[1stFreedom]

I think this program is ok if:

1. Federal and State income tax is withheld.
2. Medicaid fees are added as well as local town taxes to cover uninsured medical services.
3. A foreign worker payroll tax taken by local towns to cover the cost of educating the children.

In theory, this will help to pay for the "free" services given to illegals.

And, IMO, they do perform the jobs that nobody except felons, who can't get anything else, want.

[CA Conservative]

"1. Federal and State income tax is withheld. "
It would have to be, just like everyone else.

"2. Medicaid fees are added as well as local town taxes to cover uninsured medical services."
Ditto for Medicaid.

"3. A foreign worker payroll tax taken by local towns to cover the cost of educating the children. "
This is one of those common misconceptions. Schools are usually paid for with property taxes or state revenues. So even now, if the worker is renting or buying a home, he/she pays local property taxes (taxes are figured into rent, believe me). You might have constitutional problems with additional taxes focused just on foreign workers for the same services everyone else receives; they would be paying twice for the same service.

"In theory, this will help to pay for the "free" services given to illegals. "
Under this program, they would not be "illegals", they would be here legally; and they would already be paying for those "free" services the same way you do - through income, property and sales taxes.

[org.whodat]

And, IMO, they do perform the jobs that nobody except felons, who can't get anything else, want.

That is not true. The economics is was taught says's that if you cannot get someone to work at a certain level you raise the pay. Next, all those little illegals that come here under this amnesty deal will have little women whelping and what is the legal status then?

[ASA.Ranger]

You have made some great points!
Thank you for letting me use your following comment as segway to some other thoughts.

"And, IMO, they do perform the jobs that nobody except felons, who can't get anything else, want."

A job that pays adequately may be one that a U.S. American will want. The huge number (perhaps eight million) of illegal aliens works to keep wages in many occupations (jobs U.S. Americans “don’t want”) artificially low. U.S. Americans may choose those occupations if the true value of the task was calculated and paid. Special interest groups strive to keep wages associated with ‘easy labor’ artificially low. Would we be paying more for a head of lettuce if a decently paid U.S American picked it? You bet. However, local government entities struggling with the cost of human services associated with illegal aliens would decrease. Do we want to pay 50% more for a head of lettuce or keep paying for the never ceasing increases in human services nominally associated with illegal aliens? One may choose not to buy certain agricultural products and forego a maid and landscaping but we all pay for most of the services rendered to the illegal aliens. Do illegal aliens pay tax? Many do and many do not. The actual focus of the concern is if they pay enough tax. Depending on the source of the statistics one may argue either way. I suggest that the lower the wages the lower the taxes paid and the higher the amount of Earned Income Tax Credit refund. The IRS is concerned with tax, not the citizen status of the filer. Illegal aliens may file and receive refunds using a number (not a social security number) reserved for tax purpose. After my years of experience as a Federal Officer in L.A., I believe that the larger percentage of illegal aliens cost the U.S. citizens more than they could possibly pay in to the system. A decent wage for picking lettuce (and other artificially low wage jobs) may render all above moot.

Oh, by the way, I perceive that the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is at least a problem of magnitude equal to and many times (frequency of illegal activity) greater than high income earned cheaters and corporate misdeeds. A flat tax will never work until the recipients of EITC are weaned from this teat. Then it may be a problem to intelligently address the Schedule A medical, charitable and home interest deductions with the tax paying public at large.

[Little Ray]

It would be reasonable to suspect that this is a major purpose of Bush's proposal. I'm still against it.