SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Oeconomicus who wrote (59650)6/7/2007 9:45:38 AM
From: J.B.C.  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 90947
 
I thought you were arguing it WOULDN'T become a police state, Laz. Do you know what you are typing?

You seem to be very incapable of backing up what you type, but I'll not get into all of you other shortcomings. Since when is enforcing existing law equivalent to becoming a police state?

en.wikipedia.org



To: Oeconomicus who wrote (59650)6/7/2007 10:40:55 AM
From: mph  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 90947
 
I'd actually be interested in seeing the studies that show that the net cost of having illegals here is insignificant or even negative. Please do post them. I'm also interested in who funded the studies.

I would guess that the majority of illegal immigrants have lower income households and in particular, households receiving payments in cash where no taxes are involved and where actual income is difficult to assess.

I do find it hard to believe that the taxpayer cost per illegal household is 1/2 that of a comparable legal immigrant or citizen. I would surmise that this results from the fact that there are still a few programs to which illegal immigrants are not allowed access. There is also less likelihood of tax contributions flowing from the illegal households into the tax coffers as well as the reality that much of the money earned locally by illegals is being shipped out of the country. The latter has a negative effect, which probably wasn't even addressed. Inability to verify income would affect the numbers.



To: Oeconomicus who wrote (59650)6/7/2007 3:49:59 PM
From: Lazarus_Long  Respond to of 90947
 
GFY. You complain endlessly about name calling, then do it. AND you pay absolutely no attention to all the evidence coming from multiple viewpoints and multiple people that you are WRONG.

You didn't lose your talking points; you lost your mind.