That being said, I hope that everyone you’ve been arguing with takes the time to read it. We all need to see the sort of emotion-laced propaganda being used to dupe the unwitting Americans who support giving legal status to illegal immigrant invaders because they actually believe that it will be good for the country
The final woman the article discussed was Mrs. Ortega. She paid $1,200 into Social Security (she and her employer). The article makes the point that she will never receive that money back. Obviously, the Times is either misinformed, or they’re misleading...again...
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18821
I wonder how many truly educated people on this forum actually believe that if Mrs. Ortega is allowed to stay in the United States, and is granted legal status, that she won’t be able to eventually get a Social Security benefit that not only pays her the money she paid in, but pays her much more.
If the illegals, who are quickly out breeding US citizens, are allowed to stay and gain voter status, they will become the largest voting demographic in the US in just about two generations. If Mrs. Ortega, and all her little Ortegas, are allowed to become “legal,” they won’t just recover their Social Security payments...they’ll bankrupt the system.
Mrs. Ortega’s $1,200 Social Security payment is of little overall benefit to the country if she squeezes out a little Ortega. One visit to the hospital to birth an Ortega and the bill...undoubtedly covered by the legal US taxpayers... will dwarf her payments into the retirement system. When her little Ortega goes to public school...at taxpayer expense...his annual bill will most likely exceed $10,000. The little Ortega will undoubtedly qualify for reduced cost or “free” breakfast and lunch, which will be provided at taxpayer expense. When the little Ortega gets a runny nose, Mrs. Ortega will undoubtedly take him to the emergency ward of the nearest hospital, where they will take his temperature, give the child $1.00 worth of Tylenol, send him and Mrs. Ortega home...then bill the taxpayers $1,000 for the service.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/SR9.cfm
http://www.10news.com/news/9620142/detail.html
http://www.azconservative.org/Barton.htm
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03993.pdf
http://judicialwatch.org/archive/2006/immigration-special-report.pdf
So take your Social Security argument and save it for the backslappers who seem to agree with your point of view. As one-sided and idiotic as that Times article is, I thank you for posting that article to “prove” your point.
Your article certainly did prove something...it proved that what I said in my first post to you on this thread is 100 percent correct.