All the major states/cities in America are already a safe haven for illegal immigrants. Illegals in NYC pretty much have the same basic rights as any other citizen.
No country can afford socialised pensions. Australia figured that out and did something about it 20 years ago.Turquoise wrote:
Retirement is a personal responsibility, not a public one. We're going to learn this the hard way when SS goes bankrupt (regardless of immigration). It will be painful in the short run, but getting our society off of dependence on government for retirement is a good thing.
Only smaller nations (like Canada) can entertain ideas such as socialized pensions in the long run.
Being familiar with the immigration process, the concept of "anchor" babies seems preposterous. Immediate relative application for parents cannot happen until the citizen's 21st birthday. Applications for immediate relatives are typically handled in five months or less, but only include spouses, parents and unmarried children under the age of 21. For the remaining family, the citizen would file for a visa in the family preference category. The fourth and lowest preference category covers siblings of a U.S. citizen, and for certain countries, such as the Phillipines, these visas carry processing times of up to 28 years, and can only be filed for after the citizen's 21st birthday. The only way to avoid this would be for the parents, once naturalised, to file for immediate relative visas for unmarried children under the age of 21, though this would require the U.S. citizen to be the first-born child, and all subsequent children to be born at least four years after the U.S. citizen.Diesel_dyk wrote:
I don't think you have to revoke anything.Turquoise wrote:
Don't repeal the 14th Amendment...
Just revoke jus soli.
That will fix a lot of things very quickly. Jus sanguinis is more valid.
People try to make "anchor" babies out to be some fast track back door. The reality is different. You would have to give birth, and the kid would be a citizen but the parent wouldn't be and having the kid doesn't mean you get to stay in the country, so they have to move back. then wait 18 years and have the kid sponsor them, then immigrate and wait another 3 years to naturalize then apply for the rest of the family and the application period would be about 1 year plus the waiting periods and for siblings who are married that would be any where up to 8 years. So for some of the other family members you are looking at 30 years from when the kid was born.... that's hardly a fast track.
I would like to know what the actual anchor baby immigration numbers are, I suspect that the outrage is overblown...
IMO its more to do with whipping up anti-immigrant sentiment than anything else.... all puff and no substance
What the US really needs is an immigration point system like the rest of the world to let in needed workers legally, but then again employers wouldn't like that because then they would have to pay proper wages. That and a crack down on employers who hire illegals and that would fix the problem really quick.
If you're that desperate to come to the U.S., just move to California illegally and await amnesty.
Care to share?... Honestly, I know very little about Australia's social safety net.DrunkFace wrote:
No country can afford socialised pensions. Australia figured that out and did something about it 20 years ago.Turquoise wrote:
Retirement is a personal responsibility, not a public one. We're going to learn this the hard way when SS goes bankrupt (regardless of immigration). It will be painful in the short run, but getting our society off of dependence on government for retirement is a good thing.
Only smaller nations (like Canada) can entertain ideas such as socialized pensions in the long run.
No kidding. We need to figure this shit out...yesterday.Turquoise wrote:
Care to share?... Honestly, I know very little about Australia's social safety net.DrunkFace wrote:
No country can afford socialised pensions. Australia figured that out and did something about it 20 years ago.Turquoise wrote:
Retirement is a personal responsibility, not a public one. We're going to learn this the hard way when SS goes bankrupt (regardless of immigration). It will be painful in the short run, but getting our society off of dependence on government for retirement is a good thing.
Only smaller nations (like Canada) can entertain ideas such as socialized pensions in the long run.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
You (Or most Americans) wont like it.Turquoise wrote:
Care to share?... Honestly, I know very little about Australia's social safety net.DrunkFace wrote:
No country can afford socialised pensions. Australia figured that out and did something about it 20 years ago.Turquoise wrote:
Retirement is a personal responsibility, not a public one. We're going to learn this the hard way when SS goes bankrupt (regardless of immigration). It will be painful in the short run, but getting our society off of dependence on government for retirement is a good thing.
Only smaller nations (like Canada) can entertain ideas such as socialized pensions in the long run.
Compulsory superannuation.
A minimum 9% of your income has to be put into a superannuation fund and can not be accessed (in most cases) until you are 60 or retired. Basically it forces people to invest for their own retirements, taking the burden off current tax payers.
It can't totally eliminate the need for pensions and will take at least a whole working life (40-50 years) to become fully effective, but it's going to take a huge strain off tax payers when all the baby boomer's are retired.
lol Hearts of Iron!unnamednewbie13 wrote:
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y76/un … tional.jpg
That doesn't seem that different from SS other than that this is purely private (I'm assuming)...DrunkFace wrote:
You (Or most Americans) wont like it.Turquoise wrote:
Care to share?... Honestly, I know very little about Australia's social safety net.DrunkFace wrote:
No country can afford socialised pensions. Australia figured that out and did something about it 20 years ago.
Compulsory superannuation.
A minimum 9% of your income has to be put into a superannuation fund and can not be accessed (in most cases) until you are 60 or retired. Basically it forces people to invest for their own retirements, taking the burden off current tax payers.
It can't totally eliminate the need for pensions and will take at least a whole working life (40-50 years) to become fully effective, but it's going to take a huge strain off tax payers when all the baby boomer's are retired.
I like the private part.Turquoise wrote:
That doesn't seem that different from SS other than that this is purely private (I'm assuming)...DrunkFace wrote:
You (Or most Americans) wont like it.Turquoise wrote:
Care to share?... Honestly, I know very little about Australia's social safety net.
Compulsory superannuation.
A minimum 9% of your income has to be put into a superannuation fund and can not be accessed (in most cases) until you are 60 or retired. Basically it forces people to invest for their own retirements, taking the burden off current tax payers.
It can't totally eliminate the need for pensions and will take at least a whole working life (40-50 years) to become fully effective, but it's going to take a huge strain off tax payers when all the baby boomer's are retired.
Don't like the compulsory part.
But, since (as Turq said), it's not that different than SS now, and the govt isn't responsible for funding it, it's better than what we have now.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Really though, if they work hard, pay their taxes and generally make a positive contribution to society, aren't they better than a lot of 3rd, 4th, 5th etc. generation citizens that can't be kicked out?
To answer your question... yes... 1st Generation (adult) immigrants are often the hardest workers. 1st Generation children who grow up here... sometimes.Jaekus wrote:
Really though, if they work hard, pay their taxes and generally make a positive contribution to society, aren't they better than a lot of 3rd, 4th, 5th etc. generation citizens that can't be kicked out?
The ones born here would be considered 2nd Generation though.