Legal immigrants are paying taxes, that much is true. And illegal immigrants are paying sales taxes. But there may be some illegal immigrants who are not paying income taxes, but who are provided services which are paid for by the hard working legal citizens. So the question comes up as to whether or not this is fair to the legal citizen who has to pay for the services provided to the non-paying illegal immigrant.Hi there. Here’s what the Bishops say to your points (from “Myths,” justiceforimmigrants.org/myths.html)
Immigrants come here to take welfare
Immigrants come to work and reunite with family members. Immigrant labor force participation is consistently higher than native-born, and immigrant workers make up a larger share of the U.S. labor force (12.4%) than they do the U.S. population (11.5%). Moreover, the ratio between immigrant use of public benefits and the amount of taxes they pay is consistently favorable to the U.S. In one estimate, immigrants earn about $240 billion a year, pay about $90 billion a year in taxes, and use about $5 billion in public benefits. In another cut of the data, immigrant tax payments total $20 to $30 billion more than the amount of government services they use.
(Source: “Questioning Immigration Policy – Can We Afford to Open Our Arms?”, Friends Committee on National Legislation Document #G-606-DOM, January 25, 1996. http:www.fas.org/pub/gen/fcnl/immigra.html)
*Immigrants don’t pay taxes *
Immigrants pay taxes, in the form of income, property, sales, and taxes at the federal and state level. As far as income tax payments go, sources vary in their accounts, but a range of studies find that immigrants pay between $90 and $140 billion a year in federal, state, and local taxes. Undocumented immigrants pay income taxes as well, as evidenced by the Social Security Administration’s “suspense file” (taxes that cannot be matched to workers’ names and social security numbers), which grew by $20 billion between 1990 and 1998
(Source: immigrationforum.org/about/articles/tax_study.htm))
You’re right about the theft issue, but the reality shows that they’re paying their way, and then some.
You know that’s not what I said; I have no reason to believe you are lying. I also have no reason to challenge your family’s experience, but I do challenge the claim that whatever atrocity they saw was committed by soldiers *trained in those techniques *by SOA. Since your family’s eyewitness experience was in what the soldiers did and not how they were trained it’s not clear how their testimony indicts the school.Wow. I guess I must be a liar, and my family’s eyewitness reports are falsehoods.
“… and justice and peace shall kiss.”Legal immigrants are paying taxes, that much is true. And illegal immigrants are paying sales taxes. But there may be some illegal immigrants who are not paying income taxes, but who are provided services which are paid for by the hard working legal citizens. So the question comes up as to whether or not this is fair to the legal citizen who has to pay for the services provided to the non-paying illegal immigrant.
Actually, it is in what the advisers did. English was spoken around the cells where family friends were being detained.You know that’s not what I said; I have no reason to believe you are lying. I also have no reason to challenge your family’s experience, but I do challenge the claim that whatever atrocity they saw was committed by soldiers *trained in those techniques *by SOA. Since your family’s eyewitness experience was in what the soldiers did and not how they were trained it’s not clear how their testimony indicts the school.
Ender
True. In some cases they’re also paying property taxes, because in some areas you can qualify for a mortgage with just an ITIN. So that means that some are therefore paying for police, fire department, schools and roads too.Legal immigrants are paying taxes, that much is true. And illegal immigrants are paying sales taxes. But there may be some illegal immigrants who are not paying income taxes, but who are provided services which are paid for by the hard working legal citizens. So the question comes up as to whether or not this is fair to the legal citizen who has to pay for the services provided to the non-paying illegal immigrant.
“chronic” isn’t used correctly.As for your chronic sarcastic disrespect of those two children from Guatemala …,
let me worry about that. its a feckless debate tactic anyway. however, I affirm you are Much Better than me.I can only ask “do you not fear the Lord?” …
quite a bon mot, eh?“Teenage trekkies”…
It is used more correctly than your presumptious use of “bon mot.” The bon mot of reference exists in your eyes perhaps, according to your over-riding need for sarcasm.“chronic” isn’t used correctly.
let me worry about that. its a feckless debate tactic anyway. however, I affirm you are Much Better than me.
quite a bon mot, eh?
I don’t think that Catholics are required under pain of mortal sin to obey the bishops on their opinion on illegal immigration. For example, Cardinal Mahony said that he set up a day where Catholics were supposed to fast in favor of illegal immigration. I don;t see where it would be a mortal sin if a Catholic did not obey his fasting regulation in favor of illegal immigration.now, tell me why the bishops think that a non-immigrant work permit should lead to legal permanent residency?
from the site: Catholic Bishops’ Call for Comprehensive Immigration Reform
bishops’ statement refers to that fact that immigration is caused by “economic necessity in order to provide even the most basic of needs for [immigrants] and their families.”
to do this, the bishops want a:
"Temporary worker program: …
the bishops call for a temporary worker program that includes:
Path to permanent residency which is achievable/verifiable … "
demanding that guest workers be put on the road to citizenship is far afield of what appears to be the stated purpose and suggests to me that there is a social/political agenda here beyond mere immigration reform.
again, why do the bishops go so far as to demand citizenship (which is what LPR status leads to)? determining who is or is not eligible for LPR status and US citizenship is the job of Congress and is not a necessary aspect of alleviating economic necessity that drives foreigners to immigrate.
It may not be justice where one group of people are taxed for public services and where another group of people are evading those taxes. And it may not promote peace when gangs and drug dealers are allowed to immigrate illegally in a country.“… and justice and peace shall kiss.”
Is this fair to those of us who have to pay taxes. Doesn’t this put an unfair burden on people who are obeying the laws?True. …You are right: there are surely some immigrants who are not paying taxes.
I see the laws on immigration as penal laws and I don’t see where the USA has any obligation to allow everyone in, just as Switzerland does not have to allow everyone in either. However, being penal laws, I don’t see it as a sin if someone is here illegally. However, if that person does not pay a fair share of taxes or is engaged in criminal activity or is taking advantage of the welfare system, then there is a question of justice and fairness to those of us who are paying taxes.you have proved that there is no moral justification in immigration control and all but the worst criminals (but see below) in the current bumper crop of 12 million illegals must get the fast track to LPResidency.
their economic needs requires a moral response on our part equal to any crusade. this need cannot brook any delay on our part in meeting the needs of all.
therefore, I suggest we end all restrictions on foreign immigraiton and allow everyone in, and all of their families to the 10th degree.
posters have proved that 12 million illegals are good economically. it stands to reason that next year and the following years, that 15 million or 20 million will be so much better. 50 million will be the best of all. we will have a shangri-la once we depopulate the third world and bring them all here.
I cannot now accept the bishops’ demand that fair wage standards be assured to american workers, how can we ask that fair wages be paid to american workers (this involves only money) if this will exclude any illegal alien from immigration (a moral right)? is it morally justifiable to place fair market wages over the ethical needs of others? i think not. so the bishops must be wrong.
I cannot even accept that illegal immigrants be asked to work; if they need to escape from anything for any reason, we need to take them all in.
after all, we all agree that illegal immigration is driven by sinless need, making our acceptance of the plight of illegals a moral necessity. moral necessity must trump the mere economic concerns of american workers or other segments of the american population, Catholic or not. the moral requirement of welcoming everyone surely makes even restrictions against criminals and plague carriers difficult to justify (after all, we are all sinners), but no doubt this can be worked around.
we cannot argue any longer that we as americans are entitled to anything that honduran forest peasants aren’t also entitled to.
No, it would not be justice. Please refer back to my earlier post in response to your comment, in which I addressed how the myth that we’re paying for public services doesn’t stand up to the facts.It may not be justice where one group of people are taxed for public services and where another group of people are evading those taxes. And it may not promote peace when gangs and drug dealers are allowed to immigrate illegally in a country.
You don’t seem to have read my earlier post, in which I gave you hard data on why this is a misconception.Is this fair to those of us who have to pay taxes. Doesn’t this put an unfair burden on people who are obeying the laws?
No one is suggesting that we open the floodgates and let everyone in. And I agree 100 percent about criminal activity, etc.I see the laws on immigration as penal laws and I don’t see where the USA has any obligation to allow everyone in, just as Switzerland does not have to allow everyone in either. However, being penal laws, I don’t see it as a sin if someone is here illegally. However, if that person does not pay a fair share of taxes or is engaged in criminal activity or is taking advantage of the welfare system, then there is a question of justice and fairness to those of us who are paying taxes.
on the contrary, other posters have demonstrated conclusively that any form of economic distress suffered by undocumented human persons requires the US, as an moral mandate, to confer LPResidency on them. all 12 million. and all 12 million of their their relatives. and the 2-3 million every year who undocumentedly cross our borders. and their 2-3 million relatives. all.I see the laws on immigration as penal laws and I don’t see where the USA has any obligation to allow everyone in, …
I don’t see how we can, in good conscience, refuse to admit all sinners. on what moral grounds can we deny sinners admission into the kingdom I mean the US? are we better than those sinners who you’d deny a permanent visa?No one is suggesting that we open the floodgates and let everyone in. And I agree 100 percent about criminal activity, etc…
I don’t think that this translates to being a moral obligation to letting everyone immigrate to the USA.…we are responsible for everyone in need.
I used to think (until yesterday) that US lawmakers had a duty to citizens of the US to implement a responsible immigration policy, in which economic need alone was not a sufficient basis to cross the border, and one in which congress could set immigration quotas, demand that immigrants obey US laws, prove that they would not be a net drain on the economy, prove that they were suffering political persecution, show that they were not plague carriers or undesirable criminals.I don’t think that this translates to being a moral obligation to letting everyone immigrate to the USA.
People can be barred from entry on the basis that it is not beneficial for the country as a whole. And this is a matter of opinion, so it is a prudential judgement which is put into effect by a penal law. Lawmakers have an obligation to their constituents and to support the general well being of the country.I used to think (until yesterday) that US lawmakers had a duty to citizens of the US to implement a responsible immigration policy, in which economic need alone was not a sufficient basis to cross the border, and one in which congress could set immigration quotas, demand that immigrants obey US laws, prove that they would not be a net drain on the economy, prove that they were suffering political persecution, show that they were not plague carriers or undesirable criminals.
but now, the pro-undocumentedly human person advocates have proved that the Quest for a better life is a moral imperative that overshadows mere economic and political objections.
on what basis could you bar anyone from entry? if we welcome sinners to church, how can we refuse criminals – much less the 12 million present unpaperedly persons and an equal number of their relatives – LPR status?