Government finally admits: Immigration IS placing huge strain on Britain

[sirs]

And frankly, if the folks who are so adamant about closing the borders were as adamant about reducing or eliminating the government run entitlements programs, we wouldn't need to worry about immigrants using up all the tax dollars and the country would be much better off.[/color]

Where do you get that those of the former aren't also supportive of the latter?? 

And one more time, it's about "closing the borders" to ILEGAL IMMIGRATION, not to immigration itself       

[Plane]

"So many people seem to assume all this trade is going to result in net losses."

I don't think it is an assumption , it s demonstrable.

"Apparently among the immigrants there no entrepreneurs and none ambitious enough to try to learn skills or make more money."

Amoung the leagal immagrants it is the usual case that they plan to make money , raise their children well and stay.
Illeagal immagrtion is diffrent in just this way.



The American Tax Base is the wealthy .The uppermost 25% are paying more than 90% of the tax burden.

"Is it? All those other folks buying things, having their payroll taxes taken, all that doesn't contribute to the tax base? Do nonwealthy people not pay sales tax? Do they not have FICA taxes taken from their paychecks?"

Yes it is. FICA has been abused for many years , it should have always been reserved for retirement purposes rather than placed in the general fund Soial SEcurty is doomed to failure for this being so.
 Right now FICA recipts has drawn even with  Social security demand inhe future the trnd will be for SS and other entitrlements to pull more and more off ofthe general fund.

Income tax should be considered seaprately and it is exactly as I stated beingborne on the sholders of the wealthy. It would help to have more immagrants who are wealthy or more immagrants who will become wealthy neither are found amoung the illleagal.

[Universe Prince]

And frankly, if the folks who are so adamant about closing the borders were as adamant about reducing or eliminating the government run entitlements programs, we wouldn't need to worry about immigrants using up all the tax dollars and the country would be much better off.

Where do you get that those of the former aren't also supportive of the latter??

I didn't say supportive. I said as adamant about ending the programs as they are adamant about closing the borders. And no, the effort going into arguing and campaigning for closed, or highly restricted if you prefer, borders I don't see going into arguing and campaigning for the end of socialist entitlement programs. They remain essentially a third rail, considered politically off limits. Ron Paul is argued to be unelectable, at least in part, because he is actually willing to come out and say that he wants to phase out such programs. If the closed/restricted border and smaller government folks really wanted to support a candidate who would work for the things they say they want, Ron Paul would get poll numbers much higher than he does. This is one indicator that the support for ending the programs is nearly non-existent compared to the desire many have for closed/restricted borders.

And one more time, it's about "closing the borders" to ILEGAL IMMIGRATION, not to immigration itself

I'll repeat what I said before to a similar comment from you: Are you or are you not the one complaining about a "flood" of "10s of millions"? You are arguing against allowing that to happen, are you not? Obviously you think we need to stop the vast majority of them. And obviously this isn't about them just getting in line and doing it legally, because I'm arguing for allowing more of them to immigrate legally, and you are objecting to that. Your own argument makes quite clear that you want to stop people from being able to come here. Yes, you are willing to allow some, but clearly not all or you wouldn't keep bringing up the numbers and complaining about a "flood" of them. So yes, you are basically advocating keeping people from immigrating to America.

[Universe Prince]

Amoung the leagal immagrants it is the usual case that they plan to make money , raise their children well and stay.
Illeagal immagrtion is diffrent in just this way.

Different in just what way? Are you suggesting all illegal immigrants want to remain dirt poor, to forget their children and to leave? Is that why the risk death and imprisonment to find work here? Your comment makes no sense.

It would help to have more immagrants who are wealthy or more immagrants who will become wealthy neither are found amoung the illleagal.

True enough that the poor illegal immigrants probably have some trouble scraping together the funds to pay for legal entry into the U.S., but I have no idea why you think that among the illegal immigrants there are none who would become wealthy. Do you think they are all unwilling or incapable? That seems to me like a completely unreasonable judgment. Upon what do you base this pronouncement of there being none among illegal immigrants who would become wealthy?

[Plane]

Amoung the leagal immagrants it is the usual case that they plan to make money , raise their children well and stay.
Illeagal immagrtion is diffrent in just this way.

Different in just what way? Are you suggesting all illegal immigrants want to remain dirt poor, to forget their children and to leave? Is that why the risk death and imprisonment to find work here? Your comment makes no sense.

It would help to have more immagrants who are wealthy or more immagrants who will become wealthy neither are found amoung the illleagal.

True enough that the poor illegal immigrants probably have some trouble scraping together the funds to pay for legal entry into the U.S., but I have no idea why you think that among the illegal immigrants there are none who would become wealthy. Do you think they are all unwilling or incapable? That seems to me like a completely unreasonable judgment. Upon what do you base this pronouncement of there being none among illegal immigrants who would become wealthy?

Illeagal Immagrants are not playing within the rules , mostly they are not bad people but they certaily are not obedient to the law.

I think that the law does need to change bt the huge number of Illeagal Immagrants hides the need from the people responsible to make the change , includeing our voters.

Most of the illeagal immagrants make what money they can , run terrible risk , are exploited and cheated , then they return to their homes wit the money they broke the law to earn.

This process is bad for everyone involved.

It would be better if they would fill out the forms as reqired and wait their turn , then when they came in leagally they would not fear the police , they would not have to accept skimming , they could apply for permanant resident or citizenship if they wanted . I don't think it good to have a lot of non citizens here that we depend on but don't treat well.

Soon after the border fence is complete enough to really slow the movement of migrant workers , we will begin to starve for thework they had been doing and the law will be changed.

Why do they wait for us to use force on them to make us aware of how we need them?

If they could organise a strike it would require no more that all of them on the same day giveing themselves up to the immagration authority , we would be obliged to send them home and we would find that we could not.

[sirs]

And frankly, if the folks who are so adamant about closing the borders were as adamant about reducing or eliminating the government run entitlements programs, we wouldn't need to worry about immigrants using up all the tax dollars and the country would be much better off.

Where do you get that those of the former aren't also supportive of the latter??

I didn't say supportive. I said as adamant about ending the programs as they are adamant about closing the borders. And no, the effort going into arguing and campaigning for closed, or highly restricted if you prefer, borders I don't see going into arguing and campaigning for the end of socialist entitlement programs. They remain essentially a third rail, considered politically off limits. .

Yet somehow you've concluded that those who aren't apparently as adamantly verbal in the one must somehow be inconsistent, if you perceive them to be adamantly verbal in the other.  News flash Prince, MOST conservatives adamantly wish the cessation of federally run social programs that have been shown to be a complete drain of tax dollars, with little if any success.  Many of those conservatives adamantly wish a cessation of such programs period, since few, if any, have any constitutional jurisdiction that obligates the Fed to intervene.  The Fed DOES however have a constitutional mandate to protect this country, and enforcing exiting border laws fits very appropriately with that mandate

I'll repeat what I said before to a similar comment from you: Are you or are you not the one complaining about a "flood" of "10s of millions"? You are arguing against allowing that to happen, are you not? Obviously you think we need to stop the vast majority of them. And obviously this isn't about them just getting in line and doing it legally, because I'm arguing for allowing more of them to immigrate legally, and you are objecting to that. Your own argument makes quite clear that you want to stop people from being able to come here. Yes, you are willing to allow some, but clearly not all or you wouldn't keep bringing up the numbers and complaining about a "flood" of them. So yes, you are basically advocating keeping people from immigrating to America.

How you can manage to take how "I support LEGAL immigration and for people to come to America to make a better life for themselves, simply they they get in line and do it legally" to "you are basically advocating keeping people from immigrating to America" is quite the (ir)rational linguistic somersault.  Well, at least those with an open mind, who read these posts, know better

[Universe Prince]

Most of the illeagal immagrants make what money they can , run terrible risk , are exploited and cheated , then they return to their homes wit the money they broke the law to earn.

Actually most of them remain for the simple fact that sneaking across the border again is just as hazardous going into Mexico and then of course, sneaking back in again later is also at the risk of death, and usually requres more money spent. Easier to stay here once they get in.

This process is bad for everyone involved.

We agree on that much.

It would be better if they would fill out the forms as reqired and wait their turn , then when they came in leagally they would not fear the police , they would not have to accept skimming , they could apply for permanant resident or citizenship if they wanted . I don't think it good to have a lot of non citizens here that we depend on but don't treat well.

It would be better if that process of coming here was dramatically easier. Some people wait a decade or more for permission. If your kids are hungry and in need of shelter now, would you want to wait ten years or even a single year before you could do something about it?

Why do they wait for us to use force on them to make us aware of how we need them?

If they could organise a strike it would require no more that all of them on the same day giveing themselves up to the immagration authority , we would be obliged to send them home and we would find that we could not.

And they would make no money, as they would all end up in jail. Defeating the purpose of being here. And I believe they and others have attempted to make known to us how much we depend on their labor, but the problem is, no one seems to be paying attention. We're all too busy complaining about culture and taxes.

[Universe Prince]

Yet somehow you've concluded that those who aren't apparently as adamantly verbal in the one must somehow be inconsistent, if you perceive them to be adamantly verbal in the other.

I don't believe I said inconsistent. I think I basically suggested they were obviously not as concerned about the one as they are the other.

How you can manage to take how "I support LEGAL immigration and for people to come to America to make a better life for themselves, simply they they get in line and do it legally" to "you are basically advocating keeping people from immigrating to America" is quite the (ir)rational linguistic somersault.

No, actually Sirs, I take more than that one sentence of yours and, with no somersaults involved, I used basic deductive reasoning to arrive at a conclusion. One which I notice you dismissed but did nothing to rebut.

You complain about how large numbers of immigrants would overtax (no pun intended) government run social services and health care, et cetera. You mention a whole list of supposed detriments that opening the borders would unleash due to the "10s of millions" extra people who would be here. You complain multiple times about a "flood" of "10s of millions" of immigrants, and you insist we should not allow it. Any reasoning mind thinking about this for more than a moment would be able to come to the obvious conclusion that you want to stop people from coming here. As I said before, yes, you are willing to allow some, but clearly not all or you wouldn't keep bringing up the numbers and complaining about a "flood" of them. Yes, I know you keep saying things like "simply that they get in line and do it legally" yet your comments here are clearly in opposition to making that process less restrictive. The obvious conclusion is that you want the restrictions in place. The rational deduction here is that you want to stop not all but certainly many people from immigrating to the U.S. So as I said before, basically you advocate keeping people from immigrating to America.

[sirs]

Yet somehow you've concluded that those who aren't apparently as adamantly verbal in the one must somehow be inconsistent, if you perceive them to be adamantly verbal in the other.

I don't believe I said inconsistent. I think I basically suggested they were obviously not as concerned about the one as they are the other.

I'm not sure what the difference is.  Speaking for myself, I'm just as "concerned", but as you've already referenced, pretty hard to make any headway with so many who see Government as their savior in life.  Simply becasue you don't see the same amount of "adamant rhetoric" doesn't mean the concern isn't as great

How you can manage to take how "I support LEGAL immigration and for people to come to America to make a better life for themselves, simply they they get in line and do it legally" to "you are basically advocating keeping people from immigrating to America" is quite the (ir)rational linguistic somersault.

No, actually Sirs, I take more than that one sentence of yours and, with no somersaults involved, I used basic deductive reasoning to arrive at a conclusion. One which I notice you dismissed but did nothing to rebut.

there is nothing to rebutt.  What you've set up, is that unless someone doesn't support open borders, by design, they must be opposed to immigration.  It's a ludicrous premise, but that's also why there's nothing to rebut.  Supporting LEGAL immigration does not equate to not supporting immigration in general.  It's a simple concept, yet I understand why this need to illogically build up this irrational wall of a premise

The rational deduction here is that you want to stop not all but certainly many people from immigrating to the U.S. So as I said before, basically you advocate keeping people from immigrating to America.

Actually the rational deduction is that I want to stop ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION to the U.S. which translates into SUPPORTING LEGAL IMMIGRATION to America.  So as long as folks do it legally, I have no problem with how many come in, which happens to pretty much rebutt the flawed notion that I advocate "keeping people from immigration to America"

[Universe Prince]

What you've set up, is that unless someone doesn't support open borders, by design, they must be opposed to immigration.  It's a ludicrous premise,

That is indeed a ludicrous premise. Good thing I didn't say that then, isn't it?

Supporting LEGAL immigration does not equate to not supporting immigration in general.  It's a simple concept, yet I understand why this need to illogically build up this irrational wall of a premise

You're the one doing all the building. I did not say supporting legal immigration was equal to not supporting immigration in general. I didn't say anything was equal to anything in general. I said rather specifically that your arguments indicated that you opposed allowing people to immigrate. And I even allowed for the fact that you keep saying you're okay with legal immigration. Being okay with legal immigration does not change the fact that you are clearly opposing relaxing restrictions on immigration and complaining about what would happen if we did relax restrictions.

Actually the rational deduction is that I want to stop ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION to the U.S. which translates into SUPPORTING LEGAL IMMIGRATION to America.  So as long as folks do it legally, I have no problem with how many come in, which happens to pretty much rebutt the flawed notion that I advocate "keeping people from immigration to America"

I'm not stupid. I have no need to make up anything. And my deductive reasoning skills are certainly adequate. If your comments lead to incorrect conclusions about your position, then I suggest your comments are not effectively communicating your thoughts. If you don't want to stop people from immigrating to America, and if you don't have a problem with how many immigrants come in, just so long as they do so legally, then why do you oppose reducing the immigration restrictions and thereby allowing a much easier path for people to LEGALLY immigrate? Why do you oppose the relaxation of immigration restrictions if your desire is not to prevent people from immigrating to the U.S.? Why do you complain about the numbers of people who would come in if you have no problem with how many people immigrate?

[sirs]

What you've set up, is that unless someone doesn't support open borders, by design, they must be opposed to immigration.  It's a ludicrous premise,

That is indeed a ludicrous premise. Good thing I didn't say that then, isn't it?

Well let's see. 
I specifically reference how I support legal immigration --> which is supporting the idea of immigration to this country. 
Prince specifically references how open borders are the best way to go, but since I don't support mass movement across the border, to which he advocates --> sirs must oppose immigration

Yep, pretty much implied specifically such

Supporting LEGAL immigration does not equate to not supporting immigration in general.  It's a simple concept, yet I understand why this need to illogically build up this irrational wall of a premise

You're the one doing all the building. I did not say supporting legal immigration was equal to not supporting immigration in general. I didn't say anything was equal to anything in general. I said rather specifically that your arguments indicated that you opposed allowing people to immigrate....

Now, let's finish that sentence for accuracy now; ....opposed to allowing people to immigrate ILLEGALLY  There, that puts things in a more accurate portrayal of my position

[Universe Prince]

Well let's see. 
I specifically reference how I support legal immigration --> which is supporting the idea of immigration to this country. 
Prince specifically references how open borders are the best way to go, but since I don't support mass movement across the border, to which he advocates --> sirs must oppose immigration

You're oversimplifying both what I said and what you said. You're ignoring the details of my comments to distort what I said and to claim that I meant something I never said. And you're accusing me of being irrational?

I said rather specifically that your arguments indicated that you opposed allowing people to immigrate....

Now, let's finish that sentence for accuracy now; ....opposed to allowing people to immigrate ILLEGALLY  There, that puts things in a more accurate portrayal of my position

Yes, Sirs, we all get that you are opposed to illegal immigration. I, Universe Prince, do hereby officially acknowledge (for the umpteen hundredth time) that Sirs is not opposed to legal immigration, only to illegal immigration.

No one, let me repeat that in capital letters so there is no mistake, NO ONE said you opposed legal immigration. The thing is, you're not just saying you oppose illegal immigration. Your arguments are against reducing restrictions on immigration to allow more people to LEGALLY immigrate. Your complaints are that allowing a "flood" of "10s of millions" of immigrants will damage the country. Meanwhile, you have completely ignored my questions. If you don't want to stop people from immigrating to America, and if you don't have a problem with how many immigrants come in, just so long as they do so legally, then why do you oppose reducing the immigration restrictions and thereby allowing a much easier path for people to LEGALLY immigrate? Why do you oppose the relaxation of immigration restrictions if your desire is not to prevent people from immigrating to the U.S.? Why do you complain about the numbers of people who would come in if you have no problem with how many people immigrate?

[sirs]

I specifically reference how I support legal immigration --> which is supporting the idea of immigration to this country. 
Prince specifically references how open borders are the best way to go, but since I don't support mass movement across the border, to which he advocates --> sirs must oppose immigration

You're oversimplifying both what I said and what you said. You're ignoring the details of my comments to distort what I said and to claim that I meant something I never said. And you're accusing me of being irrational?

Actually, I'm making a perfectly reasoned deduction, based on YOUR comments.  I don't ascribe to your open borders mass immigration mindset, ergo, I must be opposed to immigration.  It's all pretty transparent

I said rather specifically that your arguments indicated that you opposed allowing people to immigrate....

Now, let's finish that sentence for accuracy now; ....opposed to allowing people to immigrate ILLEGALLY  There, that puts things in a more accurate portrayal of my position

Yes, Sirs, we all get that you are opposed to illegal immigration. I, Universe Prince, do hereby officially acknowledge (for the umpteen hundredth time) that Sirs is not opposed to legal immigration, only to illegal immigration.

Thank you.  We may now close the book, and return to our regularly scheduled program

[Plane]

Why do they wait for us to use force on them to make us aware of how we need them?

If they could organise a strike it would require no more that all of them on the same day giveing themselves up to the immagration authority , we would be obliged to send them home and we would find that we could not.

And they would make no money, as they would all end up in jail. Defeating the purpose of being here. And I believe they and others have attempted to make known to us how much we depend on their labor, but the problem is, no one seems to be paying attention. We're all too busy complaining about culture and taxes.

There is that much jail?

There are enough Illeagal Immagrants here to replace evey prisoner we have in prison twice with some left over.
They need no more participants in such a strike than whatever number would over fill the system , and the system is near capacity now.

If they all tuned themselves in and waited co-operatively in the lobbys of the Immagration  offices  there would be no wa to accomadate them ,nor twenty percent of them.

[Universe Prince]

Actually, I'm making a perfectly reasoned deduction, based on YOUR comments.  I don't ascribe to your open borders mass immigration mindset, ergo, I must be opposed to immigration.  It's all pretty transparent

Sirs, you're full of AMBE. I did not say anything about you having to ascribe to open borders. I believe what I said was that your comments about your position lead to a conclusion. Your conclusion is based on something I did not say. Your premise is faulty, because I neither said anything about you having to ascribe to open borders nor compared your position to mine at all, and your conclusion is therefore faulty. My premises are all what you actually said. I'll try walking you through this one more time.

You said the repercussions of open borders would include:

decreased resources, decreased health care services, increased taxations, the overcrowding of schools which become even that much more underfunded, lowered wages, increased poverty, increased loss of a common language & culture, an expectation of higher crime, traffic congestion, & voter fraud, not to mention the increased being taken advantage of by those employers that would try to use them as just above slave labor.

You said of the economic impact of open borders:

the increase in mass immigrants that would largely be payed with off the books takes AWAY tax revenue, while tax payers will be mugged with increased taxes to pay for the failing healthcare & education systems, especially as the Fed takes over to "fix the crisis". [...] According to fairus.org, the net annual cost of immigration has been estimated at between $67 and $87 billion a year. The National Academy of Sciences found that the net fiscal drain on American taxpayers is between $166 and $226 a year per native household. Even studies claiming some modest overall gain for the economy from immigration ($1 to $10 billion a year) have found that it is outweighed by the fiscal cost ($15 to $20 billion a year) to native taxpayers.  The net deficit is caused by a low level of tax payments by immigrants, because they are disproportionately low-skilled and thus earn low wages, and a higher rate of consumption of government services, both because of their relative poverty and their higher fertility. [...] According to the Immigrants and Welfare, Research Perspectives on Migration' report released by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace -- International Migration Policy Project, approximately 1.4 million immigrants receive AFDC or SSI payments totaling $4.5 billion annually.  Their average monthly AFDC payment is $133; their average SSI payment is $407. Estimates using a more broadly defined package of benefits and counting benefits from state and local as well as federal sources indicate that immigrants receive approximately $25 billion annually in assistance benefits.  Meaning, the country as a whole, becomes poorer, not to mention financially/economically more fragile.

Regarding expected higher crime rates you said:

Referenced in many places, but I'll use Leadership U for now, criminal immigrants account for more than 25% of all inmates in federal prisons and is the fastest growing segment of the prison population.  The federal prison population of non-citizens has increased by about 15% per year from the mid-1980s to the present. Upkeep for each prisoner costs the taxpayers $21,300 per year.  Taxpayers pay half-a-billion dollars per year incarcerating illegal alien criminals.  I can't keep up with the number of stories in Los Angeles alone of drive by killings, rapes, and murders by gang members found to be illegal immigrants.

Regarding my position of open borders and being able to solve the issues that might raise you said:

In essense, you're advocating a gamble, one that is well intentioned, but with arguably wreckless consequences to this country, if your gamble fails.  And with the scores and scores of reports, Q&A, and facts that reinforce just how bad things would get, be it to the economy, education, heatlhcare, poverty, crime & culture, I'm not taking that gamble.  Especially when it facilitates precisely the type of Federal Government control, that YOU yourself deplore, to come to the rescue, as it spirals out of control

In response to my comment that I'm not advocating anything that would be more of a gamble than California allowing people from other states to look for work in California, you said:

The difference being, THEY'RE ALREADY HERE LEGALLY.  That number is already built in to the country, from a population stand point.  We're talking the notion of opening the border to flood the country with 10s of millions more people.  Again Prince, NO ONE IS ADVOCATING THAT IMMIGRANTS CANT COME TO AMERICA.  Simply to get in line, and do it legally

Notice that in one sentence there you are complaining about the number of immigrants coming into the U.S. and then you say you want immigrants to enter legally. All of this leads to the conclusion that you support restricting immigration because you want to restrict immigration. Restricting immigration is about keeping people out of the country and letting only a few come in. Now then, part of this discussion has been me arguing that we should have open borders or at least drastically less restricted immigration. You have opposed that position several times now. Mind you, not once have I said we need more illegal immigration. I have argued merely that we need to legally allow more immigration. So I'm for legal immigration and you're for legal immigration. Yet, you still made comments in opposition to allowing more legal immigration on the grounds, as exemplified by the quotes above, that it would have detrimental effects. And you did specifically complain about "the notion of opening the border to flood the country with 10s of millions more people." (That is an actual quote. I'm not making this up.) Those statements (notice I did not say because you disagreed with me) indicate that you oppose less restrictive immigration because you want immigration to be restricted, not merely out of a concern about legal or illegal. Therefore, by your own arguments, the logical deduction is that you want to keep most potential immigrants out of the U.S. and allow a relative few entry.

If my conclusion is faulty, then my premises were faulty. Since my premises were basically what you said, then your comments must be faulty. Your poor communication is not my fault. But I did ask questions. I asked questions specific to your comments and my conclusion so that you might clear up the misunderstanding, if there is one. Asked these questions not once but twice. And twice you deliberately ignored them. I'll try one more time to see if you will bother to answer them.

If you don't want to stop people from immigrating to America, and if you don't have a problem with how many immigrants come in, just so long as they do so legally, then why do you oppose reducing the immigration restrictions and thereby allowing a much easier path for people to LEGALLY immigrate? Why do you oppose the relaxation of immigration restrictions if your desire is not to prevent people from immigrating to the U.S.? Why do you complain about the numbers of people who would come in if you have no problem with how many people immigrate?

These are not difficult questions. These are not trick questions. These are straightforward questions about your position. If my conclusion is so completely wrong, then prove me wrong and answer the questions. If my conclusion is so irrational, then answer the questions and show me the logic and reason of your position.