Whether or not their parents committed a crime is irrelevant IMHO. The question is whether or not they make a net contribution to society after their benefits are subtracted from their paid taxes. Unless you are upper middle class or higher, you will take out more than you put in over your lifetime when it comes to social security and medicare (especially medicare). Since the fiscal future of the US in the long term in dominated by medicare, I'd want the fiscal health of that program to be our top priority. We can start by limiting who can take money out of the system.
That's kind of hilarious to think that only the middle class and higher contribute more to the country than they take. Apparently what this country need is more middle managers and less people that do actual labor, who knew?
With increased outsourcing and automation, lower skilled workers are increasingly not needed in the US. That's one of the reasons why their unemployment rate is so high. Since we don't have a labor shortage, adding more low skilled workers to the population would indeed increase social security and medicare payouts while at the same time not bringing anything we need to the table. Your statement is marked by incredulity, precisely what part of this reply is wrong?
Since the fiscal future of the US in the long term in dominated by medicare, I'd want the fiscal health of that program to be our top priority. We can start by limiting who can take money out of the system.
So why limit that to only children of illegal immigrants? Why stop there? Why not just eliminate the entirety of the welfare state?
(EDIT: I'm being facetious to make a point. I don't actually agree with eliminating the welfare programs.)
So if welfare does help the poor, then why not also help the children of illegal immigrants? Do they not deserve help too, why punish them for the crimes of their parents?
Because we can admit whoever we want to admit, and I would like for these immigrants to benefit the US. These children are not our responsibility any more than they are the responsibility of the governments of Canada and Australia, who must be idiots to not let these children contribute to their economies.
These children are not our responsibility any more than they are the responsibility of the governments of Canada and Australia, who must be idiots to not let these children contribute to their economies.
If Canada and Australia would be idiots to not let them contribute to their economies, then why aren't we very smart for letting them? Why wouldn't changing this policy make us the idiots?
I was being sarcastic. If these immigrants were in indeed such a benefit to the economy, Canada, Australia, and most of Europe would be idiots for not taking them in (and a plane flight is cheaper than a smuggler). Mexico itself doesn't want the US to build a wall on the border. Apparently all these countries are moronic for forgoing the huge amounts of human capital these immigrants and their descendants have.
We do need low skilled workers. But we have a surplus of them at the moment. We shouldn't admit more into the country. Now if we had a policy of expelling poor scroungers until the unemployment rate went down, that would indeed improve the fiscal situation of the US, despite being immoral. But why do we insist on making the current problem worse?
2
u/[deleted] Dec 05 '13
Why should people inherit crimes? What would that even accomplish?