The “Wall Act”: Closing Loopholes for Illegal Immigrants Federal Aid

I thought maybe it was a typo but you did it three different times in the above post (Including the title). So just a heads up it is spelled “immigrants.”

 

I like this proposal.

 

It's called a hangover.

 

1- What happen to leave it to the States that Conservative so much cherish? Not that I'm blindly for that - it should be left to the state, but there are certain things that the fed government can do better, is more eff at it without much of a downside. So, Conservative is giving up this idea of always leaving it to the States, right?

2- If you can close loophole to save $25B, do so. But why piss it away for the wall. Nearly everyone know it's symbolic and won't be effective. It's a waste of money. Shifting it from one place to another is still wasting money. Not going to fly, at least for people that are truly about small effective government, something that I also thought Conservative was for.

 

You do understand that illegal undocumented immigrants who pay into the Social Security system under fake or stolen SSN's are unable to actually receive these benefits back, right? Or any other federal benefits?

They benefit the system at approximately $13 billion a year into SSA, without a chance of return.

This is not a good bill and will not change anything that is not already in place. Don't confuse legal immigrants with undocumented immigrants. It's an effective scare tactic but not a good basis for legislation.

But it will make people who believe as you feel better I guess, so you got that...

 

This brought to you by the same people who bought you Tax Cuts Pay for Themselves. Excuse me if I call bullshit.

 

The "This will pay for the wall" is brought to you by the same people that believe a wall would be an effective solution to the immigration challenge...

 

The fact you think there are only two options... wasting money of trump's unpopular and ineffective vanity wall, or "open boarders" demonstrates that you really don't care about solving the immigration challenge.

 

I'm trying to understand the twisted logic. Closing benefit loopholes somehow is related to border security. The link is that if the saving is used to fund border protection, then the government can take over the States responsibility? If that's the logic, well, you just open up the government to take over anything it can find a way to save some money and use that saving to fund border security. Is this the logic?

Everyone that once believe, maybe still do, the wall will be paid by Mexico.

 

Agree with NewRox. The fact that you can’t distinguish there is nothing in between open borders and vanity wall shows you aren’t debating here with the intent of really wanting a true solution. It’s a disengenuous way of approaching this debate.

Question- are you from Texas?

I just can’t see anyone actually from Texas actually taking the “wall in the desert” campaign issue seriously. It shows a lack of understanding and ignorance of what us Texans know about our border. It plays better in West Virginia than it does in Texas or Arizona.

Truth that almost all Texas Democrats and objective Republicans should be able to logically agree on is that yes... between cities like Matamoras and Brownsville... a physical barrier (that they already have in insanely expensive fencing) is 100% necessary. In the middle of the Chihuahua desert, you are better served by Technological advances.

As for financial aid... you are conflating legal immigrants with illegal immigrants which is typical with Trumpers trying to fear monger. I just can’t approach a debate knowing right away that the intent of the debator is NEVER for objective consensus building. Why should anyone give you the time or day, especially when you show a clear lack of understanding of what most Texans know about our border with Mexico?

 

You really need to expand your news reach and sources out of the fever swamps...


And the tax cuts don't cost a dime? You serious?

 

Poe's law. Have no clue if such a silly statement was meant as a parody.

I mean if he was genuine, that means he doesn't even understand the most basic concept of tax revenue.

 

Trump said Mexico was paying for a wall.

Now we are paying for the wall? That isn’t a good deal and Trump said he wouldn’t sign us up for a bad deal.

I’m taking Trump at his word. He promised Mexico would pay for the wall.

 

It's spelled "border." I'm not sure how anyone is supposed to take you seriously when you are consistently misspelling such basic words.