After Reagan signed the amnesty bill a fence was to be erected and illegals were to be clamped down on and sent home. The cost of doing business would be offset by not paying welfare to non-citizens and more Americans would be employed and off welfare. Or, at least they would receive fewer benefits, as now they would be employed. Then maybe taxes would at least not increase.

 

The amount of sales taxes the non-citizens pay would not come close to covering the amount of welfare they are receiving.

I readily acknowledge the costs. They exist, and you can't deny that. But like it or not, immigrants provide a significant boost to our economy, and provide a large labor force, and help keep prices down especially in agriculture and construction. I can answer with the same thing...a billion here and a billion there...it does add up quickly. And are you willing to pay more for everyday items (possibly significantly in some cases), shutter small businesses that depend on the labor, and take billions of $'s out of our economy by removing all immigrants, while spending billions to to do so?? This isn't a vacuum...removing immigrants from our economy is going to have a negative effect. I'm not sure why that's so hard to understand, and why we aren't focusing on both the costs and benefits.

 

You are willing to break the law to keep prices down? Seems very wrong. If you get to choose a law to break, are the rest of us allowed to choose a law to break?

 

Let's enforce all laws until they are changed.

You are willing to break the law to keep prices down? Seems very wrong. If you get to choose a law to break, are the rest of us allowed to choose a law to break?

 

Let's enforce all laws until they are changed.

 

Your putting words in my mouth. Again, I acknowledge that our system is flawed. And our politicians, business owners, and us as consumers are all somewhat responsible for the problem. But you can't deny the impact that immigrants, both legal and illegal have on our economy. A significant labor force that works cheap results in lower prices on everyday items, like food. Getting rid of those workers will have a pretty significant negative impact. Not to mention the spending that they do in the communities that they live, the sales tax they pay, payroll contributions to social security (that they currently will have no prayer of collecting). My point is, while everyone talks a tough game on immigration, I'm not sure that everyone has thought through the consequences, and would be less than happy with some of the collateral damage that would occur. A good many people would be negatively impacted by a complete 180 degree turn in policy.

I readily acknowledge the costs. They exist, and you can't deny that. But like it or not, immigrants provide a significant boost to our economy, and provide a large labor force, and help keep prices down especially in agriculture and construction. I can answer with the same thing...a billion here and a billion there...it does add up quickly. And are you willing to pay more for everyday items (possibly significantly in some cases), shutter small businesses that depend on the labor, and take billions of $'s out of our economy by removing all immigrants, while spending billions to to do so?? This isn't a vacuum...removing immigrants from our economy is going to have a negative effect. I'm not sure why that's so hard to understand, and why we aren't focusing on both the costs and benefits.

 

Funny how cost to consumers never factor into the left's mindset when talking about things like regulation of the coal industry, Obamacare or raising the minimum wage.

And again, you keep mentioning costs. What about what they add to the economy, especially in industries like construction and agriculture?? You willing to pay more for food?? What about housing or to have your house repaired?? Deport all of them, and suddenly we are looking at higher prices, less sales taxes collected, lower revenues across the board because of the lost purchasing power of that segment. And, the immigrants working and collecting a paycheck are contributing through payroll deductions to the social security base.

 

All these reasons above, are why no president (or congress, or at the state level) over the last 3 (and probably more) decades are willing to make substantial changes to immigration policy. Like it or not there would be a huge negative effect on our economy. You may hate the costs... But you're not complaining about the benefits. It's not as simple as saying "let's round em all up and send them home"

 

Most if not all the illegals that I know do not get a check, they work for cash and only cash.

 

I had a long discussion with a good friend from the Philippines who spent several summers in the California farm fields several years ago.

 

She was very passionate that the immigration process was very flawed. She felt that ag works should be able to easily get a 6 month work visa. She said the paper work/hassle to get these visas drives people to use the current coyote system to get to the US.

 

Once registered, they must declare at the border when returning on or before their visa expiring. If they fail to report back, they are subject to arrest,,and never have the right to return to the US.

 

Her point being, it needs to be easier to get in, and you MUST leave after your times up.

Edited May 10, 201610 yr by TexasRanger
add text

Funny how cost to consumers never factor into the left's mindset when talking about things like regulation of the coal industry, Obamacare or raising the minimum wage.

 

THIS!!!

Liberals complaining about the cost of anything is entirely disingenuous . Get real.

Liberals complaining about the cost of anything is entirely disingenuous . Get real.

 

So because I'm liberal, the point I raised has no validity and you're not even willing to engage in the discussion? The reluctance to even listen to the other side is why the country is so divided. For what it's worth, I'm on the conservative side on some of the fiscal issues, such as minimum wage (and I've posted about that in particular on this site).

 

What is your plan to offset the effect large scale deportation would have on the economy?? Or do you just not believe there would be a negative effect? Or do you not care??

Your putting words in my mouth. Again, I acknowledge that our system is flawed. And our politicians, business owners, and us as consumers are all somewhat responsible for the problem. But you can't deny the impact that immigrants, both legal and illegal have on our economy. A significant labor force that works cheap results in lower prices on everyday items, like food. Getting rid of those workers will have a pretty significant negative impact. Not to mention the spending that they do in the communities that they live, the sales tax they pay, payroll contributions to social security (that they currently will have no prayer of collecting). My point is, while everyone talks a tough game on immigration, I'm not sure that everyone has thought through the consequences, and would be less than happy with some of the collateral damage that would occur. A good many people would be negatively impacted by a complete 180 degree turn in policy.

 

Lower prices or higher profit margins?

Lower prices or higher profit margins?

 

I would say a little bit of both.

After Reagan signed the amnesty bill a fence was to be erected and illegals were to be clamped down on and sent home. The cost of doing business would be offset by not paying welfare to non-citizens and more Americans would be employed and off welfare. Or, at least they would receive fewer benefits, as now they would be employed. Then maybe taxes would at least not increase.

 

The amount of sales taxes the non-citizens pay would not come close to covering the amount of welfare they are receiving.

 

I don't remember that part. Here's a summary:

 

Memory of immigration reform under Ronald Reagan haunts current debate | Tampa Bay Times

Rjs - your points are valid , just wrong . I'm not running for president , I don't need to state my own platform on BGP . But to play along , Yes I care , and yes hey may be a small amount of pain involved in the agriculture and construction segments , but if that means care for native households , our ( legally ) here poor and our elderly and our veterans get better care than so be it . Thats what I'm for .

Rjs - your points are valid , just wrong . I'm not running for president , I don't need to state my own platform on BGP . But to play along , Yes I care , and yes hey may be a small amount of pain involved in the agriculture and construction segments , but if that means care for native households , our ( legally ) here poor and our elderly and our veterans get better care than so be it . Thats what I'm for .

 

I've always wondered, if the illegals were kicked out, would current Americans take these jobs or would they remain on government assistance?

Does anybody know how many illegal immigrants we have incarcerated at about $40 K per year??

 

I believe that I read where there were close to 400,000, which would be at a cost of $16 billion to taxpayers.:eek: How many Wall St. speeches would Hillary have to make to cover that?:idunno:

If we can go take over Iraq, then we can go to Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua and have some surrounding countries help get the gangs and cartels out and allow these illegals to go back home to a new government and start.