Why?
2007-06-27 11:39:02 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Immigration
For everyone that supports it, say goodbye to social security, medicare, and medicade. There will be no more retiring in the future.
+ CBO and JCT estimate that enacting S. Amdt. 1150 would increase federal direct spending by $13 billion to $17 billion over the 2008- 2012 period and by $32 billion to $38 billion over the 2008-2017 period. Over the 10-year period, about 4 percent of those totals for direct spending would be for Social Security benefits, which are classified as off-budget. The single largest component of the expected direct spending is for outlays from refundable tax credits, estimated by JCT.
+ CBO and JCT estimate that enacting the substitute amendment would result in a net increase in federal revenues of $15 billion to $19 billion over the 2008-2012 period and a net increase of $70 billion to $75 billion over the 2008-2017 period. Increased revenue from Social Security payroll taxes, which are classified as off-budget account for most of the changes in reven
2007-06-27 11:51:25 · update #1
No way should there be an amnesty bill. People have come to this country for generations, the legal way. have worked hard, learned how to speak english and assimilated into society. Now people are sneaking into this country illegally and are expecting a free ride, medical bills paid, education for their children, food stamps and welfare.
What they should get is deported. Giving them amnesty is an insult, a slap in the face to all the immigrants who have been following all the rules, working hard within the law, to be able to get a green card and stay here.
2007-06-27 12:29:23 · answer #1 · answered by palemalefriend 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
As I understand, the bill doesn't give amnesty. The bill would allow those who are here illegally to pay a fine and then get in line to apply for citizenship.
The fact is the people are already here and they aren't going anywhere. Even if the government were to spend the billions of dollars to round them up and ship them back across the border, most would just find a way back. The bill working through Congress is at least some attempt to address the issue. Prior to this bill, what has our government done, besides talking, to address the issue.
And let's not forget the contribution these people make to our economy. The fact is they are working - often in jobs that many American's wouldn't take. And with the national unemployment rate running at 4.5% (as of May 2007), I doesn't appear many American's are hurting for work.
2007-06-27 18:47:54 · answer #2 · answered by Justin H 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Well, from reading these boards, I'd say those that have illegal friends or family here. The prevailing attitude I see is that if they want to come to America, they need to do it through the proper channels, like our forefathers done when they arrived. Granted the legal channels are different today than hundreds of years age, but they still represent a legal path to the American dream that must be maintained. Amnesty to 20 million criminals is not the answer to our immigration problem.
2007-06-27 18:46:25 · answer #3 · answered by Jim 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I do. There's no point in sending those who have been in this country undocumented back into their country of origin because they'll come back again. It's stupid to put them back in line to wait an x number of years as a penalty to become legal immigrants, since they're primarily trying to work to save enough money in order for them and their own families to come here LEGALLY. They're not out to turn this whole country into anarchy, they're here to WORK their way to one day become LEGAL immigrants.
However, there should be some more provisions in there to address one of the roots of the illegal immigration problem. What I'm referring to as one of the roots of the illegal immigration problem is the rampant red tape within the system itself. One thing would be to make the fees affordable enough for potential immigrants who normally would come here illegally due to high processing fees for paperwork. Maybe they could even allow potential immigrants to come here with their paperwork already filled out and then after putting out an introductory fee for processing the paperwork and all of that good stuff, they can have an amount deducted from their paychecks for until the monies owed(that went towards the processing fee) has been paid off. Of course, the amount deducted will have to leave enough left over money in said paycheck to still come out with a living wage. That one will need some more bugs worked out. Are they perfect? No, but it's a start. Don't like 'em? Hey, it's no skin off my nose. I never said you had to like them. I just hope you can come with something better THAT'S FAIR FOR ALL!
2007-06-27 19:11:39 · answer #4 · answered by iwannarevolt 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Something under 30%, IIRC.
Some of those are hard-core open-borders types. The rest just don't realize that it /is/ an Amnesty bill.
2007-06-27 18:46:23 · answer #5 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Good idea...we used this people for lowest wages in the US...they have be paying their dues for a long time.
2007-06-27 18:44:20 · answer #6 · answered by pelister56 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I support it 100%
It's not amnesty.
2007-06-27 19:12:21 · answer #7 · answered by M. 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
It isn't amnesty and I support it.
2007-06-27 18:48:53 · answer #8 · answered by metro900 3 · 4⤊ 3⤋
No way. There are NO good qualities about this bill.
2007-06-27 18:41:45 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
Exactly 136,232,456.
2007-06-27 18:41:08 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋