A few moments to be thankful that we are all part of the great melting pot.
Meanwhile, Yo quiero turkey?
Is this really what people think is going to happen? I have read all sorts of fear mongering. Some papers refused to run this cartoon. Others took the mustache off the man or altered it so it didn’t look quite as “Mexican”, in order to be politically correct…well sorta. (eye roll)
Yea, Foxies, ….them “Mexicans” are here to steal your turkey and probably the silverware also. Give me a break.
I’m not sure that this was the time to put up such a hateful cartoon (guy climbing through the window but the first cartoon is little better.) Supposedly this is a day for us to stop, take inventory and be thankful for the blessings we have. It should have to be a time for this political tripe. I hope you will find a way to take it down-at least for this day.
Ponder the cartoon. Perhaps you should spend the time with your family if you are offended. *I* am offended that people really feel this way.
What a disgusting and despicable, race-baiting cartoon.
That was my reaction also. If it offended, then perhaps we need to make sure we stand up to that kind of mentality.
That was my reaction also. I thought it needed to be called out.
This cartoon may be rude and politically incorrect, but it is not inaccurate. According to the Heritage Foundation study (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/05/the-fiscal-cost-of-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-to-the-us-taxpayer), the average illegal immigrant family annually pays $10K in taxes, but receives $24K in benefits. So the executive order does symbolically allow “guests” who come to the party uninvited and empty handed without contributing a covered dish entree or side.
@Kelly_3406 The figures from the Rector & Richwine paper are dubious. See, for example, the Cato Institute’s critique, http://www.cato.org/blog/heritage-immigration-study-fatally-flawed
Welcome, Dogbreath. Thanks for your contribution. I believe the Cato institute addresses many of the false impressions left by the Heritage Foundation Report. Wasn’t there some scandal over the guy who did the Heritage Report? Anyone know?
I think that cartoon was pretty well-justified. Taking that moustache off is just as well though.
I didn’t have any Mexicans come to my house. An illegal immigrant (that’s right) from El Salvador sent me a text message asking me to stop by because she had made some pozole, my favorite food. She gave me about a 3 day supply. I brought it to work today. I promised myself that I’d wait until lunch time, but at about 10 a.m. I started heating it up. Tomorrow I’ll have some more. I’m not a moocher. I brought her some brownies with walnuts and some chocolate chip cookies because I know that’s what the teenagers in her household like.
The dude with the mustache looks like a guy in my class. I think he’s legal though. The two girls at his side look like the daughters of another student in my class. One was actually born here. The other is a dreamer. I’ll tell you right now, I’m going on record, that they can come to my house anytime.
Thank you for sharing such a positive immigrant experience. I also have immigrant friends of several nationalities. Your story made me smile.
Kelly, for the sake of argument, let’s assume the Heritage study is right (they “invented” Obamacare after all, so they’ve been right in the past!).
Wouldn’t that delta between money paid in and benefits out be a reason to endorse President Obama’s executive order that will result in the “illegals” paying into Social Security (FICA) for the first time? That will certainly address that deficit.
It is the children of immigrants who gives our economy the payback.
The people who have the wherewithall to pay for coyotes and survive through the harrowing journey are wealthier and smarter and more focused/goal oriented than the general public. They pass on those traits to their children to our benefit. Poverty is no indication of class or future economic value.
@middle @ed @dogbreath
If you read the Cato piece carefully, you will see that it does not refute that illegal aliens represent a net cost to the taxpayer; they just argue that the costs are smaller than the Heritage estimates. And in a classic case of changing the subject, the Cato Institute argues that 2nd and 3rd generations become productive citizens, which really has nothing to do with the point being made in the Heritage article.
Even if the offspring of illegal immigrants become productive, the first generation will be a huge drain on the taxpayer for decades. It remains to be seen whether their future generations will ever be productive enough to offset the huge upfront costs. It would be better to accept first-generation legal immigrants who are NOT a drain on the economy and whose children will still provide economy payback.
Someone mentioned Obamacare above. We have not discussed Gruber and the misleading statistics that were used to snooker the American public. When Obamacare was first being discussed, many of us stated that the math does not add up. Now we see that many of the warnings and predictions of opponents are turning out to be true.
The case of illegal immigration has clear parallels to Obamacare. The true costs of a huge influx of unskilled labor drawing government benefits will be tremendous. And it will continue to burden the economy. it should not be hard for contributors to this blog to figure out that statistics are being used to obscure the high costs of illegal immigration. But that is clearly what is happening here, just as it did with obamacare.
Glenn Kessler awarded Obama three pinocchios for his statement that George H.W. Bush used executive action to allow “40% of undocumented immigrants in the country at the time” to remain in the US in 1990. It turns out that the number that used the program closer to a total of 50,000. So, this is yet another example of mis-representation in order to justify this executive action.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/11/24/did-george-h-w-bush-really-shield-1-5-million-illegal-immigrants-nope/
Kelly, you seem to have dodged my question, so I’ll answer it. Obama’s executive action will result in millions of current “illegals” paying into FICA for the first time, which will offset the cost to the taxpayer. When you consider that there is zero chance that we will deport 10 million people, this is a logical step to benefit the taxpayers.
Immigrants from our southern border trend younger, so it is estimated that this will be a net positive for years to come. Sounds like a move a fiscal conservative would love!
What Kessler’s piece also indirectly verified is that Bush I’s executive order (and Bush II’s and Reagan’s) was very similar to Obama’s. You can argue numbers, but you can’t argue precedent.
@middleman
I did not answer because I don’t know. Many articles have claimed before the executive order that illegal aliens already pay taxes and FICA. So the answer is murky. You will have to provide a good reference to back that claim up.
@middleman
Kessler showed that Bush I issued an executive order to slightly expand on a law duly passed by Congress. I think the same is true of Reagan and Bush II.
Obama issued an executive order in the ABSENCE of legislation, which is a constitutional foul in my opinion. The president does not get to make law. So I would not view the actions by the Bushes and Reagan as setting a precedent that Obama exploited.
The slightly revised expression “given an inch, take a mile” comes to mind.
In this rule of law mantra – how come we have never enforced the laws on the books – and gone after the number of business’s that cater to these employees – now does a restaurant pay all these people? Yes, many do pay taxes, but many do not.
Doing nothing since 2003 has proved to not have any effect. Lets try something else to see if it does have an effect. Allowing the people to become legally employed will allow them to shop around for employment and not be taken advantage of.
Perfect – no – lets let Congress do something about it.
Here you go, Kelly- The Fiscal Policy Institute and Tax Policy Center studies are the basis for the article:
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/immigration/2014/11/21/experts-obamas-action-increase-tax-collections/19382127/
@Kelly_3406
Still not precedent setting, Kelly, and if it’s a constitutional foul Obama’s in good company- Abraham Lincoln: http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-82055029/
@middleman
Your link from an Arizona newspaper is not convincing at all. The article cites a CBO estimate that the executive action will reduce the deficit by $50B over a decade. That’s nothing–chump change — plus it does not discuss how many more of the illegal aliens will be eligible for federal benefits, welfare, food stamps and the like. I think there will be ballooning costs associated with this that are not accounted for.
I guess its a good thing that all of those who are under the Obama protection plan will be paying full taxes. Many already do now.
@middleman
A president has sweeping powers during wartime. The Emancipation Proclamation applied only to southern states and was designed to hobble the Confederacy’s food and economic production during the Civil War. I do not think a strategic decision during the Nation’s fight for survival can be taken as precedent for an arbitrary executive order during peace time.
The fact that Congress did not give Obama the law that he wants does not give him the right to make law on his own.
@Kelly_3406
Kelly, the article also cites studies from two non-partisan organizations that show a NET positive income from Obama’s action. Net positive means more being paid in taxes than paid out in benefits. One can quibble about amounts, but more in and less out is always better- less for other taxpayers like you and me to have to cover.
@Kelly_3406
Obama isn’t making law, he’s choosing how to allocate available funds, which there is broad precedent for.
Washington Post Editorial Board (12-3-2014) agrees with Kelly: Obama’s unilateral actions on immigration are “unprecedented.” And far beyond any actions by Bush II in terms of illegal immigrants affected.