New Immigration Proposal from Senator Boxer

[SassySmartie]

Well, it seems to me proposals are always subject to interpretation. That doesn't mean the interpretation is unfounded, or gossip, or innuendo.

When Sen. Boxer said she wants some of the money paid by applicants for legalization to be diverted away from border security, it can be said she wants to cut money earmarked for border security, to pay for medical coverage.

But then again, perhaps it's better if I stay out of this part of the discussion.

Sure, but it does not say she is "dropping" money for border security [which implies that existing funding be cut] in order to pay for health care. Which is what the OP stated. OP started this thread with no information and even used the words "I was just told..." someone else linked the proposal and corrected his rumor. Since "I was told" indicates rumor/gossip versus facts. The OP has been presented with facts and instead of being intellectually dishonest and admitting he either a) misunderstood the proposal or b) "heard" misinformation, then discuss his opinion on the actual facts of the proposal, it appears to me anyway that he is dishonest and only trying to bait an argument that he doesn't plan to base in truth, but instead unfounded opinions.

Personally, I prefer to deal in facts instead of conjecture.

 

[ocean515]

Sure, but it does not say she is "dropping" money for border security [which implies that existing funding be cut] in order to pay for health care. Which is what the OP stated. OP started this thread with no information and even used the words "I heard that..." someone else linked the proposal and corrected his rumor. Since "I heard" indicates rumor/gossip versus facts. The OP has been presented with facts and instead of being intellectually dishonest and admitting he either a) misunderstood the proposal or b) "heard" misinformation, then discuss his opinion on the actual facts of the proposal, it appears to me anyway that he is dishonest and only trying to bait an argument that he doesn't plan to base in truth, but instead unfounded opinions.

Personally, I prefer to deal in facts instead of conjecture.

Don't you think in this age of base line budgeting, where people like Senator Boxer are touting "cuts", when they are factually reductions in the size of increases, that your slicing the point a bit thin?

If she is proposing a reduction in the amount the legislation under consideration calls for spending on border security, isn't that dropping the amount for border security?

 

[CalGun]

That is BS I do not report it innacurately in fact I was spot on. She in fact wants to take money that was pledged to border security and use it for health care for criminals that have violated our law. I never all of the money - I never said it was new monies raised or existing - those are BS terms provided to you by a extremist libertarian that is so far wacked he likes to play with words - my OP is spot on and a link was later provided which proves it so.

Did she propose taking funds aimed at securing the border for health care - yes.
Did the same article illustrate more would be needed for health care than that - yes.

Just because a liar and extremist on this forum added to that "all the funds" or "new funds" and not including "existing funds" and got bent out of shape over a "proposal" does not make it any less REAL in her presentation to the public. This is how the extreme left works in America - can't talk about a "proposal" is that like we can't read it until we adopt it too?

No, that is not what I said. The OP presented the proposal inaccurately and continues to argue about it inaccurately. We of course, can and should have discussion on pending legislation, however, we should discuss the actual legislation being proposed versus innuendo, rumor and unfounded gossip not based in any facts.

 

[polgara]

Don't you think in this age of base line budgeting, where people like Senator Boxer are touting "cuts", when they are factually reductions in the size of increases, that your slicing the point a bit thin?

If she is proposing a reduction in the amount the legislation under consideration calls for spending on border security, isn't that dropping the amount for border security?

Greetings, ocean515. :2wave:

The hysteria that accompanied the sequester "cuts" are a good example. All that may have been cut was the amount of increase allowed! Of course the public is considered too stupid to grasp that, and the games continue. I shudder to contemplate what effect real cuts would engender! :scared: :scared:

 

[ocean515]

Greetings, ocean515. :2wave:

The hysteria that accompanied the sequester "cuts" are a good example. All that may have been cut was the amount of increase allowed! Of course the public is considered too stupid to grasp that, and the games continue. I shudder to contemplate what effect real cuts would engender! :scared: :scared:

Hi hop-a-long. Or should I call you I-lean? :2razz:

It's a bit dissappointing to see the repeated efforts by our elected "officials" to manipulate the truth. I don't know why so many think they can get away with it.

With tools like the internet, and more importantly, the digital access we "little people" have to their work through site like U.S. Government Printing Office Home Page, their games are easier, (not easy though) to uncover.

No wonder there is such gridlock and low ratings.

 

[SassySmartie]

Don't you think in this age of base line budgeting, where people like Senator Boxer are touting "cuts", when they are factually reductions in the size of increases, that your slicing the point a bit thin?

If she is proposing a reduction in the amount the legislation under consideration calls for spending on border security, isn't that dropping the amount for border security?

Not since that part of discussion is how to allocate the monies collected as fees. Because they are not already allocated, and there are not set amounts for border security, etc, she is essentially proposing a different way of allocating money. In any case, it doesn't affect what is currently spent on border security and is not dropping current funding or proposing dropping proposed funding [since all proposals are just currently suggestions and no decisions have been made] which is what the OP implied.

Furthermore, I think a much more valuable conversation to have would be whether or not border security is even effective, how the current funding is being spent and would more funding make it more effective and if it is currently only mildly effective, then would throwing more money at a failing project be wise? Wouldn't it a much better use of dollars to cover costs our taxpayers are already paying out, thus relieving some of this "burden" on the taxpayers? You really can't have it both ways ya know. You can't advocate for more money for security and less money for healthcare, then complain about how much you think undocumented immigrants cost us in healthcare. Since beefing up border security will not automatically remove every undocumented immigrant from the country, nor will it prevent future immigrants from coming here illegally.

 

[SassySmartie]

That is BS I do not report it innacurately in fact I was spot on. She in fact wants to take money that was pledged to border security and use it for health care for criminals that have violated our law. I never all of the money - I never said it was new monies raised or existing - those are BS terms provided to you by a extremist libertarian that is so far wacked he likes to play with words - my OP is spot on and a link was later provided which proves it so.

Did she propose taking funds aimed at securing the border for health care - yes.
Did the same article illustrate more would be needed for health care than that - yes.

Just because a liar and extremist on this forum added to that "all the funds" or "new funds" and not including "existing funds" and got bent out of shape over a "proposal" does not make it any less REAL in her presentation to the public. This is how the extreme left works in America - can't talk about a "proposal" is that like we can't read it until we adopt it too?

This is what the OP says:

I was just told she is proposing to drop drop border security funding so twice it's amount of money can be sure to provide health care to the former criminals who violated our nations borders and law.

You did not provide any source for this information that you "were told." Another poster provided this article, which states that [emphasis mine]:

1. Sen. Barbara Boxer plans to push for Washington to provide $250 million and perhaps more to help local and state governments pay the cost of healthcare to uninsured immigrants who seek legal status under legislation now before the Senate.

2. The amount of federal aid she is proposing is far short of the $4 billion provided to local and state governments under the 1986 immigration overhaul.

3. Her proposal calls for providing the money without increasing the federal budget deficit by using some of the money paid by applicants for legalization, much of which is now earmarked to further secure the border.

No where is it suggested that she is asking for "double" the amount currently proposed for border security. Which by the way, you insisted twice that it was double:

Take money that is planned to go to border security and give "possibly more" and I illustrated I heard (2x as much) to providing health care to criminals that live here in violation of our laws.

No where is it suggested that taxpayers are paying for the health care. In fact, it is money from the fees paid by immigrants to become legal.

You assert that I am an "extreme libertarian" in the same post you blame the "extreme left," have I introduced party to this discussion? Seems to me that you are now name calling instead of actually answering what exactly is the problem with legalization fees going to healthcare?

WE can talk about a proposal, we should just, as I said talk about the actual proposal, not some inflated conjecture of the proposal.

 

[ocean515]

Not since that part of discussion is how to allocate the monies collected as fees. Because they are not already allocated, and there are not set amounts for border security, etc, she is essentially proposing a different way of allocating money. In any case, it doesn't affect what is currently spent on border security and is not dropping current funding or proposing dropping proposed funding [since all proposals are just currently suggestions and no decisions have been made] which is what the OP implied.

Furthermore, I think a much more valuable conversation to have would be whether or not border security is even effective, how the current funding is being spent and would more funding make it more effective and if it is currently only mildly effective, then would throwing more money at a failing project be wise? Wouldn't it a much better use of dollars to cover costs our taxpayers are already paying out, thus relieving some of this "burden" on the taxpayers? You really can't have it both ways ya know. You can't advocate for more money for security and less money for healthcare, then complain about how much you think undocumented immigrants cost us in healthcare. Since beefing up border security will not automatically remove every undocumented immigrant from the country, nor will it prevent future immigrants from coming here illegally.

Well, if Senator Boxer weren't among those pandering to illegal aliens to secure votes, the best approach to the issue would be to expand and improve E-Verify and spend money to perform on-site spot checks on employers. If it's discovered an employer knowingly hired illegal aliens they should jailed and they should receive massive punative fines.

Also, once discovered, the illegals can be immediately deported regardless of family ties. After all, they chose to break the law and put any possible family members or others, through a hell they created for themselves.

If we can remove the jobs, there would be no reason to invade the United States and continue the failure of their own country here.

 

[CalGun]

And everything I said was 100% completely vindicated. I said I was told - I didn't pretend there was a source. I thank the other poster for providing a source and guess what the source illustrated much of what I heard. You are a like a shooter in AZ that kills people at congressional meetings playing with words - its sick. She wants to take the money people were going to have to pay to become citizens that was planned to be used for border security and put it into their health care - just as I said. The source says likely more money will be needed for their health care - guess what - it looks like more than 2x as much. The only one that doesn't want to talk about the propsals is you left wing extremist that want free everything for those criminals you think will vote for your people in the future. You would instead like to play on words and get all bent out of shape over "I was told" vs a source (that was immediately provided by someone else).

This is what the OP says:



You did not provide any source for this information that you "were told." Another poster provided this article, which states that [emphasis mine]:

1. Sen. Barbara Boxer plans to push for Washington to provide $250 million and perhaps more to help local and state governments pay the cost of healthcare to uninsured immigrants who seek legal status under legislation now before the Senate.

2. The amount of federal aid she is proposing is far short of the $4 billion provided to local and state governments under the 1986 immigration overhaul.

3. Her proposal calls for providing the money without increasing the federal budget deficit by using some of the money paid by applicants for legalization, much of which is now earmarked to further secure the border.

No where is it suggested that she is asking for "double" the amount currently proposed for border security. Which by the way, you insisted twice that it was double:



No where is it suggested that taxpayers are paying for the health care. In fact, it is money from the fees paid by immigrants to become legal.

You assert that I am an "extreme libertarian" in the same post you blame the "extreme left," have I introduced party to this discussion? Seems to me that you are now name calling instead of actually answering what exactly is the problem with legalization fees going to healthcare?

WE can talk about a proposal, we should just, as I said talk about the actual proposal, not some inflated conjecture of the proposal.

 

[polgara]

Well, if Senator Boxer weren't among those pandering to illegal aliens to secure votes, the best approach to the issue would be to expand and improve E-Verify and spend money to perform on-site spot checks on employers. If it's discovered an employer knowingly hired illegal aliens they should jailed and they should receive massive punative fines.

Also, once discovered, the illegals can be immediately deported regardless of family ties. After all, they chose to break the law and put any possible family members or others, through a hell they created for themselves.

If we can remove the jobs, there would be no reason to invade the United States and continue the failure of their own country here.

Good morning, ocean515. :2wave:

Excellent post! :thumbs:


IMO, all it would take would be lots of adverse publicity and huge fines for one or two big employers who have hired illegals, and been caught doing so. It should serve as sufficient warning to other companies that e-verify is going to be an ongoing process that will eventually catch them also, big business or small. The fines should be high enough to make an impact on their bottom line, though, so they can't adopt a posture of "it's just a cost of doing business," and shrug it off. :inandout:

 

[penn1954]

Good morning, ocean515. :2wave:

Excellent post! :thumbs:


IMO, all it would take would be lots of adverse publicity and huge fines for one or two big employers who have hired illegals, and been caught doing so. It should serve as sufficient warning to other companies that e-verify is going to be an ongoing process that will eventually catch them also, big business or small. The fines should be high enough to make an impact on their bottom line, though, so they can't adopt a posture of "it's just a cost of doing business," and shrug it off. :inandout:

AMEN!!

Big fine and perp walk the CEO.

 

[ocean515]

Good morning, ocean515. :2wave:

Excellent post! :thumbs:


IMO, all it would take would be lots of adverse publicity and huge fines for one or two big employers who have hired illegals, and been caught doing so. It should serve as sufficient warning to other companies that e-verify is going to be an ongoing process that will eventually catch them also, big business or small. The fines should be high enough to make an impact on their bottom line, though, so they can't adopt a posture of "it's just a cost of doing business," and shrug it off. :inandout:

Hi Polgara -

I think E-Verify is an important aspect in order to protect employers who exercise proper diligence in hiring. Believe me, it's a difficult and expensive task.

Once established these checks, raids, whatever, need to be performed. The penalties for knowingly hiring illegal aliens must outweigh any benefit derived from hiring them.

We could build a 30 foot tall fence, and they would still enter the US. Boat are being found along the Coast in SoCal that obviously carried illegals across the boarder via the Ocean.

Remove the economic benefit. Fine, deport, and permanently ban illegals caught using false documents, and the damage done to the economy start to be changed.

 

[SassySmartie]

And everything I said was 100% completely vindicated. I said I was told - I didn't pretend there was a source. I thank the other poster for providing a source and guess what the source illustrated much of what I heard. You are a like a shooter in AZ that kills people at congressional meetings playing with words - its sick. She wants to take the money people were going to have to pay to become citizens that was planned to be used for border security and put it into their health care - just as I said. The source says likely more money will be needed for their health care - guess what - it looks like more than 2x as much. The only one that doesn't want to talk about the propsals is you left wing extremist that want free everything for those criminals you think will vote for your people in the future. You would instead like to play on words and get all bent out of shape over "I was told" vs a source (that was immediately provided by someone else).

Really? My need for accurate information is like shooting people? Really? Do you hear how that sounds? Pretty damn absurd, and obvious that what you wanted was a party argument versus a real discussion about facts.

 

[CalGun]

I didn't say it was like shooting people, I said your play on words was like that of the shooter in AZ. He played on the meaning of words just like you- just saying.

Really? My need for accurate information is like shooting people? Really? Do you hear how that sounds? Pretty damn absurd, and obvious that what you wanted was a party argument versus a real discussion about facts.

 

[SassySmartie]

I didn't say it was like shooting people, I said your play on words was like that of the shooter in AZ. He played on the meaning of words just like you- just saying.

Yes, you compared me to a murderer, for disagreeing with you and asking that you use precise words. Do you usually use gross hyperbole? Because it makes you sound like a 13 year old.

 

[CalGun]

That murderer ran around saying people need to use precise words. It's a game people play. You play it the comparison fits.

Yes, you compared me to a murderer, for disagreeing with you and asking that you use precise words. Do you usually use gross hyperbole? Because it makes you sound like a 13 year old.

 

[SassySmartie]

That murderer ran around saying people need to use precise words. It's a game people play. You play it the comparison fits.

So your answer is yes then, you are prone to hyperbole like a 13 year old... sad. I'm sorry that you do not have a firm enough grasp on the English language to understand proper sentence construction and that the way you arrange sentences affects whether or not people understand what you say.

 

[CalGun]

More of the same. I don't think everyone that plays word games like you extremist are mudering psyco's like the kid in AZ, but the one's that play the game needlessly and pathetically sure do deserve the comparison.

So your answer is yes then, you are prone to hyperbole like a 13 year old... sad. I'm sorry that you do not have a firm enough grasp on the English language to understand proper sentence construction and that the way you arrange sentences affects whether or not people understand what you say.

 

[Woodman909]

Well the biggest anti-immigrant whine I see is the myth of how they're such "a burden on taxpayers" this way they are paying for their healthcare vs taxpayers. Again, what is the problem, exactly? Increased border security is a joke. The more money we've spent on "border security" the less successful it has been. Having reasonable immigration laws, fair enforcement of them and good relations with our border neighbors would go much farther in keeping borders safe. The drug cartels and gangs are not thwarted and cannot be stopped with "border security" those are the people that we want to keep out of our country, migrant workers and immigrants here to make a better life for their families are no threat to American citizens.

The 'THREAT" is dumping tens of millions of new unskilled workers onto the public dole, while our economy is under siege from high unemployment. Funny how liberals take great pride and happiness in spending other people's money. If you are so inclined: bring a family of 5 or 6 into your household, give them food, shelter, healthcare and full education and see how long you can keep doing that before your own family suffers.

 

[SassySmartie]

More of the same. I don't think everyone that plays word games like you extremist are mudering psyco's like the kid in AZ, but the one's that play the game needlessly and pathetically sure do deserve the comparison.

What evidence do you have that I am an "extremist"? You keep repeating useless rhetoric since you cannot have an intellectually honest discussion based in facts. It's pretty pathetic.

 

[SassySmartie]

The 'THREAT" is dumping tens of millions of new unskilled workers onto the public dole, while our economy is under siege from high unemployment. Funny how liberals take great pride and happiness in spending other people's money. If you are so inclined: bring a family of 5 or 6 into your household, give them food, shelter, healthcare and full education and see how long you can keep doing that before your own family suffers.

Please show me proof that undocumented workers are "on the public dole." Since they have little to no access to food stamps or medicaid or other welfare programs. What has been documented and published is that many undocumented workers add to our economy by paying taxes via ITINs, paying sales taxes and doing unskilled labor that allows employers to pay skilled workers better. I've posted all of that information numerous times, and I think I might have posted it in this thread, I'll have to go back and check...

Is there some place you're getting your numbers for "family of 5 or 6" being given "food, shelter, healthcare and full education"?

 

[SassySmartie]

The 'THREAT" is dumping tens of millions of new unskilled workers onto the public dole, while our economy is under siege from high unemployment. Funny how liberals take great pride and happiness in spending other people's money. If you are so inclined: bring a family of 5 or 6 into your household, give them food, shelter, healthcare and full education and see how long you can keep doing that before your own family suffers.

Here are a few facts:

He [Giovanni Peri] debunks the myth that undocumented immigrants cost Americans jobs in the short run or long run. He estimates that the last big wave of immigration – from 1990 to 2007 – raised the annual income of each native-born American worker by about $5,000.

The impact on everyone else, though, is surprisingly positive. Giovanni Peri, an economist at the University of California, Davis, has written a series of influential papers comparing the labor markets in states with high immigration levels to those with low ones. He concluded that undocumented workers do not compete with skilled laborers — instead, they complement them. Economies, as Adam Smith argued in “Wealth of Nations,” work best when workers become specialized and divide up tasks among themselves. Pedro Chan’s ability to take care of routine tasks on a work site allows carpenters and electricians to focus on what they do best. In states with more undocumented immigrants, Peri said, skilled workers made more money and worked more hours; the economy’s productivity grew. From 1990 to 2007, undocumented workers increased legal workers’ pay in complementary jobs by up to 10 percent.

And:

Earlier that day, I was reminded of another seldom-discussed fact about immigrant life in the United States. Immigrants spend most of the money they make. Chan had broken down his monthly expenses: $400 a month in rent, another $30 or so for gas, electric and Internet. He sends some money home and tries to save a few thousand a year in his Citibank account, but he ends up spending more than $10,000 annually. That includes the $1,400 or so he pays the I.R.S. so that he can have a taxpayer I.D. number [ITIN check the IRS site, it's a legal taxpayer number], which allows him to have a credit score so that he can rent an apartment or lease a car.

And:

The benefit multiplies over the long haul. As the baby boomers retire, the post-boom generation’s burden to finance their retirement is greatly alleviated by undocumented immigrants. Stephen Goss, chief actuary for the Social Security Administration, told me that undocumented workers contribute about $15 billion a year to Social Security through payroll taxes. They only take out $1 billion (very few undocumented workers are eligible to receive benefits). Over the years, undocumented workers have contributed up to $300 billion, or nearly 10 percent, of the $2.7 trillion Social Security Trust Fund.

Finally:

Based on the profile of immigrant households in the US Current Population Survey, households headed by an unauthorized immigrant appear to generate a short-run net fiscal cost of approximately 0.1 percent of US GDP. 24 Adding the small positive immigration surplus to the small negative net fiscal impact, the total short-run change in US national income from illegal immigration is -0.07 percent of GDP. While the value is negative, indicating illegal immigration on net lowers US national income, it is close enough to zero to be essentially a wash.

 

[Woodman909]

Here are a few facts:





Finally:

DO you really believe articles from the New York Times using slanted opinions, funny numbers, and a theme of what can only be describes as "slave labor makes it better for all" are proof of anything? Pure BS

 

[SassySmartie]

DO you really believe articles from the New York Times using slanted opinions, funny numbers, and a theme of what can only be describes as "slave labor makes it better for all" are proof of anything? Pure BS

I also linked to actual studies. Peri is a respected economist, and his curriculum vitae is easily found as well as the original texts to his studies cited in the article. You cannot call it "funny numbers" without some specific disagreement with the methodology of how the numbers were determined.

 

[CalGun]

Calling someone an extremist is an opinion since no fact would ever meet with every persons belief system. In case you didn't know it; we have a free country and if I view you as an extremist then I am free to do so. In my opinion since you play word games like a mass murderer who is stuck on the proper use of the English language and use that to hide the "proposal" issued by your extremist loser of a senator from California it is fair for me to conclude as I want - that illustration.

What evidence do you have that I am an "extremist"? You keep repeating useless rhetoric since you cannot have an intellectually honest discussion based in facts. It's pretty pathetic.