Uh psst, itzy, Sen. Cornyn lives in reality, unlike you, IMO, posting from the pro-infanticde DC lobbying organization called FAIR. Ah Dane...whatever would the Pro-Illegal Infiltrators do without your sock-monkey like devotion...your straw-man arguments...and your love of the Je$$e Jacka$$ Race-Card?
You are a cheap fabric salesman..."Never mind the quality, Feel the width!"
So, everyone...Dane believes reality is to BOHICA for up to 30 MILLION Illegal Infiltrators here in America...that we all shoulds just keep paying for THEIR welfare, well-being, while things like this keep happening...
The High Cost of Cheap Labor Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget
" Based on Census Bureau data, this study finds that, when all taxes paid (direct and indirect) and all costs are considered, illegal households created a net fiscal deficit at the federal level of more than $10 billion in 2002. We also estimate that, if there was an amnesty for illegal aliens, the net fiscal deficit would grow to nearly $29 billion."
Or, maybe this littel gem...
Sociologist Lisa Catanzarite looked at many different occupations across 38 major metropolitan areas. She found that the higher the percentage of "recent immigrant Latino men" [RILM] in each local job, the lower the wages paid to citizens and established immigrants.
She writes: "The pay penalty in occupation-MAs [Metropolitan Areas] with 25% RILM [recent immigrant Latino men] amounts to $2,369 per year; at 15% RILM, the penalty is $1,421, and at 5% RILM, $474. These are substantial wage discounts, given that annual earnings average $21,590. In other words, in occupations with 25% RILM, workers earn only 89% as much as workers in comparable fields without RILM."
In other words: all else being equal, if the makeup of your occupation's local labor pool changes from 0% new immigrant to 25%, your income shrinks 11%. (source...http://www.ncpa.org/iss/imm/2003/pd081903c.html and http://www.chicano.ucla.edu/)
Gee, Dane...who lives in "reality"...and who is sitting at the feet of the "Massah", licking their hands so willingly? Wear your chains lightly...Real America recognizes a quisling when we see one!
" Based on Census Bureau data, this study finds that, when all taxes paid (direct and indirect) and all costs are considered, illegal households created a net fiscal deficit at the federal level of more than $10 billion in 2002. We also estimate that, if there was an amnesty for illegal aliens, the net fiscal deficit would grow to nearly $29 billion."And even this fails to consider the effect these illegals and their families will have on our Social Security system.
As you're no doubt aware, on June 29, 2004, Bush's appointed Social Security Administrator sign a Social Security Totalization Agreement with Mexico. Among it's provisions, it allows:
The Mexican illegal alien to apply for, and receive benefits after working (illegally) for 6 quarters (18 months). US citizens (read: you and I) have work 40 quarters (10 years) before we're eligible to apply.
The Mexican illegal alien can apply for, and receive benefits for his Mexican national wife and Mexican national children, even if they've never stepped foot in the USA.
When the GAO reviewed the methods the SSA used to evalute the suitibility of the Mexican SS system, they said this:
SSA has no written policies or procedures it follows when entering into totalization agreements, and the actions it took to assess the integrity and compatibility of Mexico’s social security system were limited and neither transparent nor well-documented. SSA followed the same procedures for the proposed Mexican agreement that it used in all prior agreements. SSA officials told GAO that they briefly toured Mexican facilities, observed how its automated systems functioned, and identified the type of data maintained on Mexican workers. However, SSA provided no information showing that it assessed the reliability of Mexican earnings data and the internal controls used to ensure the integrity of information that SSA will rely on to pay social security benefits.
So, the SSA went down to Mexico, looked around, then came back, gave us a "thumb's up" and said, "Looks good to us!"
The GAO went on to say this about the Totalization Agreement:
The cost of such an agreement is highly uncertain. In March 2003, the Office of the Chief Actuary estimated that the cost of the Mexican agreement would be $78 million in the first year and would grow to $650 million (in constant 2002 dollars) in 2050. The actuarial cost estimate assumes the initial number of newly eligible Mexican beneficiaries is equivalent to the 50,000 beneficiaries living in Mexico today and would grow sixfold over time. However, this proxy figure does not directly consider the estimated millions of current and former unauthorized workers and family members from Mexico and appears small in comparison with those estimates. The estimate also inherently assumes that the behavior of Mexican citizens would not change and does not recognize that an agreement would create an additional incentive for unauthorized workers to enter the United States to work and maintain documentation to claim their earnings under a false identity. Although the actuarial estimate indicates that the agreement would not generate a measurable long-term impact on the actuarial balance of the trust funds, a subsequent sensitivity analysis performed at GAO’s request shows that a measurable impact would occur with an increase of more than 25 percent in the estimate of initial, new beneficiaries. For prior agreements, error rates associated with estimating the expected number of new beneficiaries have frequently exceeded 25 percent, even in cases where uncertainties about the number of unauthorized workers were less prevalent. Because of the significant number of unauthorized Mexican workers in the United States, the estimated cost of the proposed totalization agreement is even more uncertain than in prior agreements.
Speaking of quislings, Steve Sailor's recent article contained the following:
"That constant lying becomes morally irrelevant because under citizenism, the duty toward solidarity means that the old saying “he’s a son of a bitch but he’s our son of a bitch” turns into a moral precept."
Party over principle, a recipe for disaster.