Illegal Immigration

I'm going to have to take some time to do some research on this, because something doesn't make sense.

To my knowledge, which I'll admit is limited, the employer has to file certain paperwork in order to withhold taxes and social security. Those forms, to my knowledge, typically require a Social Security number to associate the aforementioned withholdings.

If someone is here illegally, then how do they legally have a Social Security number with which to "legally" pay taxes on income?

Like I said, I have to do some research. Something isn't adding up. I'm missing some information somewhere.

 

"If someone is here illegally, then how do they legally have a Social Security number with which to "legally" pay taxes on income?"

In our state they do not have a legal SS number, they steal them from citizens and cause the citizen great headaches getting their identity back - another huge cost to America's overal economy.

They have multiple people using a single SS number stolen from someone else.

 

My research indicates the following. I haven't completely verified this yet (ie. I haven't read the pertinent laws first hand yet), but I have every reason to believe it is accurate:

First of all, one does not need a SS number to pay income tax. The IRS issues Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers to those who are eligible for SS#s. Immigration status is not a factor in receiving an ITIN so illegals can legally obtain them.

Additionally, if having a SS# is necessary for purposes of employment, the ITIN conveniently comes in the same number form as a SS#. Create a fake SS card and pop your ITIN number on it and presto you are ready to go. Employers almost never verify a SS# at employment if they see the card, and for tax purposes the fake SS# works fine since it is a legitimate ITIN.


Also, since the law requires only that applicants show a SS card in order to be hired, but not that the employer need verify the card in any way, there are many other ways to beat the system w/o having to resort to stealing other's numbers. A forged card and totally fake number will work just as well as a stolen number. In fact, stealing a number in order to get employment is generally the least optimum choice for illegals, and its certainly no better than simply giving a false number.

 

So just legalize them - problems mentioned above are then solved.

 

You're onto to something there DW. If our lawmakers would only legalize assault, theft, arson, and end all restrictions on immigration then our crime problem would end instantly. Look at all the money we'd save on prisons and the courts :thumbsup:

 

On what basis do you equate illegally crossing the border with things like assault, theft, and arson? Why not instead compare it to things like speeding or failing to wear a seat belt instead? We all agree that illegal immigration is illegal. What is *not* apparent is why illegal immigration would be placed in the category of things that would be morally wrong and/or harmful to society even if they were legalized. In order for illegal immigration to be compared to things like theft, arson, assault, it would need to be shown that crossing a border w/o permission is wrong or harmful even if it is no longer illegal.

So, make arson, assault and theft no longer illegal and everyone would agree that they still are wrong and/or harmful. But make crossing our border w/o specific permission no longer illegal and its not at all apparent how doing so would be wrong or harmful. In fact, arguing that it is would become absurd given that for most of our history such was the case. Such severe restrictions on immigration as we have today is the exception in our history, not the norm.

A much better comparison to illegal immigration would be if a state had a public park which was free for the resident of the state to enter, but those who lived outside the state were supposed to get a permit to enter. The permits are very hard to come by and, even if you are one of the lucky few who can get one, may still take years of waiting. Because of this many non-residents enter the park illegally. A lot of money is spent in trying to keep these illegal park users out or expel those who were able to make it in. No one disputes that the state has the right to regulate their parks this way, nor do that disagree that doing so is reasonable (after all, its the residents who pay taxes to keep up the park). However, because of the cost associated with enforcing this law, one state legislator proposes that law be done away with and everyone be allowed to enter the park regardless of their resident status. In a case like this, would it be at all reasonable for someone to protest "Why not just legalize assault, arson and theft while you are at"? I don't think anyone would say that such a response is reasonable even if they disagreed with the proposal for other reasons.

As Paul has been trying to point out, it is *essential* in a discussion of illegal immigration to determine what sort of illegal act we should consider it. On the scale of illegal acts there is jaywalking on one end and murder on the other. Is illegal immigration more on the end of murder or more toward the jaywalking end?

 

(still researching, but saw this)
Excellent analogy.

My question to the lawmaker then is, how do we ensure continued revenue to maintain the park? If we just opened it up to everyone, how do we ensure everyone plays a part in ensuring the grass is mowed, the playground equipment is kept up to safety standards, etc.?

 

No answer. I don't believe there is any direct answer since every solution has its upsides and downsides. The voters and lawmakers just have to decide what they wish to accomplish and what they are willing to pay and then come to some balance between the two.

I merely point out that the real issue of the 113 billion is not about illegally crossing the border but about the form and structure of our welfare system. Beyond the cost of regulation, the 113 billion has nothing to do with them being here illegally, merely with them being here at all and being poor. Thus this sort of cost cannot be used as a valid argument against illegal immigration.

 

The Border Patrol has been trying to enforce our immigration laws since 1924 with some modest success. In 1951 Gen. Eisenhower quoted the NY Times in saying, "The rise in illegal border-crossing by Mexicans to a current rate of more than 1,000,000 cases a year has been accompanied by a curious relaxation in ethical standards extending all the way from the farmer-exploiters of this contraband labor to the highest levels of the Federal Government."

Just look at the 1954 sweeps which resulted in 500,000 to 700,000 illegals returning to Mexico. So saying that the current restrictions are not the norm is an incorrect statement. Enforcement has at times been much more severe than it is now.

The days when the US needed a steady source of unskilled labor are long gone. We can't even keep our own citizens employed, much less can we allow open borders and full amnesty as you advocate. Someone's got to pay for that free park of yours.

 

1. From 1924 to 2010 = 76 years.
From 1776 to 2010 = 234 years.
My statement about immigration restrictions being the exception in our history stands. I don't claim that restrictions are the worst ever, or that enforcement is the strongest ever, merely that strict regulation isn't found through most of our history. Don't confuse strict restrictions on immigration with strict enforcement of immigration policies. I was referring only to the former and not the latter.

2. I did not argue for amnesty, I merely indicate that it would solve some of the problems presented against illegal immigration. I also point out that amnesty would not be equivalent to things like legalizing assault, theft or arson. I merely ask for reasons why amnesty is unacceptable.

3. I certainly didn't argue for open borders. I merely note that one way in which the problem of illegal crossings is to liberalize restrictions legal entry - conform immigration laws to the ideals stated on the Statue of Liberty. In fact, liberalizing immigration restrictions could be one of the most effective ways to protect the border.

4. In the end, you reemphasize the point I have been trying to make. Your problem is not so much with them entering illegally, but with them entering at all. You (apparently) would be against more than a very limited number of them coming to the US even if it was all done legally. That is an argument ultimately against immigration, not illegal immigration per se. Illegal immigration just happens to represent the majority of immigration at this time.

 

Our border with Mexico was very fluid for most of that time. It was not well-defined until 1845 when Texas became part of the US.

For many reasons, not least of which millions of illegals should not be given preference while those who attempt to enter legally wait years for their chance.

There is also the point that among Mexican immigrants who are already here the poverty rate is above 30%. As Harvard's George Borjas wrote back in 2000, "We will surely relearn in the next economic downturn, the United States offers public services that are far more expensive to maintain when there are many immigrants who are poor and have low job skills."

Borjas also pointed out that the huge numbers do not assimilate well and tend toward a balkanized society. They can maintain their cultural identity far into the future.

 

Our borders with European nations was well defined from the beginning. Yet our immigration laws with them were either extremely liberal or nearly non-existent.

If entry restrictions are liberalized at the same time, then this is a non-issue - there can be no preference shown in a line if the line no longer exists (relatively speaking). In fact, doing so would be a logical extension of any amnesty.

This isn't a problem with amnesty. After all, the people getting amnesty are already here using public services. Granting them amnesty doesn't increase their numbers magically. This instead is simply an argument against letting them in at all, whether it be legally or illegally. Its not about keeping out illegals, its about keeping the poor immigrants out, period.

This has ALWAYS been true of poor immigrants (ie. the bulk of immigrants to our country). For one, they are often met with hostility by the "natives", they don't speak the language well, they didn't come here because they hated their culture but because they sought opportunity, etc. All these things add together to create incentives for them to group together. Making it hard for them to become legalized only increases such incentives.

However, in all other cases, legal immigrants eventually assimilated. It usually took a generation but it happened (the new generation had many incentives and pressures to assimilate that the old did not, plus they were more able to do so). History would indicate that liberalizing entry would tend to help assimilation along rather than the opposite.


So, your reasoning seems to break down to...
Amnesty is a problem because it legalizes something that is bad for us - it legalizes poor immigrants coming to the US.
Thats a valid argument. After all, poor immigrants are necessarily a drain (short term at least) on the economy. If thats the main consideration, then both immigration of poor to the US (legal or otherwise) is a problem as well as amnesty for those already here.

However, this reasoning ignores some things worth considering...
1. Immigrants to the use have generally come as poor laborers. Seeking opportunity is, after all, one very significant motivating factor for immigrating. It is the poor who tend to have less to gain by staying in the old country and less to lose by leaving. Hence, they tend to make up the bulk of immigrants.
2. It can easily be argued, and basic observation should support the fact that while immigrants may be a short term drain on the economy, as a group they have always become a net gain for both our economy, our nation and our culture. We couldn't be what we are today w/o the large waves of (mostly poor) immigrants that came to the US. Why should we believe that Latinos will be any different in the long run?
3. To me, the most significant thing which needs to be considered is whether or not we should seek to follow the principles stated Statue of Liberty or not. Are they nice sounding words or should they help to guide our policy towards immigrants? I believe the latter is both the proper Christian response, not to mention the best representation of our founding ideals.

 

Actually, your analogy directly addresses the welfare point.

Even if the lawmakers institute entry fees, there will be those that can't afford them, and will rely on the goodness of the government to help subsidize their use of the park. While I have no problem with this thought, it still brings into question the residency factor: Those that don't want to take advantage of the residency -- do they still get privileges into the park? No matter the income level?

 

Or there are no subsidies and they just don't use the park (legally at least). The answer depends on where you find the balance between the use of public land for the benefit of all equally and how much you want the actual user to contribute to its use. There is no truly fair answer to the question. On one end you make it inaccessible to the poor due to cost, and on the other end you spread to other's who may never use the park at all.

As above, there is no perfectly fair answer. In any solution someone is going to have to pay for more than they get out of the park. Thus you have to decide what is your goal apart from "fairness". Which, interestingly enough, is the same sort of answer I suggest for the immigration problem. There is no "fair" solution to the immigration problem.

And, the park analogy is not perfect. In the case of illegals, they do contribute to paying for the services they use...at least as much as other poor people do. If its not a problem that we hand out services to those citizens who don't pay their "fair share" why is it a problem to do the same for poor immigrants? Welfare is a privilege of citizenship?

And the fact that the largest portion of the 113 billion cost (53 billion of it if IIRC) makes this whole argument even more problematic. This means that about half of the cost is due to benefits being given to people who didn't have a choice one way or the others...many of them legal citizens.

I am amazed that conservatives don't use this issue to latch onto what should be a conservative ideal (welcoming those who flee injustice and economic hardships to seek opportunity in the US - what could be more American Pie?) and instead use this 113 billion problem as a hammer against an over-bloated welfare system. The libertarians seem to be way more on track with this issue than conservatives.

 

We do - it's called LEGAL immigration.

 

But then Mexico is not a European nation, and it is where the bulk of immigrants are coming from. As I said, our border with Mexico was not well-defined until 1845, so you cannot say that our current enforcement is out of the norm. There has been no norm and there have been times when enforcement was much more severe.

When immigration mostly was coming from Europe and laws were liberal, the US needed large numbers of low-skilled workers. That is no longer the case. We are unable to keep our own workers employed. There is no excuse for allowing millions more to enter uninvited.

Which brings us back to chucking all the rules. Just do away with the rules and problem magically solved.

It is an argument against relaxing the standards for entry, or doing away with the line as you have argued for. If you can mix arguments then so can I!

The difference is that German, Italian and Russian immgration eventually ended. Mexicans continue to come and there has been no break for 60 years. Mexicans living in the US are 30% of the total foreign born. In their heyday, Italians, Germans and Russions combined constituted 30% of foreign-born. So the numbers of Mexicans are much larger and yes balkanization is a real problem.

You do realize the "Give Me Your Tired, Your Poor" inscription on the statue did not reflect any Constitutional concepts, but was originated by poet Emma Lazarus who wrote it for the occasion. Are we forever locked into an open door immigration policy because of a poet's nice-sounding words?

 

Our immigration policies do *not* represent those ideals.
1. They are very restrictive in terms of time.
2. They are very restrictive in terms of class.

No more do we welcome the poor and oppressed openly...unless they come from a country we are politically opposed to. No longer can the poor and oppressed freely come to the US, they must often wait for years to legally enter (not much good for fleeing oppression and poverty), and they are unlikely to get legal permission if they are below a particular social standing.

If you went to someone's house and knocked on the door, would you consider it "welcoming" if they made you stand outside for a very long time while deciding if you could come inside? Would it be "welcoming" if they wouldn't let you in because you were too poor? To me, such policies are not "welcoming" the poor and oppressed.

 

My excuse is the ideals stated on the Statue of Liberty. I believe those best represent Christian values and the ideals of the USA and should be followed regardless of the economic realities.

But, I won't dispute with over this since it illustrates what I set out to illustrate. The real issue with illegal immigration boils down to not wanting a large number of them here at all, even if they came legally. Once that is clear, I merely point to the ideals found in the Statue of Liberty and leave it at that. Either one agrees with those ideals or one does not. If one does not, then they should be upfront with the real issue they have with illegal immigration - they simply don't want large numbers to come to the US.

The problem of illegal immigration is solved. No longer will they be using up resource illegally. But sure, if your main problem boils down to not wanting them here at all, then amnesty does nothing to solve that problem and in fact, is likely to make it worse. My point is not that amnesty solves everything but that it does solve the supposed problems that most people throw up. But, boil the issue down to simply not wanting them to come here at all, and, as you say, amnesty is not a good solution for that.

But let me also make clear that I my more serious suggestion is not simply chucking all the rules - merely changing the current rules to a different set of rules.

No mixing arguments on either end here. Its now come to what I believe is the more accurate focus - that the main argument you have is not against illegal immigration per se, but against large number of poor immigrating here at all. Illegal immigration is merely the current form of this, but allowing them to come legally would not the fix problem. I just want to make clear that all other issues you raise are beside the point of the main issue you have.

I have found that your main issue is the common one among conservatives. I merely point out here that all objections raised that don't have to do with this main issue are little more than logical smoke screens. They detract and distract from the main issue.

I don't dispute that there are differences. Historically though, I don't see that the differences will lead to a different conclusion...unless we insist on making it hard for them to come. Make it as hard as possible for them to assimilate and the chances they won't is great. Make it easy for them to assimilate and actively encourage it, and the chances they will is much greater - in fact, there is little to expect they wouldn't. The problem is when policies provide more incentive towards balkanization than otherwise and that is then used as an argument for disallowing liberal entry. Circular reasoning.

1. I realize it doesn't reflect any ideals in the Constitution...but thats because the Constitution is silent on the matter. So, by the same token, its not contradictory to the Constitution.
2. At the same time, I believe it does reflect American ideals very accurately. That's not to say that we are locked into it (certainly not by the Constitution), but it does raise the question of why we should depart from those ideals.
3. More significantly, I believe they represent the best of Christian ideals as found in governmental policy. Of course, whether the government should at all operate by Christian ideals is open to debate.


But really, my main objective in all this is not to prove others wrong, but to move the debate away from (what I believe to be) the smoke screen issue of "But its illegal!!" and focus the discussion on the more accurate issue of pro/con of more open immigration policies.

 

Then you are in favor of unlimited and unrestricted immigration?

What restrictions - if any - would you advocate?

 

What would the majority opinion on this thread is Mexican nationals were very white baptists?