesn't make it fair, does it? And again, there is not much difference between a permanent resident and a citizen in terms of rights and civic responsibilities.
Please don't downgrade the importance of my citizenship to that of a foreign resident.

QUOTE(Eileen Sellers @ May 18 2006, 03:04 PM)
Are you suggesting that the United States doesn't have the right to change her tax law because it might upset those who visit our country.

You're confusing the issues again. We're not talking about visitors. We're talking about permanent residents, who intend to stay here for the rest of our lives.
Are you suggesting that we shouldn't govern ourselves to our advantage?
Are you suggesting that those who come here to live for the rest of their lives, without any committment to this country are equal the citizens of this country?
If so, of what value is your citzenship?

[travel]

Originally posted by Eileen Sellers@May 19 2006, 10:56 AM
Are you suggesting that we shouldn't govern ourselves to our advantage?
26800


Whose advantage? Your collective "our" is misleading. What benefits you may not benefit me, even though I am a citizen of this country. One look at existing tax laws will tell you that. Another look at civil rights will confirm it. And yet another look at equal protection and attempts to enforce it will confirm it yet again. There is no easy answer to this, no matter how many people want it to be so.

[mercwyn]

Eileen, our country has prided itself on being fair, just and compassionate for years. Additionally in the last 140 years we have been working on the concept of equality for all people, not just citizens but all people. When you propose to tax legal residents at a different rate you propose on making this country less inviting to foreign investments, to individuals who come here to start new companies that employ citizens, in short you make this a poorer country by trying to enrich yourself at the expense of others.

If you think that all legal residents are poor migrant farm workers or work as dishwashers, etc. I suggest you take a long hard look around. There are many legal residents who are owners of small, medium and large businesses ranging from motels to Fortune 500 companies. Do you really want to push these people out of our country? That is what happens to countries that tax foreigners at a higher rate then they tax their own citizens. Foreign born talent and foreign investments will go to the countries that make them feel welcome not to those that make them feel unwanted.

While you are correct that US government can change the tax laws to tax non-citizens and tax them at a higher rate. The ability to do something doesn't necessarily make it a good idea to undertake that action.

The things that make my citizenship in this country valuable to me aren't based on taxes but rather on ideals, on the rights that I'm guarantee under the Constitution (even when they are under attack by various groups) and the culture that we have created. I think we have room to welcome those who come here legally and give to our society.

[travel]

Very well said, mercwyn. Thank you.

[ebrener]

Indeed, very well said mercwyn!

Eileen, you still don't get it, and I'm afraid you probably never will....

[Eileen Sellers]

Eileen, our country has prided itself on being fair, just and compassionate for years. Additionally in the last 140 years we have been working on the concept of equality for all people, not just citizens but all people. When you propose to tax legal residents at a different rate you propose on making this country less inviting to foreign investments, to individuals who come here to start new companies that employ citizens, in short you make this a poorer country by trying to enrich yourself at the expense of others.

If you think that all legal residents are poor migrant farm workers or work as dishwashers, etc. I suggest you take a long hard look around. There are many legal residents who are owners of small, medium and large businesses ranging from motels to Fortune 500 companies. Do you really want to push these people out of our country? That is what happens to countries that tax foreigners at a higher rate then they tax their own citizens. Foreign born talent and foreign investments will go to the countries that make them feel welcome not to those that make them feel unwanted.

I know you are sincere but I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
You could be a spokesperson for Bush, he doesn't want to upset foreign investors either. Do I want to push them out? No, they'll pay to stay. America is too good a deal, and we don't have to sell ourselves short. We don't have to have our working poor/low income families knocking themselves out to subsidize rich foreign investors. It is in our country's best interest to dedicate our efforts to ensure that the least of our citizens are better off for being citizens. In fact, it is our duty to do this. Finding ways for them to pay less tax and have better services is worthy effort.

And wishing you a great weekend to!

[Ned]

Originally posted by Eileen Sellers@May 19 2006, 05:34 PM
I know you are sincere but I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
You could be a spokesperson for Bush, he doesn't want to upset foreign investors either. Do I want to push them out? No, they'll pay to stay. America is too good a deal, and we don't have to sell ourselves short. We don't have to have our working poor/low income families knocking themselves out to subsidize rich foreign investors. It is in our country's best interest to dedicate our efforts to ensure that the least of our citizens are better off for being citizens. In fact, it is our duty to do this. Finding ways for them to pay less tax and have better services is worthy effort.

And wishing you a great weekend to!
26831

Eileen, I think if you read any of my posts, you'd agree that I think "W" is perhaps the worst president in the country's history, ranking right down there with Hoover, Coolidge, Polk and Buchanan. Reading my posts you also know that I am not sympathetic to the plight of the illegal alien. I understand, however, the impracticality of deporting as many as 20 million people. It's not going to happen.

I have a great deal of positive feeling to all legal immigrants and want them to succeed in this country. They are good for our country.

I agree with many of your ideas, but this one of making non-citizens pay more taxes and/or fees to live here isn't right, or good for our country, in my opinion. Somehow, I doubt many of us would be here if this would have been in place when our ancestors immigrated here. Your plan raises the barrier to a successful start and integration into this country too high for legal immigrants. I think this part of your position on immigration is ill considered.

[stephen_s]

Here's a related story:


Fake I.D.'s complicate arrests of illegals

http://kstp.com/article/stories/S16404.html?cat=1

[Ned]

Originally posted by stephen_s@May 23 2006, 09:03 AM
Here's a related story:
*
Fake I.D.'s complicate arrests of illegals

http://kstp.com/article/stories/S16404.html?cat=1
27013

I can understand that lack of real IDs for illegal aliens can hinder the police. What I don't understand is the police' basic premise summed up in this quote, “These people are getting away with things that somebody who had a genuine, legitimate ID would be held accountable for,” says Sheriff Wayne Vinkemeier of McLeod County. "I think that's something the state needs to take a look at."

US citizens who are criminals use fake IDs all the time and don't reveal their true identity just because the police ask for it. How do these criminals get identified? The get identified through fingerprints.

Are the police saying they aren't fingerprinting illegal aliens who they arrest?

The article says, "One illegal immigrant was arrested four times for driving while intoxicated and once for possession of a sawed-off shotgun, each incident involving a separate identity."

So what, if you fingerprint the guy, and run a fingerprint check to see who he is you get the identity, fake, assigned or otherwise, and know what they've done in the past before you let him go to fade into the woodwork, just like a citizen criminal.

"Gov. Tim Pawlenty says the problem illustrates that current laws are not working.

"It just reinforces the fact that the current system is obviously broken,” he says. “We have people making a mockery out of our laws."

Pawlenty says the solution is to develop a national I.D. card with fingerprint or eye scan technology."

I would submit to Gov. Pawlenty that a national ID card with fingerprint or eye scan technology is not a solution, better police work than described in the article is a solution. Is the Gov. so naive that he doesn't think criminals will have fake cards. Sure the fingerprint of the person with the card will match the card, for example, but the identity still will be fake.

Either way, you have to run the fingerprint through the system, and if they've been arrested before, and fingerprinted, they'll be in the system. You'll know what they did. Then, you'll know what needs to be done with them.

[Eileen Sellers]

I'd like to stay focused on the money.


Your plan raises the barrier to a successful start and integration into this country too high for legal immigrants.

Not so. Here is how the money works. Give it some thought.


It is imperative that we make changes necessary to benefit our citizens. We must increase the amount of revenue from our existing tax base without raising taxes for citizens.

While that might seem impossible, it is actually quite easy.

This is a simple change – it requires non -citizen taxes to become non-refundable taxes. They won’t pay higher taxes than anyone else, they just won’t be able to claim any refund through tax deductions. They also will not be eligible for social security, medicare or unemployment benefits. At this time I don’t they are eligible for unemployment so that isn’t a change. Once they become citizens, of course, this all changes.

Having made that change, the next step is in the allocation of those taxes. Since they are now non-refundable we can distribute them in a more meaningful way. We can increase the amount of money paid to states in order to better provide schooling. If the state tax is 3% we could increase this to 6%, doubling the amount of revenue for the state.

We then could allocate the remaining tax to pay down or eliminate those same taxes for low- income citizens. We could effectively eliminate all payroll tax deductions in low- income pay brackets. That means more take home pay in every check, without raising taxes and without raising the minimum wage. This is a winning change for everyone. The worker has more money in their each paycheck each week, the state has more money and the non-citizen tax contribution is meaningful to the country. The non-citizen can be proud that his taxes are helping Americans who are less economically fortunate then they are.

Here’s how the money works.
A $15,000 a year salary has approximately - 21% tax withheld each paycheck.
$625.00 gross yields $495.50 net ..$129.50 is tax.
- 63.00 federal tax 10%-most of this will get refunded
- 18.75 state tax 3%-some of this will get refunded
- 9.00 medicare 1.45%-no refund
- 38.75 social security 6.2 %-no refund.
-
The tax liability in federal and state tax could be paid by the non-refundable taxes from non- citizens. So they wouldn’t have to be deducted at all. Medicare payment and social security payment would also be available to be paid, and there is still money left over.

If we added $129.50 each paycheck (2x a month) that is meaningful money, you can spend it at the grocery store, pay a utility bill or whatever. It comes to $3108.00 per year. That’s a lot of extra money. Non citizen taxes could subsidize 3 or 4 low income citizens.

Now what do you think?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Eileen Sellers@May 23 2006, 11:18 AM
I'd like to stay focused on the money.
Not so. Here is how the money works. Give it some thought.
It is imperative that we make changes necessary to benefit our citizens. We must increase the amount of revenue from our existing tax base without raising taxes for citizens...

This is a simple change – it requires non -citizen taxes to become non-refundable taxes. They won’t pay higher taxes than anyone else, they just won’t be able to claim any refund through tax deductions. They also will not be eligible for social security, medicare or unemployment benefits. At this time I don’t they are eligible for unemployment so that isn’t a change. Once they become citizens, of course, this all changes...

Now what do you think?
27026

You asked "Now what do you think?" I think you want to raise taxes for immigrants. I think this will raise the barrier to a successful start and integration into this country too high for legal immigrants. You would require them to pay taxes (I personally think taxes for things such as unemployment, by the way are really premiums, but that's for another topic.) for specific programs/insurance without any hope of receiving the benefits of such taxes.

You're talking about punishing people who are LEGAL immigrants because they have immigrated. That doesn't make sense to me.

Finally, you keep saying "We must increase the amount of revenue from our existing tax base..." I ask why? Why not reduce expenses first? Why not drastically reduce expenses?

The country is in the shape it's in financially, mostly in my opinion, because "W" and the Republican controlled Congress keeps increasing spending and reducing taxes, a very bad combination. They've outdone the "tax and spend" Democrats, big time. While the "tax and spend" democrats had actually balanced the budget primarily by cutting spending, the "W" led, supposedly fiscally conservative Elephants, have created the largest deficit in the county's history by spending us into oblivion, and at the same time cutting taxes which cut income. Really, how stupid can you get.

Before we worry about increasing governmental income why not reel in the excessive spending, the earmarks, the bogus single beneficiary bills (payoffs), etc first.

[Eileen Sellers]

I think you want to raise taxes for immigrants. I think this will raise the barrier to a successful start and integration into this country too high for legal immigrants. You would require them to pay taxes (I personally think taxes for things such as unemployment, by the way are really premiums, but that's for another topic.) for specific programs/insurance without any hope of receiving the benefits of such taxes.

Not true, they would get the benefit when they become citizens. The rate of tax for them in the mean time is the same as for anyone else in the country.

[ebrener]

Originally posted by Eileen Sellers+May 23 2006, 01:02 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Eileen Sellers @ May 23 2006, 01:02 PM)</div>Not true, they would get the benefit when they become citizens. [/b]

And what if they don't become citizens? Haven't we discussed this before? And by the way, permanent residents are elegible for unemployment. I know, I've collected in the past. I earned that right by working and paying taxes. So, do you want to take that away as well?


<!--QuoteBegin-Eileen Sellers@May 23 2006, 01:02 PM
The rate of tax for them in the mean time is the same as for anyone else in the country.
27052



No, as long as you can deduct expenses such as mortgage interest, local taxes, property taxes, etc., the effective tax rates are not the same.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Eileen Sellers@May 23 2006, 02:02 PM
Not true, they would get the benefit when they become citizens. The rate of tax for them in the mean time is the same as for anyone else in the country.
27052

Actually it is true. In your post you even said it was true by describing how the tax rates for immigrants and citizens would be different. If immigrants can't use their deductions fully, then their marginal tax rate increases beyond what a citizen's tax rate would be. I'm sorry, but that's the way the math works.

Beyond that, I have made the value judgment, yes judgment, that this increase in taxes over that of citizens and the other proposals concerning other "taxes" beyond income tax, make much too high a barrier to become integrated into our society, be productive within and for our society, and as a legal immigrant, become a citizen or not.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion on this, but I think you're wrong.

We've agreed on many other things in the past. Let's stick with that, because on this one we're just not going to agree.

[Eileen Sellers]

And what if they don't become citizens?

Then they haven't immigrated. Immigrants are persons who come to America to become citizens. Everyone else is just a visitor.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Eileen Sellers@May 23 2006, 03:54 PM
Then they haven't immigrated.* Immigrants are persons who come to America to become citizens. Everyone else is just a visitor.
27073

Except that the legal definition of immigrant happens to be the same as the dictionary definition of immigrant, which is, "A person who leaves one country to settle permanently in another." It has to do with where you live, not citizenship.

Furthermore, if a legal immigrant wants to become a citizen it takes years. If you want to discourage legal immigration and legal immigration of those who want to become citizens, your taxation plan will certainly do just that.

[Eileen Sellers]

Except that the legal definition of immigrant happens to be the same as the dictionary definition of immigrant, which is, "A person who leaves one country to settle permanently in another." It has to do with where you live, not citizenship.

You are absolutely correct. Which is why I suspect our constitution only protects the tax rights of citizens. Leaving the option open to make adjustments when necessary.

I'm sure people immigrating to America aren't coming here in hopes of getting medicare, unemployment, and social security. Surely, they can have all those things in their home country. Our tax law won't diminish their opportunity to realize their deams, or live in a free society, or worship freely.

[Kairho]

Originally posted by Eileen Sellers@May 23 2006, 06:09 PM
...our constitution only protects the tax rights of citizens. Leaving the option open to make adjustments when necessary.27082

Exactly where in the Constitution is taxation related to citizens? And what are "tax rights?"

If you study the document, it only gives Congress the power to collect taxes (and income taxes in the 16th Amendment). Nothing there about restricting taxes to citizens or not...

[Ned]

Originally posted by Eileen Sellers@May 23 2006, 06:09 PM
You are absolutely correct. Which is why I suspect our constitution only protects the tax rights of citizens. Leaving the option open to make adjustments when necessary.

I'm sure people immigrating to America aren't coming here in hopes of getting medicare, unemployment, and social security. Surely, they can have all those things in their home country. Our tax law won't* diminish their opportunity to realize their deams, or live in a free society, or worship freely.
27082

Eileen, you've worn me out on this issue, not an easy thing to do, however, I will not, can not, agree with your idea of these diffential taxes. That's it, end of discussion, at least for me concerning your taxing plan. I think your position on differential taxation for citizens vs. non-citizens is wrong. I have articulated my position enough. There's no point in continuing to fill this forum with nothing but repetition. Were we both members of Congress, I would fight you tooth and nail, as they say, on this particular issue, right to the bitter end, but here at Tripso, I'm moving on to the next issue. Thanks for an interesting discussion.

[Eileen Sellers]

Your're welcome.

[travel]

Originally posted by Eileen Sellers@May 23 2006, 05:09 PM
You are absolutely correct. Which is why I suspect our constitution only protects the tax rights of citizens. Leaving the option open to make adjustments when necessary.

I'm sure people immigrating to America aren't coming here in hopes of getting medicare, unemployment, and social security. Surely, they can have all those things in their home country. Our tax law won't* diminish their opportunity to realize their deams, or live in a free society, or worship freely.
27082


I'm sorry, Eileen, but I may be even less of a supporter of W than Ned, if that's possible, and having thoroughly studied the Constitution for more than a few years, I also agree that the rights within the Constitution are not limited to citizens. That was one of the many premises of the founding of the new nation. Your likening of my view to something that W would say makes me want to throw up. He would never say anything inclusive that extends civil rights to MORE people. There is a nice little cartoon by Slate Magazine which is basically two elephants looking at a DaVinci Code poster, and one is saying to the other, "as long as Jesus married an English-speaking member of the opposite sex, who cares?" That's fairly accurate (IMO) of W's general behavior, and certainly does not reflect inclusiveness.

In any case, your arguments ring hollow to me, too. Having lived in DC for 10 years and worked at an international organization with many, many good, very hard-working, respectable, RESIDENTS who were not planning to become citizens, and there are A LOT of them at the World Bank, IMF, and UN (by charter, only 17% of the staff of those organizations can be U.S. citizens), I know what good those people do to our country. You're letting the media get the best of you, I think. Don't believe everything you read or hear. I've agreed with you whole-heartedly on past issues, so I'm inclined to believe you're believing the spin of the day.

[Eileen Sellers]

Putting cash back in the paycheck of American workers isn't spin. Allocating tax dollars to benefit American citizens without raising taxes isn't spin. It is just plain common sense.

There are nice, hard working people all over the world and in every country. And that has nothing to do with the way they pay taxes.

There are more nice, hard working Americans in America than anyone else, and they deserve better from their government. They can demand that their interests be put first because it is their country. It really is just that simple.

[mercwyn]

Originally posted by Eileen Sellers@May 19 2006, 02:34 PM
I know you are sincere but I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
You could be a spokesperson for Bush, he doesn't want to upset foreign investors either. Do I want to push them out? No, they'll pay to stay. America is too good a deal, and we don't have to sell ourselves short. We don't have to have our working poor/low income families knocking themselves out to subsidize rich foreign investors. It is in our country's best interest to dedicate our efforts to ensure that the least of our citizens are better off for being citizens. In fact, it is our duty to do this. Finding ways for them to pay less tax and have better services is worthy effort.

And wishing you a great weekend to!
26831


Eileen,

Sorry it has taken me so long to respond. I've been on vacation and left the cell phone and computer home.

As for me being a supporter of W, well, that's a new one since I've never voted for him and I don't believe he will be viewed as a good president, actually, I suspect that in time he will be viewed as the worst, yes, worse then Hoover.

As for your statement that increasing the taxes on legal residents won't drive them and their investments out of this country I have to disagree. If you look at countries that have booming economies and rapid growth of high tech companies and of start ups you will note that they have low taxes on both citizens and legal residents and that they have a welcoming attitude toward those coming to create a business in their country. (The exception to this is the PRC, it's economy is booming due to low wages and a policy of piracy.) We already are seeing the impact of xenophobia in the USA, instead of staying here and making a life here we are seeing educated Asians of all stripes returning to their homelands after completing their education. This is in effect a brain drain and it is sucking away a great many talented people who are creating businesses overseas to compete with US companies. In the past these people stayed here and created new companies and new taxable wealth, now they go home to India, Turkey, Singapore, etc. By increasing taxes on legal residents you will drive the fence sitters away thereby decreasing the tax base.

If you don't think that foreign investment is important let me ask you how much money it takes to service the huge debt that we have accrued since Ronald Reagan took office? That money either has to come from you and me in the form of tax revenues and those will have to go up substantially to cover the interest on our debt or we have to have foreign investment both in government bonds and in our economy which leads to increased tax revenues. So go ahead and drive the legal residents out and discourage foreign investment and get ready to pay much higher taxes. There is one other option, we could do like many other countries in the world and default on our debt but I think the price of that is way too high.

As for our growing low income and ever shrinking middle class workers working for rich foreign fat cats, what is the difference between foreign and domestic fat cats? Either way the increase in wages doesn't keep up with the increase cost of living. If you want to change tax laws, I would suggest looking at a more progressive one that favors the middle class rather then our current one that favors the rich. That's the tax reform we need.

Most legal residents don't come here to get on welfare or to gain other government services, they come here because they like our country and the rule of law and they come here because they are able to pursue their dream here. By taxing them at a higher rate and by punishing those who have come to this land legally all you do is drive the creative and ambitious people to other places and thereby cause our tax base to shrink.

I agree wholeheartedly that the American people deserve better from our government and that we need to demand that our interests our put before that of Haliburton, et al. We, the people, need to take back our government and we need to do it soon or it will be too late.

[Ned]

Originally posted by mercwyn@May 30 2006, 05:11 PM
Sorry it has taken me so long to respond.* I've been on vacation and left the cell phone and computer home...
27527

M., you did what? How could you leave your cell phone and computer at home? I just have not figured out how in the world to do that!

I'm sorry for those talking about immigration which is the topic here, and I did tell Eileen I was throwing in the towel in this discussion, as she wore me out, however, I couldn't resist responding about the cell phone and computer.

[Eileen Sellers]

...they come here because they are able to pursue their dream here.


Now, we're getting to the heart of immigration. Dreams. Personal dreams. Dreams of personal wealth,big house, big money, free enterprise. I have dreams, and expensive ones at that. I'm willing to pay for my dreams. I expect those who would come to this country to realize their dreams won't mind paying a bit. It won't diminish their desire to realize their dreams. In fact it could work so well for our country that we could double the number of allotments for legal residents.
Now twice the number of dreamers can come and give it a try.

We have 15 million (conservative estimate) illegal residents who want to be legal residents. 15 million people who have come to this country illegally to realize their dreams, with one exception. They broke the law to get to their dreams. They have used up the legal allotment for immigration for the next 75 years! I'll say it again, they have used the legal allotment for the entire world for the next 75 years.

We have politicians who care more about getting elected by those who broke the law than by those who uphold the law. These politicians are not suitable for public office.

But we must remedy the situation of 15-20 million illegal residents. Their actions give us the opportunity to absorb them and benefit our citizens at the same time. Changing the laws of taxation for legal residents could not only give low income families the break they need, it could also take care of middle income tax relief.
In fact it could work so well, that perhaps citizens wouldn't have to pay tax at all.

Think about it, no tax for low income, no tax for middle income, and tax relief for the wealthy. Of course, you might think that 200,0