A Nation built on Immigration

[Pods 7,622]

3 hours ago, Loco said:

to who, bison?  Nobody else was here...  I'll hang up and listen.

There were almost certainly people here prior to the giant Bering land-bridge migration associated with Clovis spearpoints around 12,000 years ago.There are archaeological sites that are older all the way down to Chile. People have been immigrating to the US for at least ~20,000 years. 

Edited July 5, 2018 by Pods

[TwiceHorn 31,982]

1 hour ago, F250 said:

I believe the current state of the world is pushback against the path towards globalization. The rise of nationalism and the balkanization of the internet are just speed bumps, in my opinion. Information and money can only be held back for so long. The world will be wealthier and more peaceful as our economies become more interlocked. we just need more freedom of movement, labor, capital, goods and services. I think we will eventually see more freedom of these things because they are so critical to the creation of wealth.

 

I smell what you're stepping in, for sure.  But the only place that has open borders that I'm aware of is Europe and in that context it's more like the states in the US than actually between countries. 

 

Governments need taxes to survive and they need an effective mode of taxing their citizens, or residents, as well as distributing benefits of that taxation, and I think that's a huge barrier to opening borders.

[F250 29,170]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I smell what you're stepping in, for sure.  But the only place that has open borders that I'm aware of is Europe and in that context it's more like the states in the US than actually between countries. 

 

Governments need taxes to survive and they need an effective mode of taxing their citizens, or residents, as well as distributing benefits of that taxation, and I think that's a huge barrier to opening borders.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it will be easy and that their won't be barriers, I just think its inevitable.

[former alkie 72]

7 hours ago, Lobo said:

  

Bragging about being a native born U.S. Citizen always seemed like a curious thing to take credit for to me.  I'm glad I was born here, but I didn't really have much to do with it. 

You summed up the way I feel about dipshits that boast that they’re a  “Native Born Texan”

No one, other than that dumbass, gives a shit that he/she was born here.

 

[Brew 3,049]

3 hours ago, RandomIdoit said:

The process is shitty. Does that make it okay to break the law when there are tons of people doing it the right way? 

There are not tons of people doing it the right way, because there isn't enough of a right way for tons of people to do it right now.

[Brew 3,049]

19 minutes ago, former alkie said:

You summed up the way I feel about dipshits that boast that they’re a  “Native Born Texan”

No one, other than that dumbass, gives a shit that he/she was born here.

 

The older I get, the more I move this direction. I was lucky to be born here ultimately rather than in some shithole 3rd world country. Why should that luck dictate everything about life and opportunity at this point? It's fucking random and it's pretty shitty not to give those that want to come here and contribute an opportunity to do it.

[Guest]

45 minutes ago, former alkie said:

You summed up the way I feel about dipshits that boast that they’re a  “Native Born Texan”

No one, other than that dumbass, gives a shit that he/she was born here.

 

Somebody isn’t a native born Texan. 

[F250 29,170]

18 minutes ago, Brew said:

The older I get, the more I move this direction. I was lucky to be born here ultimately rather than in some shithole 3rd world country. Why should that luck dictate everything about life and opportunity at this point? It's fucking random and it's pretty shitty not to give those that want to come here and contribute an opportunity to do it.

Are we talking about immigrants to the U.S or transplants flooding the hill country?

[RandomIdoit 739]

26 minutes ago, Brew said:

There are not tons of people doing it the right way, because there isn't enough of a right way for tons of people to do it right now.

Over one million people were granted lawful permanent residence in 2016. I consider that a lot of people.

[TwiceHorn 31,982]

11 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

Over one million people were granted lawful permanent residence in 2016. I consider that a lot of people.

That looks like a pretty steady number for the last 5-10 years, and it also looks like about 2/3 to 3/4 of those become naturalized five years later (650-750K is a pretty steady number there, too).

That's a pretty tiny fraction of the population.  It also is roughly the same number as unlawful border crossing apprehensions in that same timeframe (which I would assume is a fairly small fraction of the people actually illegelly crossing the border).

Since we're taking in far more people than that anyway, seems like we ought to double or triple the lawful permanent residents, while maintaining the same basic rate of naturalization.

[RandomIdoit 739]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

That looks like a pretty steady number for the last 5-10 years, and it also looks like about 2/3 to 3/4 of those become naturalized five years later (650-750K is a pretty steady number there, too).

That's a pretty tiny fraction of the population.  It also is roughly the same number as unlawful border crossing apprehensions in that same timeframe (which I would assume is a fairly small fraction of the people actually illegelly crossing the border).

Since we're taking in far more people than that anyway, seems like we ought to double or triple the lawful permanent residents, while maintaining the same basic rate of naturalization.

It doesn't matter to me that it's a small percentage of the population. What matters to me is the amount of resources we have to support them. Where is this money going to come from? 

[Crusher 127]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

I smell what you're stepping in, for sure.  But the only place that has open borders that I'm aware of is Europe and in that context it's more like the states in the US than actually between countries. 

 

Governments need taxes to survive and they need an effective mode of taxing their citizens, or residents, as well as distributing benefits of that taxation, and I think that's a huge barrier to opening borders.

I think a lot peoples concern about globalism is that the integration of the worlds governments and quality of life isn't going to rise to the level of the USA but rather settle somewhere in the middle. Certainly a lot of peoples situation will improve. While others will fall, along with the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and Bill of Rights. 

Doesn't really matter to me. I will not be alive for a one world government, what ever shape that may take. I will be a long dead AMERICAN.

Happy 4th!!!

 

[MillerEP 30,827]

Strictly speaking, as far as definitions are concerned. If your ancestors were here before the founding of America, they weren't immigrants. In order to be an immigrant, you have to "immigrate" to somewhere. Nobody "immigrated" to Sioux Nation or to the Aztec Empire. Instead, they were colonists or settlers in territory claimed by their host countries. I'm well aware that there were people here prior to their arrival and they got a really raw deal out of it. However, in many places, the land wasn't "stolen" from them. Many times there were negotiated settlements or purchased outright, like Manhatten Island (Not in ALL cases obviously).

[F250 29,170]

From the leftist think tank, the Cato Institute.

The 14 Most Common Arguments against Immigration and Why They’re Wrong

3. “Immigrants increase the budget deficit and government debt.”

Related to the welfare argument is the argument that immigrants consume more in government benefits than they generate in tax revenue.  The empirics on this are fairly consistent— immigrants in the United States have about a net-zero impact on government budgets (the published version of that working paper is available here).  A new model published by the National Academies of Sciences in their massive literature survey of the economics of immigration finds that age is the most important factor in estimating whether a new immigrant will be a net fiscal drain or contributor to government coffers, followed by education.  In their best model (results in Table 8-14), immigrants who are high-school dropouts have a net-positive fiscal impact on government coffers if they arrive before age 25 while the most educated immigrants have a negative effect if they arrive after age 64.  Their model also finds that Americans with a low level of education impose a larger fiscal burden than immigrants with the same education level.

It seems odd that poor immigrants don’t create a larger deficit, but there are many factors explaining that.  The first is that higher immigrant fertility and the long-run productivity of those people born in the United States generates a lot of tax revenue.  The second is that immigrants grow the economy considerably (this is different from the immigration surplus discussed above) and increase tax revenue.  The third is that many immigrants come when they are young but not young enough to be in public schools for as long as natives, thus they work and pay taxes before consuming hundreds of thousands of dollars in public schools costs and welfare benefits—meaning they give an immediate fiscal boost.  There are many other reasons as well.

Although the tax incidence from immigrants is what matters for the fiscal consequences, between 50 percent and 75 percent of illegal immigrants comply with federal tax law.  States that rely on consumption or property taxes tend to garner a surplus from taxes paid by unlawful immigrants while those that rely on income taxes do not.

https://www.cato.org/blog/14-most-common-arguments-against-immigration-why-theyre-wrong

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

8 hours ago, Lobo said:

Their slaughtering is a crime against humanity we will never be washed clean of.  But there is no such thing as Native Americans.  They were certainly here before Europeans, but they didn't spontaneously appear between the Bering Strait and the Embera once upon a time.  They moved here, same as Europeans did.  And I suspect they laid waste when they did.  

Are  you trying to pitch an after school special ?

[Guest Lobo]

14 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Are  you trying to pitch an after school special ?

Yes, it'll star Roddy Piper and the opening line will be "We came here to do two things, kick some ass and pass out some blankets.  And we're all out of blankets..." 

And F250:  I assume you were being sarcastic about Cato being leftist?  Great link though, I love that blog.

Edited July 5, 2018 by Lobo

[Crusher 127]

Question has to be asked. What would America look like today had the Europeans never arrived? If somehow they couldn't get here or just didn't give a shit?

There were three great civilizations pre-euro contact. Aztecs, Inca and Mayan. The Aztecs having already conquered or absorbed the Mayans were the closest to the territory that that USA occupies today. So most likely to expand and occupy that territory. So they would have to eventually deal with the Commanches, Apaches and others expanding from the south and expanding west. The Seminoles to the east and Iroquois to the northeast. Aztecs were more technologically advanced than those tribes. So I expect would succeed in the endeavor.

Would the Aztecs have been able to take advantage of the USA proper and the vast resources within?  Would they have become the most powerful nation on the earth?

Edited July 5, 2018 by Crusher

[RandomIdoit 739]

9 minutes ago, F250 said:

The first is that higher immigrant fertility and the long-run productivity of those people born in the United States generates a lot of tax revenue. 

Yes, American citizens will generate tax revenue. But they are going to use these resources now, not when their children are of working age. By this logic, we should let a billion people in every year because their children will generate tax revenue one day.

9 minutes ago, F250 said:

The second is that immigrants grow the economy considerably (this is different from the immigration surplus discussed above) and increase tax revenue. 

They will spend money and pay sales tax but I have a hard time believing that they will actually pay any income tax. Using H&R Block's calculator, a person making $25,000 a year, with 2 children, and had $2000 withheld, will receive $9,310 back if married, and $7,863 if they are head of household. 

9 minutes ago, F250 said:

The third is that many immigrants come when they are young but not young enough to be in public schools for as long as natives, thus they work and pay taxes before consuming hundreds of thousands of dollars in public schools costs and welfare benefits—meaning they give an immediate fiscal boost.

As soon as they have children, they will be eligible for welfare. Their children will be in public schools. Remember all of the teachers who complain that they are underpaid, work too many hours, and have to spend their own money for supplies for their students? Will they get paid more when students are added to their school? When new teachers have to be hired, is there going to be more money available to the school? What percentage of the new immigrants are going to buy(adding more money to schools through property tax) as opposed to rent(property tax has always been paid by the owner)? 

[MaybeACoordinator 8,350]

9 minutes ago, Crusher said:

Question has to be asked. What would America look like today had the Europeans never arrived? If somehow they couldn't get here or just didn't give a shit?

There were three great civilizations pre-euro contact. Aztecs, Inca and Mayan. The Aztecs having already conquered or absorbed the Mayans were the closest to the territory that that USA occupies today. So most likely to expand and occupy that territory. So they would have to eventually deal with the Commanches, Apaches and others expanding from the south and expanding west. The Seminoles to the east and Iroquois to the northeast. Aztecs were more technologically advanced than those tribes. So I expect would succeed in the endeavor.

Would the Aztecs have been able to take advantage of the USA proper and the vast resources within?  Would they have become the most powerful nation on the earth?

The Comanches and the Apaches were bug-eaters and root-diggers until they got ahold of Spanish horses, so they would have been of no consequence to the Aztecs. There were civilizations in early stages in the east as you mentioned: Iroquois and Cherokee and the Caddo in Texas. Seminoles may not have ever existed had it not been for Europeans moving in -- they were formed out of outcasts and renegades from the Creek nation. 

I don't think the Aztecs would have had the manpower and the supply chain to come in and take over much beyond South Texas, and a confederation of the "Civilized Tribes" would have beat their asses in an away game. 

[Guest Lobo]

Owners pay property taxes on rentals?  You sure about that.  It's been passed thru to the tenants on every single Multi-Family property I've ever seen, and I've seen hundreds.  Immigrants moving to new school districts and renting will still boost property taxes in that area for the schools to share (I mean, there's a whole other funding mechanism in many states that's broken like Robin Hood in Texas, but that's another debate aside from this one).  

[MaybeACoordinator 8,350]

Funny that even in Seminole days, Florida was where America's outcasts ended up. When the Brits colonized Georgia with debtors and other convicts, the outcasts from that colony fled into Florida too. And now it's pretty much the same for every misfit on the east coast. Florida: It's what's under the cushions of America's couch. 

[former alkie 72]

2 hours ago, Rex Kramer said:

Somebody isn’t a native born Texan. 

Indeed I am, but, after 54 years, I’ve met many “transplants” that are a helluva lot better Texans, than the trashy “natives” that we run across daily.

[TwiceHorn 31,982]

1 hour ago, RandomIdoit said:

It doesn't matter to me that it's a small percentage of the population. What matters to me is the amount of resources we have to support them. Where is this money going to come from? 

Oh I certainly worry about that.  But, if getting them in the right way, so they're paying all their taxes and whatnot, occurs, and that takes a little pressure off the unlawful immigration, I say do it to it.

 

And what F250 said, I guess. 

Edited July 5, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[Crusher 127]

2 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

The Comanches and the Apaches were bug-eaters and root-diggers until they got ahold of Spanish horses, so they would have been of no consequence to the Aztecs. There were civilizations in early stages in the east as you mentioned: Iroquois and Cherokee and the Caddo in Texas. Seminoles may not have ever existed had it not been for Europeans moving in -- they were formed out of outcasts and renegades from the Creek nation. 

I don't think the Aztecs would have had the manpower and the supply chain to come in and take over much beyond South Texas, and a confederation of the "Civilized Tribes" would have beat their asses in an away game. 

So, who would have had the technology and drive to unite the territory called the USA under a single flag and make the most powerful nation on the planet? Or was it only possible by EU intervention?

[TwiceHorn 31,982]

10 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

The Comanches and the Apaches were bug-eaters and root-diggers until they got ahold of Spanish horses, so they would have been of no consequence to the Aztecs. There were civilizations in early stages in the east as you mentioned: Iroquois and Cherokee and the Caddo in Texas. Seminoles may not have ever existed had it not been for Europeans moving in -- they were formed out of outcasts and renegades from the Creek nation. 

I don't think the Aztecs would have had the manpower and the supply chain to come in and take over much beyond South Texas, and a confederation of the "Civilized Tribes" would have beat their asses in an away game. 

And one also wonders why the Aztecs (including predecessors) didn't move north prior to the Spanish invasion?  Or the North Americans south? Seems rather arbitrary to assume that it would have happened but for Europeans in the New World.

[Bullneck 19,454]

2 hours ago, RandomIdoit said:

It doesn't matter to me that it's a small percentage of the population. What matters to me is the amount of resources we have to support them. Where is this money going to come from? 

Why are you convinced that immigrants are a drain on our economy.  You should be pissed at General Dynamics and Martin Marietta if you were concerned about money.

[Brian Fantana 6,856]

The majority of Americans realize this is a county of immigrants, and immigrants died to make this country what it is. This is not a Anglos Only Club, it never has and never will be. Trying to selectively define what immigration is permissible is childish entitlement built on the back of those immigrants that made this country what it is.

We will never, ever stop people from wanting to come to America, unless we succeed in making America an undesirable place to be. The only way to really, permanently cut down on illegal immigration is to create better avenues for legal immigration to occur. There are quite a few countries from which it is functionally impossible to emigrate with the United States as a destination and this is just plain backwards. Increasingly harsh treatment of immigrants/refugees ultimately accomplishes nothing aside from making us look like monsters to the world at large. Regardless of how many people you try to treat like animals, more will still come because it's better than the alternative of staying in a country in which a safe night's sleep does not exist.

The America I know and love gets its character and its unique spirit and determination from the wonderful amalgam of cultures that have coalesced in these past 242 years. Not from the baby boomer dipshits that are intent on destroying what our country should represent on planet Earth for no better reason than they can't understand and are afraid of people that act and/or look differently from what they encounter in their cloistered social bubbles.

[MaybeACoordinator 8,350]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

And one also wonders why the Aztecs (including predecessors) didn't move north prior to the Spanish invasion?  Or the North Americans south? Seems rather arbitrary to assume that it would have happened but for Europeans in the New World.

They had pretty amazing trade networks for one thing.  Far more extensive than we think. The Cahokia people traded stuff from the Great Plains down into northern Mexico, but without beasts of burden it was kinda limited in scale if not scope. 

[MaybeACoordinator 8,350]

18 minutes ago, Crusher said:

So, who would have had the technology and drive to unite the territory called the USA under a single flag and make the most powerful nation on the planet? Or was it only possible by EU intervention?

Nobody, as of 1492. 

[Crusher 127]

17 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

And one also wonders why the Aztecs (including predecessors) didn't move north prior to the Spanish invasion?  Or the North Americans south? Seems rather arbitrary to assume that it would have happened but for Europeans in the New World.

Because we always do. That is what humans do. If you do not think the Aztecs would have eventually gone north (if there was no European interference) then you don't think they are humans.

After we had conquered earth we went searching beyond the planet. Why did we go to space? Why did we go to the moon? Why did we go to Mars? Why is there a probe that has now officially left our planetary system? Because that is what we do.

What will we do when do if we find life outside our system? We have a pretty good example to study from our past.

 

Edited July 5, 2018 by Crusher

[F250 29,170]

41 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

Yes, American citizens will generate tax revenue. But they are going to use these resources now, not when their children are of working age. By this logic, we should let a billion people in every year because their children will generate tax revenue one day.

They will spend money and pay sales tax but I have a hard time believing that they will actually pay any income tax. Using H&R Block's calculator, a person making $25,000 a year, with 2 children, and had $2000 withheld, will receive $9,310 back if married, and $7,863 if they are head of household. 

As soon as they have children, they will be eligible for welfare. Their children will be in public schools. Remember all of the teachers who complain that they are underpaid, work too many hours, and have to spend their own money for supplies for their students? Will they get paid more when students are added to their school? When new teachers have to be hired, is there going to be more money available to the school? What percentage of the new immigrants are going to buy(adding more money to schools through property tax) as opposed to rent(property tax has always been paid by the owner)? 

Is there any empirical evidence to support your beliefs?

 

[RandomIdoit 739]

1 minute ago, Bullneck said:

Why are you convinced that immigrants are a drain on our economy.  You should be pissed at General Dynamics and Martin Marietta if you were concerned about money.

I'm concerned because 45% of households pay no income tax, and they will likely be in this group. They will pay sales tax like everyone else, but will they pay property taxes? The property taxes that fund the schools that their children will be attending. When they have these children, are they going to have their own insurance or use Medicaid? We have limited resources right? Or do we just keep printing money?

[TwiceHorn 31,982]

13 minutes ago, Crusher said:

Because we always do. That is what humans do. If you do not think the Aztecs would have eventually gone north (if there was no European interference) then you don't think they are humans.

After we had conquered earth we went searching beyond the planet. Why did we go to space? Why did we go to the moon? Why did we go to Mars? Why is there a probe that has now officially left our planetary system? Because that is what we do.

What will we do when do if we find life outside our system? We have a pretty good example to study from our past.

 

Actually I'm not convinced that that is inevitable. It's what certain cultures or societies do, but not all of them.

And sure, pressed by famine or overpopulation or something they might have, but I'm not sure that it is inevitable. 

The whole white mans burden thread is more or less about that, but I am told that it is racist and I am a white supremacist, so better ignore it. 

[tantric superman 4,668]

10 hours ago, Lobo said:

 And I suspect they laid waste when they did.  

I think your suspicions are hysterically overstated.  We've got a pretty massive historical records of the effect of the Europeans coming here. What links do you have about the original native Americans (US), laying waste environmentally, or even to whatever native humans were here?

[Michael Knight 13,187]

4 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

I'm concerned because 45% of households pay no income tax, and they will likely be in this group. They will pay sales tax like everyone else, but will they pay property taxes? The property taxes that fund the schools that their children will be attending. When they have these children, are they going to have their own insurance or use Medicaid? We have limited resources right? Or do we just keep printing money?

Unless they are homeless, everyone pays property taxes

[RandomIdoit 739]

7 minutes ago, F250 said:

Is there any empirical evidence to support your beliefs?

 

I don't understand what evidence you are looking for. You need evidence that adding people to the US will use more resources? This one is kind of obvious.

You need evidence that 45% of the households in the US have a zero or negative income tax? https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/model-estimates/conference-agreement-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-dec-2017/t17-0335-tax-units-zero-or

 

[RandomIdoit 739]

4 minutes ago, Michael Knight said:

Unless they are homeless, everyone pays property taxes

If you are renting, how are you adding to the total amount of property taxes collected? Do apartment complexes only pay property taxes on the units that are occupied or do they pay based on the value of the property? 

[Crusher 127]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Actually I'm not convinced that that is inevitable. It's what certain cultures or societies do, but not all of them.

And sure, pressed by famine or overpopulation or something they might have, but I'm not sure that it is inevitable. 

The whole white mans burden thread is more or less about that, but I am told that it is racist and I am a white supremacist, so better ignore it. 

Because they can't afford it. When you can't feed yourself you have to look to more earthly endeavors. 

I guess what I was going for in this whole thread was who besides the European invasion was going take full advantage of what we call North America? The most resource rich country on the planet?

[Michael Knight 13,187]

Just now, RandomIdoit said:

If you are renting, how are you adding to the total amount of property taxes collected? Do apartment complexes only pay property taxes on the units that are occupied or do they pay based on the value of the property? 

Taxes are calculated into the rent you pay. 

[RandomIdoit 739]

1 minute ago, Michael Knight said:

Taxes are calculated into the rent you pay. 

I understand that. What I don't understand is how it adds to the amount of taxes which are paid to the school district. Let's say I own an apartment complex and I have to pay $50,000 a year in property taxes. I can charge people $5,000 a month to live there but the amount of taxes the school district gets is still $50,000. I could have every unit rented out or only one rented out. Guess what? My property tax is still $50,000. 

[Brian Fantana 6,856]

What the fuck is your point

[Crusher 127]

3 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

What the fuck is your point

Going have to be more specific. Several threads going on at once here. 

[RandomIdoit 739]

3 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

What the fuck is your point

That simply saying the answer is to just allow more legal immigrants in is the answer to our immigration problem.

 

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Oh I certainly worry about that.  But, if getting them in the right way, so they're paying all their taxes and whatnot, occurs, and that takes a little pressure off the unlawful immigration, I say do it to it.

I'm not opposed to this idea, but where is the money going to come from? What are the consequences for coming in illegally if we are allowing more people in legally? Do we abolish birthright citizenship? I don't know what the answer is, but I haven't heard any ideas on how to handle it.

[SKJ 1,317]

22 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

If you are renting, how are you adding to the total amount of property taxes collected? Do apartment complexes only pay property taxes on the units that are occupied or do they pay based on the value of the property? 

That depends on the state.

But generally, the owners pay the tax... Of course, they pay this with the income they get from the rental property. I'm not understanding the question, I guess.

Commercial property owners pass the property tax to the tenant.

[RandomIdoit 739]

Just now, SKJ said:

That depends on the state.

But generally, the owners pay the tax... Of course, they pay this with the income they get from the rental property. I'm not understanding the question, I guess.

Commercial property owners pass the property tax to the tenant.

I've already agreed with this. My opinion is that the majority of new immigrants will be renters and not buying a house. So the total amount of property tax money collected by the school district will remain the same. However, the amount of children that the school district will have to support will increase. I don't know what the solution is because we do not have unlimited money or resources.

[SKJ 1,317]

14 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

I've already agreed with this. My opinion is that the majority of new immigrants will be renters and not buying a house. So the total amount of property tax money collected by the school district will remain the same. However, the amount of children that the school district will have to support will increase. I don't know what the solution is because we do not have unlimited money or resources.

So, you oppose the building of apartments/multifamily units because of the increased load on the schools?

That's more a zoning issue than an immigration issue.

Edited July 5, 2018 by SKJ

[RandomIdoit 739]

7 minutes ago, SKJ said:

So, you oppose the building of apartments/multifamily units because of the increased load on the schools?

That's more a zoning issue than an immigration issue.

I never said that. I said it's going to be a consequence of adding more low wage earners via immigration. Of course I want every child here to receive an education, but don't know what solution for funding it is. What about medical care and food? How are all of these programs going to be funded?

[Crusher 127]

I can tell you this. A new apartment complex is in the process of being built in the front of my subdivision and I am seeing flooding where I have never saw it before in my neighborhood. And I hate to think what's going to happen to crime in the area once they get through. Time to move..

[SKJ 1,317]

1 minute ago, RandomIdoit said:

I never said that. I said it's going to be a consequence of adding more low wage earners via immigration. Of course I want every child here to receive an education, but don't know what solution for funding it is. What about medical care and food? How are all of these programs going to be funded?

Well, you could just legalize weed and tax it. Worked like a charm in Colorado.

Also seemed to save money wasted on prisons.

I think we need to get our fucked up priorities in line, deal with the outlandish amounts of waste that is the prison industrial complex, and the military industrial complex, then eliminate governmental redundancy... You know, stop burning cash.

I'm guessing that'd take care of more net negative spending. Fuck. Immigrants are not nearly as expensive as a massive, idiotic prison system. 

Id say there's a whole laundry list of things fucking us out of resources that would need to be figured out before we figure out the cost/benefit of people that want to fucking work and have a better life.

Hell, tax incentives on pro stadiums built with taxpayer money are probably much higher than the whole of the costs of immigration... (Pure speculation, though)

[ChiTownDoc 21,323]

1 hour ago, RandomIdoit said:

I understand that. What I don't understand is how it adds to the amount of taxes which are paid to the school district. Let's say I own an apartment complex and I have to pay $50,000 a year in property taxes. I can charge people $5,000 a month to live there but the amount of taxes the school district gets is still $50,000. I could have every unit rented out or only one rented out. Guess what? My property tax is still $50,000. 

Complex?  lol that's cute.  I do 100K on a 'unit'.  If you can buy it, support your community.  If you don't want to, horde your money and STFU.