March 28, 2024, 04:44:58 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: NEW CHILD BOARD CREATED IN THE POLITICAL SECTION FOR THE 2016 ELECTION
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: 'Immigration Reform' - looking for better ideas  (Read 1534 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
WhiskeyGirl
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7754



« on: April 14, 2010, 11:02:08 AM »

Quote
What's wrong with the Schumer-Graham proposal?

-- It ignores trade agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA, which produce profits for U.S. corporations, but increase poverty in Mexico and Central America. Since NAFTA went into effect, income in Mexico dropped, while millions of workers lost jobs and farmers their land. If we do not change U.S. trade policy, millions of displaced people will continue to come, no matter how many walls we build.

In America, due to increased taxation, I believe many will lose their land and farms, just like millions have lost their jobs and homes during the recession.  Wall Street parties on, with record breaking profits, salaries, and bonuses, and moves bad things off the balance sheet.

Quote
-- People working without papers will be fired and even imprisoned under their proposal, and raids will increase. Vulnerability makes it harder for people to defend their rights, organize unions and raise wages. That keeps the price of immigrant labor low. Every worker will have to show a national ID card (an idea too extreme even for the Bush administration). This will not stop people from coming to the United States, but it will produce more immigration raids, firings and a much larger detention system.

-- They treat the flow of people coming north as a labor supply only. They propose new guest-worker programs, where workers would have few rights and no leverage to organize for better conditions.

-- Their legalization scheme imposes barriers for the 12 million people who need legal status. In 1986, even President Ronald Reagan, hardly a liberal, signed a plan in which people gained legal status quickly and easily. Many are now citizens and have made contributions to our country.

How much will it cost Social Security when these new citizens qualify in ten years and get a lifetime of payments, unrelated to their actual contributions?

IIRC, in Mexico, the Social Security system pays out contributions plus like 3% interest.  There is a relationship between contributions and payouts.

No such relationship exists in the US Social Security system.

How much will Social Security tourist cost future generations?

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/04/13/EDT31CTH8J.DTL#ixzz0l5RK5f8d

Why should people who come here illegally get the gold mine, and taxpayers get the shaft?
Logged

All my posts are just my humble opinions.  Please take with a grain of salt.  Smile

It doesn't do any good to hate anyone,
they'll end up in your family anyway...
WhiskeyGirl
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7754



« Reply #1 on: April 14, 2010, 11:35:05 AM »

Quote
Why is there no talk about immigration?

It is one of the voters' greatest concerns - but politicians are turning a deaf ear, says Frank Field.

Quote
The economy and immigration are the two big issues that voters wish to see debated at this  election. The economy has already featured in the clashes between the main parties. But, despite brief mentions in the manifestos, immigration is the issue that dare not speak its name.

Is this happening in the US too?

Quote
No sensible person is calling for a policy of no immigration. It is the scale of population change, which over the past decade has transformed parts of Britain, that voters wish to make an election issue. A continuation of mass immigration on roughly the present scale will bring the population of the UK to 70 million in 20 years – and the growth won't stop there, unless we are prepared to control drastically the size of net migration. Immigration will account for 70 per cent of this population increase. This is what needs to be tackled.

Is the US beyond it's capacity to absorb more immigrants?

Quote
We have just lived through 10 fat years of public expenditure increases, of a scale we are unlikely ever to see again. Yet, even as most budgets doubled during the past decade, the pressures on our public services due to immigration were plain.

Maternity units are struggling as 25 per cent of all births in England and Wales are to foreign-born mothers – in London that proportion is 50 per cent.

Sounds like California and other states with budget troubles.  I've seen US percentages over 70%.

Quote
Neither of the major parties in their manifestos has committed themselves to the "dual lock" that is needed to prevent immigration increasing our population.

The first lock should be to break the link between coming here to work and becoming a citizen. Of course, we want our cake and eat it. Britain benefits by attracting the brightest and best to come to our shores with some of the energy and skills which will be essential for our economic recovery. But there is all the difference between coming here to work, for a set period, and then to be almost automatically offered citizenship.

How many with work visas contribute to Social Security?  Pay taxes on their income?

How many immigrants and those with work visas support thought taxation all the stimulus spending?

Quote
Large groups of immigrants do not integrate – and could justifiably argue that they have never been told what being a citizen of this country entails. I have spelt out in a new book that we no longer have an agreed hymn sheet from which all we British are required to sing.

My constituents, overwhelmingly white, as well as some newcomers, have been deserted by a political leadership that has offered only a pick-and-mix citizenship. After the votes are counted, with a government committed, hopefully, to a double lock on immigration, the task of rebuilding a British citizenship around duties must rank with reducing the country's debt as the new administration's top priority.

In the US, adding immigrants and not adding to citizenship. 

more here - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7587074/Why-is-there-no-talk-about-immigration.html

How can you value America if you were raised elsewhere and have no idea what we're about? 

How many legal and illegal immigrants receive some form of welfare?
Logged

All my posts are just my humble opinions.  Please take with a grain of salt.  Smile

It doesn't do any good to hate anyone,
they'll end up in your family anyway...
WhiskeyGirl
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7754



« Reply #2 on: April 14, 2010, 11:38:54 AM »

From the comments -

Quote
The solution is simply - let immigrants come to this country but don't let them claim state benefits unless they have paid tax & national insurance contributions equal to the benefits.Also stop ALL state benefits to our useless home grown chavs - only pay pensions & unemployment benefit to those who have paid national insurance.

Christopher Porritt
on April 14, 2010

Quote
'Great Britain has the only 'elites' in the Western world who are embarrassed by, and thoroughly dislike, their own people, culture, history and country. ' Steve Jacks 1.43

This is spot on as are (sadly)the rest of your words.
stevgillamos
on April 14, 2010

I think we have Obama "who are embarrassed by, and thoroughly dislike, their own people, culture, history and country." 

Quote
Perhaps the terminology in the debate is inappropriate and should include:

Priority - re: British jobs and British public benefits and all public services e.g. education, NHS etc

Rationing - of British jobs, public services, benefits etc

Why Oh Why have so many British passports and NI numbers simply been given out to massive numbers of illegals?

Retrospective laws are required to correct this mistake and recover our country.

Immigrants should also pay higher taxes to cover for the higher costs associated with their administration.

Criminal illegals need immediate deportation.

UK need sto come out of the EU if necessary to achieve this?
nautonier
on April 14, 2010

How about no outsourcing of healthcare jobs to foreign workers and countries?  No stimulus money to foreign workers and countries?  Same with global citizens and Wall Street?

Quote

One has to ask why Brown has encouraged insane levels of immigration-we heard the one about rubbing the rights nose etc,we know that apparently many immigrants vote labour but that still leaves a gaping hole in the credibility of the thing. The waves of arrivers have cast huge pressure on services and housing etc so it creates a need for more and more tax where even Brown is running short of options.
Brown has acted in an ultra vires way he has gone outside of his mandate and he has placed the financial stability of the country in great danger whilst our population mix is changing dramatically due to high birth rates in the immigrant communities which in turn has cost much in terms of our native culture and history as these are further diluted via Balls dystopian education system and the hydra of PC.

Looking at all this it seems fairly clear that Browns aim is to gradually eliminate Britishness,with all its stubbornness and one time raw white independence. The once intractable British will then have been transmogrified so that we fit comfortably into the EU profile having had our counties redefined as regions of France or wherever in the process of wiping the old Britain off the map to placate the Rompuys and Barossos so that they can up the pace of their unifying socialist agenda free from the hostility arising from this tempestuous isle.
spanador
on April 14, 2010

Logged

All my posts are just my humble opinions.  Please take with a grain of salt.  Smile

It doesn't do any good to hate anyone,
they'll end up in your family anyway...
WhiskeyGirl
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7754



« Reply #3 on: April 14, 2010, 11:47:49 AM »

Quote
Poll finds Australians concerned over immigration

Respondents were worried about urban congestion, jobs and the environment.
[AAP]

Last Updated: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 08:44:00 +1000

Australians are reacting adversely to years of high immigration.

A new survey found almost 70 per cent of voters who were asked about Australia's population growth don't think the country needs more people.

The Australian Survey of Social Attitudes asked more than 3,000 voters in a mail-out questionnaire if 'Australia needs more people'.

Sixty-nine per cent of respondents said 'No'.

Report Author, Associate Professor Dr Katherine Betts, from Swinburne University of Technology, says respondents were worried about jobs, urban congestion and the environment.

"We were rather surprised that the top pick there was the reason 'we should train our own skilled people, rather than take them from other countries'," she said.

"24 per cent of people chose that as either their first of second reason."

more here - http://australianetworknews.com/stories/201004/2872133.htm?desktop
Logged

All my posts are just my humble opinions.  Please take with a grain of salt.  Smile

It doesn't do any good to hate anyone,
they'll end up in your family anyway...
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Use of this web site in any manner signifies unconditional acceptance, without exception, of our terms of use.
Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC
 
Page created in 6.319 seconds with 19 queries.