illegle aliens

[TomT]

First of all, the law only applies to children of illegal aliens, so lets not blow this out of proportions without knowing all the real facts.



Think about it. The children of illegal aliens did not do anything wrong, and they cannot be held responsible for what their parents did. If a minor child was brought into this country illegally, the child had no say in the matter. If the child was born on US soil, he is not an illegal alien he is a US citizen with dual citizenship and cannot be denied their rights as a US citizen. When they reach 18 they have the option to choose which citizenship they prefer, or they can keep both. To change that would require a Constitutional Amendment and we all know that the only thing Congress and the Senate can pass is is gas, and they are stinking up everything doing it!



The point of the proposal is to encourage all young people to get an education, which the US is quickly falling behind the rest of the world. They are already going to our schools so there is no reason to deny them access to college. The better educated they are the less of a burden they will be on the American society in the future.



The law also provides that if the child was brought into this country by illegal aliens, he can become a US citizen if he gradutes from college, or serves honorably in our armed forces.

Serving in the US military to gain citizenship is not anything new. When I joined the Army back in 1963 I was stationed with a group of about 6 Porto Ricans who were in the military to earn their US citizenship. The difference was they came into this country legally.



I agree that we need to do something about the illegal aliens but I don't think we can punish the children for what their parents did. Should we send you to prison if your father robbed a bank and brought you with him when he did it? Or later, you wore clothes and ate food purchased with the stolen money??



There are an estimated 12+ million illegal aliens in this country. It would be a hopeless task to try to hunt them down, prosecute, and deport them, while more keep coming in. The real issue is that we do not know who these people are, where they live and why they are here? Are they here for economic reasons or are they spies, terrorists, etc.



The states are burdened with the schooling and welfare costs without getting any additional funds from the Federal government because they cannot prove or document who these people are and where they live. The illegal aliens get jobs with false immigration or citizenship documents, but the government goes after the employers. It's the Federal governement who has failed to properly address this issue and they continue to expect the states and taxpayers to pay the costs of what only they have the ability to control.

Well put Richard.

I have a big problem with illegal immigration but I'm not opposed at all to this bill. Basically it means we are allowing citizenship to kids that fight for our country and intelligent kids that will likely go on to have productive lives and may benefit our country later. I just don't see a problem with that.

 

[gary s]

"Watch out because Caymen will soon switch gears again and deny he said anything, or he was just kidding."



or another tatic when he is called out, he will just disappear from this post :cry:



"I think we need a Caymen imodicon.. One of those smiley faces sticking his foot in his mouth !! "

:bwahaha:

 

[Tom Schindler]

I am thinkingof a tactful way to respond.





Tom

 

[Bill V]

Dealing with the circular logic in Caymen's argument is tiring.



I think, instead, I need to take a break, and run to the store to buy some groceries.



Or wait--Is it my employer who is buying the groceries, as I'm just passing the money they pay me to the grocery store?



Or is it my employees customers who are buying the groceries, as my employer is just passing their money to me, who is passing it to the grocery store?



And who am I/they buying from anyway? The store? Or the store's employees, as they're just passing the money on to them? Or the store's owners--they're getting a cut too. Or Uncle Sam--he's getting a cut of my/their (but definitely not the no-tax-paying store's) money.



Damn--Now I'm too tired to even run to the store...

 

[Richard L]

Bill V,

I know what you mean. I think the best solution in dealing with Caymen is to log off and go have a stiff drink. :haveabeer:



I have been in the computer field for over 44 years before I retired in July, and I still cannot comprehend Caymen's logic....or I should say, the complete lack of logic.



Why he has to disagree and agrue about things that he knows nothing about or does not even have a logical point to make is totally baffling to me. He just continues to make obserd statements that nobody can believe and wonders why people call him out on them?



...Rich

 

[A K]

A timely comic (today's):



[Broken External Image]:



I've met a handful of you in person. And I highly doubt any of you would be at any other's throat in person. It's the holidays. Life is short. Cut the crap.

 

[Bill V]

I am thinkingof a tactful way to respond.





Tom

Caymen, the response is simple:



Explain to us what a corporation would need to do to be considered, in your eyes, to be "paying taxes". Because at this moment, based on what you've said here, I can't think of any realistic situation which would meet that criteria.



If a company makes money, pays taxes, and still comes out ahead, it will be viewed as "passing the taxes on to their customers". If a company makes money, pays taxes, and in doing so goes in the red, it could still be argued that they are passing their taxes along to the customer. Even if a company is in the red, pays taxes, and thus is even more in the red, at least some of the money they're paying in taxes is coming from their customer receipts.



About the only ways I can think of that it couldn't be said that a company is passing along their tax burden to the customers is if a) the company pays absolutely zero taxes (which therefore means that, in your eyes, they're another company not paying any taxes--in this case it would be the truth), or b) the company has absolutely zero customers (or at least receives zero money from any of their customers). The customers can't be footing the tax bill if they're not paying any money to start with.



What am I/we missing???

 

[EddieS'04]

:banghead:

 

[Jerry Gerner 2]

:cheeky::argue::argue::argue:nline:nline::banghead::smack::banghead::smack::smack::btddhorse::btddhorse::argue::argue::argue:

 

[Tom Schindler]

Explain to us what a corporation would need to do to be considered, in your eyes, to be "paying taxes". Because at this moment, based on what you've said here, I can't think of any realistic situation which would meet that criteria.

Bill,



To answer you question, take care of the companies that STAY in the USA employing those here legally and paying them a fair and livable wage. Those that move production offshore should be taxed double, or even tripple or more, so those that stay here can remain competitive.



Raising taxes only places the burdon on the consumer to pay those taxes. Taking care of companies that keep production in the USA will have the availibility to pass the saving of corporate taxes off the consumers backs and places it on those that use unfair trade practices at the cost of American jobs. (I said unfair and NOT illegal)



In the end, it is you and I that pay the corporate taxes. The corporation only writes the check to the IRS.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen,



Those are all good opinions. I agree that it would be better if our corporate tax codes made it less advantageous to move production offshore. They do not. As long as there are taxes with complex tax codes there will be those that exploit the codes for their betterment. Corporations do it. Individuals do it.



Rather than try to fight regulations and code with more regulations and code, a smart person would look for a better way.



You are a proponent for the "Fair Tax" for individuals. Surely some simple tax for corporations could also work, one that doesn't take into account the geography of where goods and services are produced, but instead, where they are sold/consumed.



The rest, and the rather dramatic statement that you opened with, doesn't really do anything to make your point. It just confuses your overall message and makes that message get lost in the noise.



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

and the rather dramatic statement that you opened with, doesn't really do anything to make your point. It just confuses your overall message and makes that message get lost in the noise.

Moreso, no matter what I say, though many times it is bold and often misunderstood, it is always up to scrutiney by many people that "want to show me down and insult me". My fault is that I am quick to defend my statement when I should be telling them to buzz off.



It is a fact, the corporations do nothing more but pass corporate taxes onto the consumer. When corporate taxes are raised, the consumer pays more. When a corporation moves production offshore and gets tax incentive to do so, the consumer pays those taxes but the corporation doesn't pay those taxes.



It is sad.





Tom

 

[Richard L]

Caymen,

I'm sure I will get a sarcastic reply, but here goes:



The problem with your last statement is that corporations do not get "Tax Incentives" to move manufacturing abroad. They would get more Tax breaks if they kept production here.



They save money overall because they can get many items manufactured and shipped to the US cheaper than they can if it's made in the USA. Most of that savings is due to the cheaper labor overseas, but that also allows them to keep the cost of their vehicles competetive.



With Union labor in the USA, the cost to build an American car without some parts being made overseas would make US cars cost a lot more than the foreign competition. Ford is not in business to make cars, they are in business to make money. They make money by selling cars they manufacture. If you cannot bring a vehicle to the market at a competitive price, you will not sell your vehicles, you will lose money, and eventually you will be out of business.



I know your position on Unions, but the high cost of union salalaries and benefits in the US is why so many manufacturing jobs have moved off shore. We now live in a global economy and an economic crisis in the US will quickly spread to the rest of the world, as we have already seen. That also applies to an economic crisis in any of the larger world powers like Japan, Germany, England, and even China effect the entire economy of the world.



Your statements are a massive oversimplification of the facts and overly biased against any other country except the US? As I see it, the US has never had to compete on the global scale as it does now, and we have to learn to swallow our pride and realize that many other contries are economically as stong as the US...because of the US. And we are as economicly stong as we are, because of them ! We cannot quit and just pick up our ball and bat and go home. If we withdraw from the world economy everybody suffers, as will we here in the US. The purpose of these many trade agreements was to level the playing field for everyone operating in this global economy.



It has been many years since we were the greatest stand-alone economic power in the world. Now everyone has to depend on others. 25-30 years ago, who would have thought that the US would need to borrow money from China? We cannot continue with economic ideas of 40-50 years ago. The world is a different place now, and the US does not swing as big of a money bag as it once did.



...Rich

 

[Tom Schindler]

I know your position on Unions, but the high cost of union salalaries and benefits in the US is why so many manufacturing jobs have moved off shore.

Engineering costs outweigh these "high" union wages. A study done in the late 80's to early 90's, revealed that only 15% of the cost to build a vehicle were these "high union wages". A higher percentage was engineering (non-union), administrative (non-union), and the highest was raw materials to build the vehicles.



My position on unions is that unfortunatly those that run business can not behave themselves and must need the guys to stick together for what is right. I am a supervisor in a union shop. I am not part of the union. I have the greatest group of guys. I love having a contract to work woth. It takes out the favortism. If a guy breaks the rules, I can fire him/her and there is nothing they can do. The union can not argue about it. Rules say that he/she was suposed to do this, but didn't so here is the punishment.



This year alone, over 4 hourly employees were fired and the union said nothing. one had 20+ years of seniority. He was walked out and that was that. Out the door he went and has not been back. It was reported that he went to the union hall to get his job back and was told he screwed up and that is the way it is.

The purpose of these many trade agreements was to level the playing field for everyone operating in this global economy.

i have to disagree with this statement. Trade agreements are too one sided. I believe that if we have a trade agreement with a country, it MUST be reciprocal. It can not be one sided.



Fortunatly, I work in an industry that, as of this time, can not be outsourced due to the nature of the product we build and the security tied to the product. I am afraid when we had an administration that wanted a foreign entity to control our ports, we could also get an administration that would want a foreign entity to build our Naval ships. That has disaster written all over it.



I am more concerned about national security than anything else. Moving production of the steel industry, for example, to another country is jeapordizing national security. When the Navy can not buy steel from a foundry in the USA because they are now in China, we have some real fears. What happens if relations between China and the USA take a turn for the worse. As of right now, the USA and China do not get along that well. What happens then?



Building a foundry in a few months and then going "online" is not going to happen.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen said:

When corporate taxes are raised, the consumer pays more. When a corporation moves production offshore and gets tax incentive to do so, the consumer pays those taxes but the corporation doesn't pay those taxes.

I think you are trying to say that when a corporation gets a tax break through incentives (like offshoring) they don't necessarily lower the price of their goods or service in the process. When that happens, they obviously pay less in taxes through the incentives they enjoy. Since (arguably some) are not lowering their prices to the consumer, the consumer still pays the same for the good or service. The consumer doesn't pay the taxes in either case. The corporation simply enjoys more profit.



Words have meaning. Corporations charge a price for their goods and services. Consumers pay for those goods and services. Those goods and services cost the corporation some monies to produce. Profits on those goods and services are taxed. That is the reality. Bluring the lines to state anything else is misleading.



For example; if a company makes no profit, they pay no taxes. The consumer therefore would pay nothing towards taxes for a corporation that is losing money. So, one year a corporation sells something at a price and makes money. Caymen, you are saying the customer pays taxes in that case. The next year the corporation sells the same products, at the same price, but at a end-of-year loss and pay no taxes. Did the customers pay taxes that year? No taxes were paid...get it?



It sounds good to say that customers pay corporate taxes. But the reality is that the situation is more complex than that. Some corporations pay no taxes on earnings, because they have no profit year after year. Others run a balanced set of books and therefore pay no taxes.



As for offshoring; taxes aren't the #1 component of cost for corporations. Something like 80% of the cost of goods and services produced is spent to cover manpower (salaries, benefits). The reason companies offshore, by and large, isn't to avoid paying taxes. Corporate taxes on earnings are around 9%. And, as I said, any company can easily show a balanced set of books (no profit, no loss) and avoid paying that. Besides, that's only 9% on NIBT (net income before taxes), which usually isn't much.



The reason companies outsource is to cut that huge 80% of their total costs. By offshoring, most companies can cut that cost in 1/2, or more.



COL (cost of living) in the US compared to abroad and the mere fact that many jobs can be effectively outsourced is the reason this has happened.



It won't change. Either of two things will happen:



1) Equillibrium will be reached while our COL and SOL (standard of living) declines, and the COL and SOL of other countries rises



2) We reinvent our country and its value-proposition in the global economy, and recognize that just as agri jobs, then industrial jobs dominance each had a short window (50 to 100 years each), so too will the "next big thing"...innovation and knowledge work. We need to be the country that INVENTS and INNOVATES and leads in new ideas, new products.



Lastly, the idea that somehow corporations pay less in taxes because they offshore also seems simplistic. As we would both agree, offshoring alone decreases cost of production by a huge factor. If all other things are kept the same (prices, other costs, etc) and a company is making profit and paying taxes BEFORE offshoring, then they make even more profits AFTER offshoring. More profits mean MORE paid in taxes because a corporation that is U.S. based that offshores still has to pay taxes on those profits. If the profits go up, more taxes.



So, the notion that somehow offshoring decreases taxespaid is also simplistic. If everything else remains the same, offshoring should increase taxes paid.



Of course, rarely will all other things stay the same. If a company offshores and starts to make more profit, most companies will figure out how to "spend" that money (R&D, executive pay, dividends, etc) so that at the end of the year they avoid paying more taxes. But, that's a whole different issue.



TJR

 

[David Ponder]

:back2topic:



I oppose giving amnesty outright, however I do think the person should be given the chance to apply for legal citizenship without deportation, IF they have commited no other crime, and they are actually contributing to society. IE, they have a job and are not colleting funds (handouts) from the government.



If they are granted a temporary visa, then they must become a citizen within a given time frame, or leave/be deported. If the Visa is denied, they should be deported at that time.



I realize that any ilegal alien has broken the law, but basic human courtesy shouldnt be ignored either. As for people currently trying to enter this country illegally, I think we should be tougher on stopping them. If the water is rising, stop the flow first, then worry about the cleanup...

 

[Richard L]

TJR,

Very well said, and exactly what I was trying to explain to Caymen, but you said it better and in much clearer terms.



Dave,

I agree with you about turning off the flood of illegals by securing our borders. Most Americans do not want the illegals to be given amnestyor given a fast-track to citizenship, especially without some reprocussions for entering the country illegally.



I think my suggestion for a conditional amnesty with a gulty plea for entering the country illegal and 5 year suspended sentence of 5 years probation is more palatable to most Americans and illegals.



...Rich