Joe Legal Vs Jose Illegal

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Otep wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I’ve worked alongside illegal immigrants for years in the landscaping industry. Even in good economic times, of the literally hundreds of illegals I’ve worked with, none of them ever got paid more than 12-13$ per hour. Most construction workers, an industry that my dad has worked in as a sub-contractor for thirty years, get paid 20-35$ per hour, with benefits. I’m sure there are illegals out there making 15$ an hour cash, but they are far and few between and represent the absolute top of the pay scale, whereas a construction worker making 25$ per hour with no benefits provided by his employer at all represents the bottom of the scale. Based on my own experiences, the examples of Jose Illegal and Joe Legal are not even close to being an equitable comparison.

And while there are illegals who have “anchor babies”, in my own experiences this is not indicative of a significant percentage of illegals working here. Virtually every illegal I’ve met or worked with has zero children here in America and has risked life and limb to leave them behind and work here in order to feed and clothe them. I worked in landscaping and construction for about ten years in the Bay Area where there is an extremely large illegal immigrant population.[/quote]

  1. There are a lot of anchor babies. 70% of babies delivered in Parkland Memorial Hospital, in Dallas, are anchor babies. Parkland’s the 2nd busiest maternity ward in the nation. I’ll link snopes, because I can’t find the news article.

So when you say this is ‘not indicative of the population’, I’ll agree with you only up to a certain point.

  1. Americans can and will take construction jobs at $8-$15/hr. Compare that with pay of other unskilled labor (McJobs, Starbucks, warehousing). There’s nothing that makes the construction industry unique. More, with an unemployment rate of around 10% (close to 20% in CA, IIRC), I’d assume theres even more who’d take the work if they could find it.

Also, your statement ‘whereas a construction worker making 25$ per hour …represents the bottom of the scale’, is totally wrong, at least in Texas., maybe it’s valid in Cali. It depends on what aspect you work on/in, but legal residents of the US don’t see their hourly pay jump just by having a valid SS card.[/quote]

Construction workers with NO health benefits provided by their employers and who make $20 an hour represent the bottom. Or, workers making $8-15 an hour with benefits. It may be different where you live, but out here in California construction workers are typically provided health benefits after anywhere from 30-90 days of employment.

42

DB,

Their substantial cost on the state IS the reality. The numbers and statistics reflect half of our debt, if that isn’t enough proof, I don’t know what more proof you need.

This is not solely on the backs of employers who hire illegals, it is our weak policies that invite them here. Free education for their anchor babies, welfare, government assistance, free health care, and finally citizenship for anyone born here. The bottom line is that there is MUCH too much incentive for them to come here, when you remove it, they leave or do not come in the first place. Where I am from, the prime minister made a public decry about illegals not being welcome, followed with very aggressive enforcement, and it has worked very well.

This is very simple to remedy, when you make it very painful, they will not come. When you pass laws that make it extremely difficult to get jobs, government benefits, housing, and basic living, you deter them. In Escondido, they have implemented DUI checkpoints, the only people complaining are the illegals. Not the drunk drivers. You need to create an atmosphere of fear for them to get the point. For many years, they have gotten away scott free, perhaps now the message is getting through. Don’t bring your ass here illegally.

43

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
DB,

Their substantial cost on the state IS the reality. The numbers and statistics reflect half of our debt, if that isn’t enough proof, I don’t know what more proof you need.

This is not solely on the backs of employers who hire illegals, it is our weak policies that invite them here. Free education for their anchor babies, welfare, government assistance, free health care, and finally citizenship for anyone born here. The bottom line is that there is MUCH too much incentive for them to come here, when you remove it, they leave or do not come in the first place. Where I am from, the prime minister made a public decry about illegals not being welcome, followed with very aggressive enforcement, and it has worked very well.

This is very simple to remedy, when you make it very painful, they will not come. When you pass laws that make it extremely difficult to get jobs, government benefits, housing, and basic living, you deter them. In Escondido, they have implemented DUI checkpoints, the only people complaining are the illegals. Not the drunk drivers. You need to create an atmosphere of fear for them to get the point. For many years, they have gotten away scott free, perhaps now the message is getting through. Don’t bring your ass here illegally. [/quote]

I understand your point clearly. However, I think it can be problematic for the country to make very clear how much of a burden the illegal immigrant population can be, given that we are a country of immigrants. Opponents of kicking the illegals out can always say, well you or your family are immigrants too. This is a cheap argument that avoids the issue, but for some idiots it works and this is a roadblock.

44

Ignoring the problem is not going to make it go away, and pointing out the severity of the problem is a great way to remedy it. The issue is that these people broke the law, and now want to be rewarded for it, fuck that.

It is not a cheap argument to say we are all immigrants, in that immigrants who came through Ellis Island did it legally. That was the procedure back then, and followed it as they should have. There is a difference between legal and illegal, lumping them all together is not an accurate portrayal of the situation.

45

Yeah, there’s some truth to that. Except very doubtful that Jose Illegal is making close to $15 an hour. Likely much less than that. Also, where do you get that the minimum tax rate for someone making $52,000 is 30%. I would think it’s a lot less. Some of the other expendiutres for Joe Legal also seem off and high. But the point the scenario is trying to make is valid.

“If you vote for or support any politician that supports illegal aliens in any manner, then you are part of the problem!”

Yes. Unfortunately, there are not nearly enough politicans on either side of the aisle that take the proper stance on illegal immigration.

46

When you count SS and Medicare, yes, the total tax rate can very readily be that much at that income level.

47

[quote]spyoptic wrote:
OOOH this is the reason so many white folks are on welfare then? I get it now! its the illegal immigrants fault, not the powerful white folks that decide working wages and taxes…

[/quote]

That is not the point at all. It’s no one’s ‘fault’ and it’s not about casting blame. The point is that illegal immigrants are a huge drain on services without paying anything into the system. While lower-middle classe families (not on welfare) who do pay a lot into the system are worse off than these illegals.

48

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
DB,

Their substantial cost on the state IS the reality. The numbers and statistics reflect half of our debt, if that isn’t enough proof, I don’t know what more proof you need.

This is not solely on the backs of employers who hire illegals, it is our weak policies that invite them here. Free education for their anchor babies, welfare, government assistance, free health care, and finally citizenship for anyone born here. The bottom line is that there is MUCH too much incentive for them to come here, when you remove it, they leave or do not come in the first place. Where I am from, the prime minister made a public decry about illegals not being welcome, followed with very aggressive enforcement, and it has worked very well.

This is very simple to remedy, when you make it very painful, they will not come. When you pass laws that make it extremely difficult to get jobs, government benefits, housing, and basic living, you deter them. In Escondido, they have implemented DUI checkpoints, the only people complaining are the illegals. Not the drunk drivers. You need to create an atmosphere of fear for them to get the point. For many years, they have gotten away scott free, perhaps now the message is getting through. Don’t bring your ass here illegally. [/quote]

Yes. But one of our weak policies is the government’s stubborn refusal to penalize employers who hire illegals.

Bill, that may well be true on the tax point. I just don’t know enough on the issue.

49

Actually, you know, now I think you were likely right on that being slightly high.

I’ve paid that high a percentage on a similar income, but I did not have the 3 additional deductions that the Joe of this example has.

His standard deduction would be $5350 higher than mine, and another $1700 (I think) for the two kids. While this would not save him $7050 in taxes, as that is not how the deductions worth, as a rough guess it could save him $2000 at least compared to what I’d pay.

So I am thinking he would be somewhat under 30% in total taxes, assuming standard deduction is claimed, so I think you were right and I was wrong.

But the example is not grossly far off. If he hadn’t been given the wife and kids it would have been about right.

50

[quote]spyoptic wrote:
How about the outsourcing of companies overseas? and the recession?[/quote]

What? So others should not have the opportunity to have work from a certain company because they live across an arbitrary boarder?

51

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
Something I came across. Let’s discuss the truths and non-truths to this…

JOE LEGAL vs. JOSE ILLEGAL
You have two families: “Joe Legal” and “Jose Illegal”.
Both families have two parents, two children and live in California.

Joe Legal works in construction, has a Social Security Number and makes $25.00 per hour, with taxes deducted.

Jose Illegal also works in construction, has NO Social Security Number and gets paid $15.00 cash per hour, “under the table”.

Ready? Now pay attention …

Joe Legal: $25.00 per hour x 40 hours = $1000.00 per week or $52,000.00 per year. Now take minimum 30% away for state and federal tax and Joe Legal now has$31,231.00.

Jose Illegal: $15.00 per hour x 40 hours = $600.00 per week or $31,200.00 per year. Jose Illegal pays NO state or federal taxes. Jose Illegal now has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal pays medical and dental insurance with limited coverage for his family at $600.00 per month or $7,200.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $24,031.00.

Jose Illegal has full medical and dental coverage through the state and local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal makes too much money and is not eligible for food stamps or welfare. Joe Legal pays $500.00 per month for food or $6,000.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $18,031.00.

Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for food stamps and welfare, due to his “anchor children” that were born in the US . Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal pays rent of $1,200.00 per month or $14,400.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $9,631.00.

Jose Illegal receives a $500.00 per month federal rent subsidy. Jose Illegal pays out that $500.00 per month or $6,000.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal pays $200.00 per month or $2,400.00 for car insurance. Joe Legal now has $7,231.00.

Jose Illegal says “We don’t need no stinkin’ insurance!” and still has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal only gets a child tax credit for his two children, giving him another 800 dollars tax credit a year to $8,031.00.

Jose Legal gets state subsidized money for his anchor babies at $650 per Child for an additional $15,600 to give Jose Illegal $46,800 to live on.

Joe Legal has to make his $8,031.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, etc.

Jose Illegal has to make his $31,200.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, plus what he sends out of the country every month.

Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part time job after work.

Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.

Joe Legal’s and Jose Illegal’s children both attend the same school. Joe Legal pays for his children’s lunches while Jose Illegal’s children get a government sponsored lunch. Jose Illegal’s children have an after school ESL program. Joe Legal’s children go home and he needs to pay for a babysitter to watch them while he and his wife work.

Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same police and fire services, but Joe paid for them and Jose did not pay anything.

Do you get it, now?

If you vote for or support any politician that supports illegal aliens in any manner, then you are part of the problem!

It’s WAY PAST time to take a stand for America and Americans!
It is also way past time to rescind the “anchor baby” law. Remove the incentive for illegals to rush across our border to give birth and thus have access to benefits Americans have worked and paid their entire lives for!
[/quote]

I have no problem with immigrants, I have a problem with Welfare, etc. for this reason. If someone wants to work, that’s fine. However, I do not think it is justified to make others pay for them through taxes through welfare, even if they are citizens and white, it is not justice to make others pay for them when they are receiving no services from them.

52

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Rock you forgot about the welfare they receive for anchor babies, here in LA it is 650/month/child. [/quote]

31,200 plus 1300x12 (15,600) for the 2 kids give Jose Illegal $46,800 to liv on.

Joe Legal has about $7500 to live on.

This shit needs to stop. La Raza and the likes of them need to go. They are parasites sucking off a system now in the ICU.

THIS SINGLE item would just about eliminate California’s economic problems all by itself.

Then we can work on the whit folks on welfare…make them clean parking lots or build shit for local cities and Counties for their carrer food stamps.[/quote]

Or, we can get rid of the Welfare state and just let them get a job or find private charity to take care of them.

53

[quote]archiewhittaker wrote:
Does every illegal get rent subsidies/free dental or even a JOB IN THE FIRST PLACE?!

Tell me, BR, can you read through the propaganda, between the lines, and comprehend that the same teqniques were implemented when the national socialists were “building up” their case against jews? It plays into people’s fears about the economy, and it blames a ethnic group/religion, while lying about their actual status in society.[/quote]

Well I do not think it makes us Nazi’s because we oppose communism, if we implement National Socialist legislation, then sure, you have fair reason to call us Nazi’s, however I say down with the Welfare State on both sides.

54

[quote]archiewhittaker wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]archiewhittaker wrote:
Does every illegal get rent subsidies/free dental or even a JOB IN THE FIRST PLACE?!

Tell me, BR, can you read through the propaganda, between the lines, and comprehend that the same teqniques were implemented when the national socialists were “building up” their case against jews? It plays into people’s fears about the economy, and it blames a ethnic group/religion, while lying about their actual status in society.[/quote]

So your defense is that:

  1. It isn’t exactly that way each time.
    and
  2. If we disagree with you, we’re Nazis?

I’m not even going to bother trying to explain to you the childish immaturity and logical flaws in this post. But please, continue typing and make yourself look dumber.[/quote]

Can you even read? I didn’t type any of the things you accuse me of typing. [/quote]

“Does every illegal get rent subsidies/free dental or even a JOB IN THE FIRST PLACE?!” ← you saying that it doesn’t always happen exact the way written. (not denying the validity of the original post though)

“Tell me, BR, can you read through the propaganda, between the lines, and comprehend that the same teqniques were implemented when the national socialists were “building up” their case against jews?” ← you comparing your opponents to Nazis.

55

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Actually, you know, now I think you were likely right on that being slightly high.

I’ve paid that high a percentage on a similar income, but I did not have the 3 additional deductions that the Joe of this example has.

His standard deduction would be $5350 higher than mine, and another $1700 (I think) for the two kids. While this would not save him $7050 in taxes, as that is not how the deductions worth, as a rough guess it could save him $2000 at least compared to what I’d pay.

So I am thinking he would be somewhat under 30% in total taxes, assuming standard deduction is claimed, so I think you were right and I was wrong.

But the example is not grossly far off. If he hadn’t been given the wife and kids it would have been about right.

[/quote]

I’m not sure what the percentage taken out after the deductions would be in California, but before the deductions 30% is actually a little low. State and federal taxes would end up being about 34-35%.

56

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]archiewhittaker wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]archiewhittaker wrote:

“Tell me, BR, can you read through the propaganda, between the lines, and comprehend that the same teqniques were implemented when the national socialists were “building up” their case against jews?” ← you comparing your opponents to Nazis.[/quote]

No, that is not an example of comparing my “opponents” to Nazis, but it sure seems to be an effective way of making you whine. I was comparing old rhetoric to new rhetoric.
In order to understand exactly what I’m writing about, you should read “Landlich Ethik” and “Neues Volk”. They both started out as equivalents to Britain’s “Telegraph”, but ended up as propaganda leaflets.

(I am in no way suggesting that the OP:s text will end up sending Mexicans to the gas-chambers, so please… please. Take it as a history lesson, only.)

57

[quote]archiewhittaker wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]archiewhittaker wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]archiewhittaker wrote:

“Tell me, BR, can you read through the propaganda, between the lines, and comprehend that the same teqniques were implemented when the national socialists were “building up” their case against jews?” ← you comparing your opponents to Nazis.[/quote]

No, that is not an example of comparing my “opponents” to Nazis, but it sure seems to be an effective way of making you whine. I was comparing old rhetoric to new rhetoric.
In order to understand exactly what I’m writing about, you should read “LÃ??ndlich Ethik” and “Neues Volk”. They both started out as equivalents to Britain’s “Telegraph”, but ended up as propaganda leaflets.

(I am in no way suggesting that the OP:s text will end up sending Mexicans to the gas-chambers, so please… please. Take it as a history lesson, only.)[/quote]

Do you generally relate all such “propoganda” to nazis, or just ones you don’t like?

You have still yet to show factual inconsistencies with the math of the thing, making your propaganda label more than a little far fetched.

58

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]archiewhittaker wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]archiewhittaker wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]archiewhittaker wrote:

“Tell me, BR, can you read through the propaganda, between the lines, and comprehend that the same teqniques were implemented when the national socialists were “building up” their case against jews?” ← you comparing your opponents to Nazis.[/quote]

No, that is not an example of comparing my “opponents” to Nazis, but it sure seems to be an effective way of making you whine. I was comparing old rhetoric to new rhetoric.
In order to understand exactly what I’m writing about, you should read “Landlich Ethik” and “Neues Volk”. They both started out as equivalents to Britain’s “Telegraph”, but ended up as propaganda leaflets.

(I am in no way suggesting that the OP:s text will end up sending Mexicans to the gas-chambers, so please… please. Take it as a history lesson, only.)[/quote]

Do you generally relate all such “propoganda” to nazis, or just ones you don’t like?

quote]

It’s spelled P-R-O-P-A-G-A-N-D-A.
Do you think I conlude that a lot of things I don’t agree with, are Nazi-related? I don’t make a habit of drawing those paralells, but in this case, there are lots of similarities! You would agree with me after you’ve read what I suggested you read, and I’m sure you’ll take my advice, instead of whining and misspelling simple words.

59

Whittaker, why don’t you just spell out for us in detail how I am a Nazi or support Nazi-like policies, rather than smear with a broad brush as you have been doing.

Or sit down and shut up.

One or the other.

60

I’ll take a note from your playbook, Bill:

I don’t have to provide you with evidence.

regarding my 2 options, I chose to merge them: how about I just keep posting, like usual?