CIR 2010 - Comprehensive Immigration Reform Reality Check

No description available.

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• dream act
• dream act 2009
• immigration
• undocumented
• illegal
• immigration reform

[imreallyclever]

Pelosi is a gonner, nothing to worry about.

[imreallyclever]

@mokkang you sound terribly afraid...

[npere123]

Its funny how throughout the comments "rewarding law breakers" comes up. Yet criminals in our jails get more benefits than a college student trying to get some financial aid. the majority of illegals come here for a better life.coming here is their crime?

[Caucasianpride1]

..so we just legalize continuously every illegal immigrant that crosses the border..according to the video. So they will keep coming...and will keep legalizing them..just because is more cost - effective than "enforcement". Pile of crap...

[coolbreezed]

@Antitheist98 I'll watch the video. These claims are not unsubstantiated because I have worked insurance defense and many illegal immigrants have sued our clients. In discovery, I find out exactly what types of benefits they receive vs. the taxes they pay. It does not balance. Granted these are just a few cases but if they can do it then all can do it. This is real life experience.

I would support an open border if you eliminated the welfare state. Its not the immigrants I abhor its the cost.

[Antitheist98]

@coolbreezed How about you watch the video titled "Jason Riley Assails Myths of Immigration." It's very short. He can present these ideas much better than I and without a character limit. I feel like you're making a whole bunch of unsubstantiated assumptions (welfare usage, not speaking english, etc)

Conservatives use the welfare state excuse to prohibit all sorts of actions from immigration to drug use. Seems like it would be more practical to fence off welfare state than the country

[coolbreezed]

@Antitheist98 You are redirecting the argument w/o addressing my point. It won't work. I argued that once they are CITIZENS they are entitled to the benefits of our welfare state. A massive influx of non-English speaking low skilled workers who pay a mere 10% fed tax or less vs. the massive cost of feeding them, providing their healthcare, and educating their non-English speaking kids? The math doesn't work.

You realize that LA county spends $1.6 BILLION on the children of illegals? BILLION!

[coolbreezed]

@Antitheist98 The difference is that immigrants of 100 years ago received little to no entitlements and consequently were a good low risk investment for the country. They had to work or they would starve. Conversely, in our current welfare state, immigrants will be able to choose whether they will work or not and will receive countless entitlements regardless of their employment status. It is unfair to compare the immigrants from 100 years ago w/ the immigrants of today. Apples and oranges.

[coolbreezed]

@Antitheist98 The humane thing to do is not an argument. Its an appeal to weak minded bleeding hearts. You can make that argument for anything. For example, we shouldn't eat meat because killing animals is "inhumane". Ridiculous.

I will look for info by Dan Griswold. But even if what you are saying is substantiated speculation, you must agree that it is counterintuitive? 

Why do it? Answer is because it encourages future illegal immigration. Laws have no point if we don't enforce them.

[Antitheist98]

@coolbreezed To answer your question as to why giving them legal status is a good idea, you should search for videos by Dan Griswold from Cato Institute. He argues that the difference to the economy between a good and bad immigration policy is in the $500 billion range through increased productivity and tax revenue. Also it's the humane thing to do, especially for their children. These are economic refugees escaping being trapped in poverty and corruption. So why not do it is the better question

[Antitheist98]

@coolbreezed Do you think it was a mistake to let in the Germans, French, Scandinavians, Irish, Italian, Eastern Europeans, Latinos already here, and now Asians, because they wouldn't have been able to find jobs without speaking English or had low skills? every argument you bring up has been used against every group that came before. The only difference is that in the past they were allowed in. Today they aren't so all you have to say is"they illegal."