|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mc_jc
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Location: C4B- Cp Red Cloud, Area-I
|
 Posted: Sun Oct 17, 2010 11:15 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| And according to the Pew Hispanic Center, there are now 11.9 million illegal immigrants. |
Those are only within the Hispanic community. But what about those who cross over from Canada?
Also, why are undocumented workers paid in cash?
If undocumented workers were paying into the system, there would be no reason to pay them in cash and they could be paid in payroll checks like the rest of the legal American workforce.
I am sorry but the data is also flawed because the amount undocumented workers remit outside the US far outstrips what they pay, if they pay, into payroll deductions.
The question becomes; if an undocumented worker is indeed paying into the system, they would be afforded the opportunity to join trade unions legally, am I right?
However, most of them are not allowed collective action (with the exception of those involved in farm work), which is another reason why employers like hiring them over citizens.
I like the data you provided, but there are some holes in the logic of their arguments.
| Quote: |
A child born in the U.S. may automatically be a U.S. citizen, but the child can't sponsor their parents or other relatives for immigration until they are 21.
|
The parents could partition to remain with the child if the child is born within the US. Once the child is born, they are allowed to get a green card so they could stay with their child in the US (since the child can't be deported because they are, in effect, US citizens)- this is sponsorship. Then they could become citizens after 5 years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mc_jc wrote: |
| Quote: |
A child born in the U.S. may automatically be a U.S. citizen, but the child can't sponsor their parents or other relatives for immigration until they are 21.
|
The parents could partition to remain with the child if the child is born within the US. Once the child is born, they are allowed to get a green card so they could stay with their child in the US (since the child can't be deported because they are, in effect, US citizens)- this is sponsorship. Then they could become citizens after 5 years. |
1. I think you mean petition, not partition.
2. Do you have any links from US Citizenship & Immigration Services or anywhere else that backs up your assertion (ie what jay did)? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 7:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| mc_jc wrote: |
| Quote: |
A child born in the U.S. may automatically be a U.S. citizen, but the child can't sponsor their parents or other relatives for immigration until they are 21.
|
The parents could partition to remain with the child if the child is born within the US. Once the child is born, they are allowed to get a green card so they could stay with their child in the US (since the child can't be deported because they are, in effect, US citizens)- this is sponsorship. Then they could become citizens after 5 years. |
1. I think you mean petition, not partition.
2. Do you have any links from US Citizenship & Immigration Services or anywhere else that backs up your assertion (ie what jay did)? |
I believe he's talking about a hardship petition. This is cancellation of removal, and comes up in the context where an alien has already received a deportation order. Its only available for aliens who have been here over ten years.
CANCELLATION OF REMOVAL AND ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS FOR CERTAIN NONPERMANENT RESIDENTS
Note the last of four requirements: (D) establishes that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien's spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.
Now note the first of the four requirements: (A) alien must have lived in the US for the past ten years.
This is statutory, and is a positive Congressionally established measure. It has nothing to do with the 14th Amendment. Here's a more textbook view, for those of us unaccustomed to looking at code.
22.5.4 Cancellation of Removal for Nonlawful Permanent Residents
A common ground for cancellation of removal would be when the child alien doesn't speak the local language of the place to where he/she would be removed. If the child alien cannot interact in her parent's home country, it makes the removal a bit harsh. But this still only applies to alien parents who have been here ten years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 7:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| mc_jc wrote: |
| Quote: |
A child born in the U.S. may automatically be a U.S. citizen, but the child can't sponsor their parents or other relatives for immigration until they are 21.
|
The parents could partition to remain with the child if the child is born within the US. Once the child is born, they are allowed to get a green card so they could stay with their child in the US (since the child can't be deported because they are, in effect, US citizens)- this is sponsorship. Then they could become citizens after 5 years. |
1. I think you mean petition, not partition.
2. Do you have any links from US Citizenship & Immigration Services or anywhere else that backs up your assertion (ie what jay did)? |
I believe he's talking about a hardship petition. This is cancellation of removal, and comes up in the context where an alien has already received a deportation order. Its only available for aliens who have been here over ten years.
CANCELLATION OF REMOVAL AND ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS FOR CERTAIN NONPERMANENT RESIDENTS
Note the last of four requirements: (D) establishes that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien's spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.
Now note the first of the four requirements: (A) alien must have lived in the US for the past ten years.
This is statutory, and is a positive Congressionally established measure. It has nothing to do with the 14th Amendment. Here's a more textbook view, for those of us unaccustomed to looking at code.
22.5.4 Cancellation of Removal for Nonlawful Permanent Residents
A common ground for cancellation of removal would be when the child alien doesn't speak the local language of the place to where he/she would be removed. If the child alien cannot interact in her parent's home country, it makes the removal a bit harsh. But this still only applies to alien parents who have been here ten years. |
Thanks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 8:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
True or not, there is the perception that having a baby on US soil grants one the right to stay. The sanctuary cities probably help out quite a bit too.
US immigration policies will lower the average education and income level of the country. It will also increase total spending on health and welfare. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 12:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Meanwhile in Germany....
| Quote: |
BERLIN (AFP) � Germany's attempt to create a multi-cultural society has failed completely, Chancellor Angela Merkel said at the weekend, calling on the country's immigrants to learn German and adopt Christian values.
Merkel weighed in for the first time in a blistering debate sparked by a central bank board member saying the country was being made "more stupid" by poorly educated and unproductive Muslim migrants. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 5:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
True or not, there is the perception that having a baby on US soil grants one the right to stay. The sanctuary cities probably help out quite a bit too.
US immigration policies will lower the average education and income level of the country. It will also increase total spending on health and welfare. |
However as posted on the last page illegal immigrants paid almost $50 billion in federal taxes between 1996 and 2003
They also have paid (as of 2007) between $120 billion-$240 billion dollars into Social Security.
Will the net losses by this increase in spending and welfare be more than the benefits above? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ukiyo-e
Joined: 19 Oct 2010
Location: The Floating World
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
True or not, there is the perception that having a baby on US soil grants one the right to stay. The sanctuary cities probably help out quite a bit too.
US immigration policies will lower the average education and income level of the country. It will also increase total spending on health and welfare. |
However as posted on the last page illegal immigrants paid almost $50 billion in federal taxes between 1996 and 2003
They also have paid (as of 2007) between $120 billion-$240 billion dollars into Social Security.
Will the net losses by this increase in spending and welfare be more than the benefits above? |
Out of curiousity - how do ILLEGAL immigrants pay into Social Security and Tax? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ukiyo-e wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
True or not, there is the perception that having a baby on US soil grants one the right to stay. The sanctuary cities probably help out quite a bit too.
US immigration policies will lower the average education and income level of the country. It will also increase total spending on health and welfare. |
However as posted on the last page illegal immigrants paid almost $50 billion in federal taxes between 1996 and 2003
They also have paid (as of 2007) between $120 billion-$240 billion dollars into Social Security.
Will the net losses by this increase in spending and welfare be more than the benefits above? |
Out of curiousity - how do ILLEGAL immigrants pay into Social Security and Tax? |
Again.
| Quote: |
Paycheck withholding collects much of the federal tax from illegal workers, just as it does for legal workers.
The Internal Revenue Service doesn't track a worker's immigration status, yet many illegal immigrants fearful of deportation won't risk the government attention that will come from filing a return even if they might qualify for a refund. Economist William Ford of Middle Tennessee State University says there are no firm figures on how many such taxpayers there are.
"The real question is how many of them pay more than they owe. There are undoubtedly hundreds of thousands of people in that situation," Ford said.
But some illegal immigrants choose to file taxes and write a check come April 15, using an alternative to the Social Security number offered by the IRS so it can collect income tax from foreign workers.
"It's a mistake to think that no illegal immigrants pay taxes. They definitely do," said Martha Pantoja, who has been helping Hispanic immigrants this tax season as an IRS-certified volunteer tax preparer for the non-profit Nashville Wealth Building Coalition.
Among those she has assisted is Eric Jimenez, a self-employed handyman who has worked in Nashville for several years. He feels obliged to pay taxes � even though, as Pantoja said, "nothing would happen" to him if he did not.
...
The Social Security Administration estimates that about three-quarters of illegal workers pay taxes that contribute to the overall solvency of Social Security and Medicare.
...
The impact on Social Security is significant, though, because most of that money is never claimed by the people who pay it but instead helps cover retirement checks to legal workers.
Federal law prohibits paying Social Security to illegal immigrants, but the administration factors in both legal and illegal immigration when projecting the trust fund's long-term solvency.
... |
Experts have examined this. The agencies themselves have examined this. Illegal immigrants pay a significant amount of tax money each year. Are there illegal immigrants who get away with paying no taxes? No doubt, but many of them likely wouldn't have any federal tax liability anyway due to the ridiculously low wages they earn, and none of them get Social Security, so anything they pay into Social Security is pure bonus. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
recessiontime
Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Johum wrote: |
I am not baiting anyone.
Compared to Canada, the US attracted the least educated in the world and although we have a liberal immigration policy, we are not helpless when we enforce our policies- compared to those pathetic Amer-Ricans in the south.
| Quote: |
| if you're going to be a troll, at least be an entertaining one. |
If you don't like what I say
~ go boil an egg! |
You are proud that Canada gets degree holders from overseas who end up delivering pizzas and wiping floors?
They are saturating the already terrible job market with degree holders making it very competitive for Canadian graduates. Canada brings in close to 300k people in each yr but the population doesn't grow. Do you know why? Because the same amount of people get fed up with a 3rd world economy and leave the place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
recessiontime
Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 7:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Things are changing. Denmark is paying immigrants to leave, for example. Though Canada, despite unemployment around 9%, decided to keep levels high. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How Immigrants Create More Jobs
| Quote: |
[W]hen immigration is rising as a share of employment in an economic sector, offshoring tends to be falling, and vice versa, the study found.
In other words, immigrants may be competing more with offshored workers than with other laborers in America |
Fight offshoring; support immigration. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2010 10:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Kuros. Which immigrants?
Ralph Nader speaks to Max Blumenthal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfBjE8udAmA
Blumenthal tries to taint Nader with a white supremacist smear. Anyways I agree with Nader about immigration. It is part of a low wage policy.
Nader:
| Quote: |
| "Immigration is corporate power" |
Eric Janzen makes a similar case here:
http://www.financialsense.com/financial-sense-newshour/in-depth/eric-janszen/the-postcatastrophe-economy
Back to the comparison of Canada and the US:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/253304/canadian-vs-american-immigration-heather-mac-donald#
| Quote: |
In a front-page New York Times article on Canada�s Manitoba province, Jason DeParle appears puzzled as to why Canada seems more welcoming of �immigrants� than is the U.S. To be sure, the article acknowledges the crucial difference between Canadian immigration and the bulk of American immigration: Canadian immigrants obey Canadian law in entering the country; millions of American immigrants flout American law. DeParle also observes that Canada seeks out skilled and educated immigrants, whose children �typically do well.� Though DeParle does not spell out the American obverse, it is the following: Many children of Hispanic illegal aliens are doing poorly, with rock-bottom high-school graduation rates, sky-high teen-pregnancy rates, persistent academic difficulties, and rising levels of gang involvement across generations. (Of course, there are plenty of admirable exceptions to this reality.)
These differences makes any implied comparison between the two countries� immigration politics wholly unjustified. However much DeParle�s article acknowledges the crucial ways in which Canadian immigration diverges from the current American situation, to even put the two immigration universes side-by-side implies that there is a common basis of comparison and that illegal and legal immigration are more alike than not. This idea is of course the dominant conceit of the MSM, whereby reporters almost never scruple to distinguish legal from illegal immigrants. I may be wrong: DeParle�s article may in fact be a subtle and welcome endorsement for the Canadian skills-based immigration system. But I have a hard time avoiding the impression that to the contrary, it is an implicit rebuke to America�s lowered tolerance for what DeParle calls �more pluribus and . . . less unum.�
Recently released data from California underline why illegal immigration has produced a backlash in the U.S. Over 50 percent of children in California public schools are now Latino, a demographic shift that American voters have never formally endorsed. Unless educators quickly figure out how to close the achievement gap between Latinos, on the one hand, and whites and Asians, on the other, the consequences of this demographic development for California�s economic future are bleak. California spends billions trying to bring its Hispanic students up to speed, but finds that millions of students born here continue to be classified as �long-term English learners� throughout their school careers because their cognitive skills are so low. Each year brings new tutoring ventures and pedagogical methods, but the apparent cultural blocks to high academic achievement have so far been intractable. Perhaps California�s high-tech economy can find all the innovators it needs from other sources, but the costs of trying to overcome the achievement gap will drain public money away from investments in infrastructure and elite R&D. |
Which immigrants. That is the question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2010 10:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
Which immigrants. That is the question. |
You are talking about the Mexicans. It is very easy to say this is a problem. Those who come are thereupon exploited.
The solutions are visas. I know the Mexicans can pay for them because there's a whole remittance structure, they just need to be given notice and 6 mos to a year to prepare. The current immigration system is broken. Will visas result in exploitation? Perhaps, but not remarkably more than the lower-class American experiences.
In any case, bringing the Mexicans here will always be superior to sending the factories down there. Always. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
