I do lawn care, handyman, and general contracting.
Framing is for the youngsters.

Done my time as a framer. Currently, remodeling a house. Feels good to be able to compete again.

The SAVE Act would ...

... require during Year 1 that all government agencies, government contractors, plus all businesses with more than 250 employees run all NEW hires through E-Verify.

... require during Year 2 that all businesses with 100 or more employees use E-Verify for new hires.

... require during Year 3 that all businesses with more than 20 employees use E-Verify for new hires.

... during Year 4 add businesses with fewer than 20 employees so that all businesses use E-Verify for new hires.

... also during Year 4 require all businessese to run all their previous hires through E-Verify.

The four-year phase-in is to give the government more room for massive expansion of its current system. It also allows the government to work out kinks before it is required for use by small businesses which often lack the personnel to easily deal with new procedures.

During the first three years, new illegal aliens and currently settled ones who lose their jobs will find fewer and fewer places where they can seek work.

But during those first three years, current illegal aliens who stayed in the same job would not be affected by the expanding use of E-Verify.

In the fourth year, however, all of those illegal workers would be run through E-Verify. If their Social Security number, name and a couple more details didn't match -- and they had no excuse -- they would lose their jobs.

NumbersUSA has always maintained that very few businesses actually want to hire illegal aliens. And we believe that of the minority of businesses that do hire illegal aliens, most do so without knowing it or do so because they feel forced to do it to keep from being run out of business by competitors who ARE hiring illegal aliens.

If we give businesses a tool they can rely on, and assure them that their competitors won't get by with hiring illegals, very few illegal aliens will get hired anywhere.

There aren't enough odd-jobs and off-the-books jobs in the underground economy to soak up the estimated 7 million illegal workers in the country. Most illegal aliens will no longer find enough work to support them and their dependents, and most of them will eventually give up their lives of illegality and go home -- ATTRITION THROUGH ENFORCEMENT & SELF-DEPORTATION.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents conducted a series of raids on Swift and Company meat packing plants in six states and arrested almost 1,300 illegal aliens towards the end of 2006, ane more recently in July 2007. We learned three very important things from these raids:

Americans take the jobs illegal aliens leave behind : The day after the raids took place, the media reported that plenty of legal workers lined up to apply for the jobs left vacant by the illegal aliens who fled or were arrested.
Identity fraud and illegal immigration are connected : Hundreds of the illegal aliens who were arrested are suspected of using the name and SSN of an American citizen. You can fight illegal immigration by fighting identity fraud.
Attrition Through enforcement works: Over 400 illegal aliens skipped town after Swift dropped hints about ICE's suspicions. Once the message gets out that there aren’t any jobs for illegal aliens, they leave.
These raids are a good start, but raids alone will not solve the illegal immigration crisis. Constant pressure must be placed on illegal aliens and their employers by ICE and local governments as part of an Attrition Through Enforcement strategy.
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has said his agency is prepared to launch similar raids on other plants – even those owned by companies that, like Swift, have attested to comply with the voluntary Basic Pilot program to screen employees – and to take additional actions to track down illegal aliens who are guilty of identity theft. NumbersUSA encourages you to help make this happen.

Unfortunately, most of the reaction to the raids in the media is still being reported from the standpoints of immigration lawyers, pro-amnesty organizations and religious leaders who say it is inhumane to arrest people just because they have broken immigration laws and stolen identities in order to get a job (click here to see an example). It is extremely important that Congress continue to hear that public sentiment is overwhelmingly on the side of enforcement rather than amnesty and leniency.

Her is a short list of LaRaza Donators. Muliti-Millions of Dollars.

The Allstate Corporation
Bank of America
The Coca-Cola Company
Citi
Fannie Mae
Freddie Mac
Ford Motor Company
General Motors Corporation
MBNA Corporation
PepsiCo Foundation
The PMI Group, Inc.
State Farm Insurance Companies
UPS
Univision
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Without cheap labor and all it costs to maintain them and their families, food costs could go down.

Unbiased, just facts.

The High Cost of Cheap Labor
Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget

Executive Summary

This study is one of the first to estimate the total impact of illegal immigration on the federal budget. Most previous studies have focused on the state and local level and have examined only costs or tax payments, but not both. Based on Census Bureau data, this study finds that, when all taxes paid (direct and indirect) and all costs are considered, illegal households created a net fiscal deficit at the federal level of more than $10 billion in 2002. We also estimate that, if there was an amnesty for illegal aliens, the net fiscal deficit would grow to nearly $29 billion.

Among the findings:

<li>

Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household.

</li> <li>

Among the largest costs are Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion).

</li> <li>

With nearly two-thirds of illegal aliens lacking a high school degree, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments, not their legal status or heavy use of most social services.

</li> <li>

On average, the costs that illegal households impose on federal coffers are less than half that of other households, but their tax payments are only one-fourth that of other households.

</li> <li>

Many of the costs associated with illegals are due to their American-born children, who are awarded U.S. citizenship at birth. Thus, greater efforts at barring illegals from federal programs will not reduce costs because their citizen children can continue to access them.

</li> <li>

If illegal aliens were given amnesty and began to pay taxes and use services like households headed by legal immigrants with the same education levels, the estimated annual net fiscal deficit would increase from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for a total net cost of $29 billion.

</li> <li>

Costs increase dramatically because unskilled immigrants with legal status -- what most illegal aliens would become -- can access government programs, but still tend to make very modest tax payments.

</li> <li>

Although legalization would increase average tax payments by 77 percent, average costs would rise by 118 percent.

</li> <li>

The fact that legal immigrants with few years of schooling are a large fiscal drain does not mean that legal immigrants overall are a net drain -- many legal immigrants are highly skilled.

</li> <li>

The vast majority of illegals hold jobs. Thus the fiscal deficit they create for the federal government is not the result of an unwillingness to work.

</li> <li>

The results of this study are consistent with a 1997 study by the National Research Council, which also found that immigrants' education level is a key determinant of their fiscal impact.
</li>

A Complex Fiscal Picture
Welfare use. Our findings show that many of the preconceived notions about the fiscal impact of illegal households turn out to be inaccurate. In terms of welfare use, receipt of cash assistance programs tends to be very low, while Medicaid use, though significant, is still less than for other households. Only use of food assistance programs is significantly higher than that of the rest of the population. Also, contrary to the perceptions that illegal aliens don't pay payroll taxes, we estimate that more than half of illegals work "on the books." On average, illegal households pay more than $4,200 a year in all forms of federal taxes. Unfortunately, they impose costs of $6,950 per household.

..

Social Security and Medicare. Although we find that the net effect of illegal households is negative at the federal level, the same is not true for Social Security and Medicare. We estimate that illegal households create a combined net benefit for these two programs in excess of $7 billion a year, accounting for about 4 percent of the total annual surplus in these two programs. However, they create a net deficit of $17.4 billion in the rest of the budget, for a total net loss of $10.4 billion. Nonetheless, their impact on Social Security and Medicare is unambiguously positive. Of course, if the Social Security totalization agreement with Mexico signed in June goes into effect, allowing illegals to collect Social Security, these calculations would change.

The Impact of Amnesty. Finally, our estimates show that amnesty would significantly increase tax revenue. Because both their income and tax compliance would rise, we estimate that under the most likely scenario the average illegal alien household would pay 77 percent ($3,200) more a year in federal taxes once legalized. While not enough to offset the 118 percent ($8,200) per household increase in costs that would come with legalization, amnesty would significantly increase both the average income and tax payments of illegal aliens.

What's Different About Today's Immigration. Many native-born Americans observe that their ancestors came to America and did not place great demands on government services. Perhaps this is true, but the size and scope of government were dramatically smaller during the last great wave of immigration. Not just means-tested programs, but expenditures on everything from public schools to roads were only a fraction of what they are today. Thus, the arrival of unskilled immigrants in the past did not have the negative fiscal implications that it does today. Moreover, the American economy has changed profoundly since the last great wave of immigration, with education now the key determinant of economic success. The costs that unskilled immigrants impose simply reflect the nature of the modern American economy and welfare state. It is doubtful that the fiscal costs can be avoided if our immigration policies remain unchanged.

Policy Implications
The negative impact on the federal budget need not be the only or even the primary consideration when deciding what to do about illegal immigration. But assuming that the fiscal status quo is unacceptable, there are three main changes in policy that might reduce or eliminate the fiscal costs of illegal immigration. One set of options is to allow illegal aliens to remain in the country, but attempt to reduce the costs they impose. A second set of options would be to grant them legal status as a way of increasing the taxes they pay. A third option would be to enforce the law and reduce the size of the illegal population and with it the costs of illegal immigration.

Reducing the Cost Side of the Equation. Reducing the costs illegals impose would probably be the most difficult of the three options because illegal households already impose only about 46 percent as much in costs on the federal government as other households. Thus, the amount of money that can be saved by curtailing their use of public services even further is probably quite limited. Moreover, the fact that benefits are often received on behalf of their U.S.-citizen children means that it is very difficult to prevent illegal households from accessing the programs they do. And many of the programs illegals use most extensively are likely to be politically very difficult to cut, such as the Women Infants and Children (WIC) nutrition program. Other costs, such as incarcerating illegals who have been convicted of crimes are unavoidable. It seems almost certain that if illegals are allowed to remain in the country, the fiscal deficit will persist.

Increasing Tax Revenue by Granting Amnesty. As discussed above, our research shows that granting illegal aliens amnesty would dramatically increase tax revenue. Unfortunately, we find that costs would increase even more. Costs would rise dramatically because illegals would be able to access many programs that are currently off limits to them. Moreover, even if legalized illegal aliens continued to be barred from using some means-tested programs, they would still be much more likely to sign their U.S.-citizen children up for them because they would lose whatever fear they had of the government. We know this because immigrants with legal status, who have the same education levels and resulting low incomes as illegal aliens, sign their U.S.-citizen children up for programs like Medicaid at higher rates than illegal aliens with U.S.-citizen children. In addition, direct costs for programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit would also grow dramatically with legalization. Right now, illegals need a Social Security number and have to file a tax return to get the credit. As a result, relatively few actually get it. We estimate that once legalized, payments to illegals under this program would grow more than ten-fold.

From a purely fiscal point of view, the main problem with legalization is that illegals would, for the most part, become unskilled legal immigrants. And unskilled legal immigrants create much larger fiscal costs than unskilled illegal aliens. Legalization will not change the low education levels of illegal aliens or the fact that the American labor market offers very limited opportunities to such workers, whatever their legal status. Nor will it change the basic fact that the United States, like all industrialized democracies, has a well-developed welfare state that provides assistance to low-income workers. Large fiscal costs are simply an unavoidable outcome of unskilled immigration given the economic and fiscal realities of America today.

Enforcing Immigration Laws. If we are serious about avoiding the fiscal costs of illegal immigration, the only real option is to enforce the law and reduce the number of illegal aliens in the country. First, this would entail much greater efforts to police the nation's land and sea borders. At present, less than 2,000 agents are on duty at any one time on the Mexican and Canadian borders. Second, much greater effort must be made to ensure that those allowed into the country on a temporary basis, such as tourists and guest workers, are not likely to stay in the country permanently. Third, the centerpiece of any enforcement effort would be to enforce the ban on hiring illegal aliens. At present, the law is completely unenforced. Enforcement would require using existing databases to ensure that all new hires are authorized to work in the United States and levying heavy fines on businesses that knowingly employ illegal aliens. Finally, a clear message from policymakers, especially senior members of the administration, that enforcement of the law is valued and vitally important to the nation, would dramatically increase the extremely low morale of those who enforce immigration laws.

Policing the border, enforcing the ban on hiring illegal aliens, denying temporary visas to those likely to remain permanently, and all the other things necessary to reduce illegal immigration will take time and cost money. However, since the cost of illegal immigration to the federal government alone is estimated at over $10 billion a year, significant resources could be devoted to enforcement efforts and still leave taxpayers with significant net savings. Enforcement not only has the advantage of reducing the costs of illegal immigration, it also is very popular with the general public. Nonetheless, policymakers can expect strong opposition from special interest groups, especially ethnic advocacy groups and those elements of the business community that do not want to invest in labor-saving devices and techniques or pay better salaries, but instead want access to large numbers of cheap, unskilled workers. If we choose to continue to not enforce the law or to grant illegals amnesty, both the public and policymakers have to understand that there will be significant long-term costs for taxpayers.

I have a small business also. I do lawn care, handyman and general contracting.
I have had to struggle and compete against Illegals way underbidding.
Since last week, I can now, finally, compete with fair bidding. Now, maybe, I can afford to get out of my 1978 truck and afford something better and a better life for the soon-to-be ex. Even though we are getting divorced, I still help her when i can.
I have tried to hire Resident Immigrants. Their attitude here is, if the oil company won't hire them for $20.00 an hour, they always have the welfare.

About the Canadian? What I said was true. Their empire has known for years that poor Indian families sell their kids to slave labor. Most of them die before the debt is paid off.

karmafury
Lookie heeer!
Another self righteous canadian meddling in US affairs.
You are a prt of Great Britain. Great Britain owns India. India uses child slave labor. Your Welfare Wednesday comes off the sweat of their backs.
Go back to your La Batts, watch some hockey and enjoy your welfare check.

One more thing.
I bet it's not long and those empty apartments will be filled again

Apparently, you've either never been there or only been to the border towns.
They have, even in the border towns, excellent schools. The even have many universities. Saltillo reminded me of San Antolio. They have all the eminities for good living. I couldn't afford to live there. There's Sams Club, McDonalds, elegant Mexican Dineries and they all are patroned by Mexican Citizens
I know many Mexicans in Mexico. From the dirt poor to filthy rich. I even have 2 brother-in-laws who live there. My wife is a Legal Resident, has been for 25 years.
There are many opportunities in Mexico.
Granted, some either chose not to get educated or couldn't afford to.

Now, they can make the choice to change their own country.
The children are also considered Mexicans. They can choose to return to their country and should so, they don't have to be separated.

You know, you break laws. Many times, daily. Whether it be seatbelts, speeding, crossing against the light, littering,taxes, keeping the change that was wrong.

You are absolutely Right! We make those choices daily and if we get caught, we are held accountable for our decisions.

You pro-illegalists are all guilty of Exploitation for Profit. If you are breaking the law and choose to continue, you will eventually, suffer your choice.

If they go back without being caught, they can apply for Legal status. The Illegal and we also, should have known that someday it would come to this. They took their chances and were well aware of the risk and consequences. The Illegal is the one who decide to put their kids in this situation.
The child or children can choose to go with them. that is not unreasonable. An educated person in Mexico can make a lot of changes and a perfectly decent living there.
You are only thinking of how it will affect you. You want them here for your convienience and how they might save you money. So, you might have to pay a little more for groceries.
There are many homeless,Americans without jobs, who'd be more than willing to work minimum labor to support their families.
You Maam, are guilty of promoting exploitation.

I just read your profile.
If you really are in the Army then I wish you all the best and if you have to go into a war zone, that you stay safe.
Don't sweat things here. By the time you get back, it'll all be ancient history.

Then you might consider doing just the reverse. Call and tell the Law Enforcement Agencies that you oppose what they are doing and you will hire, hide out, and transport as many Illegals as you can and there is nothing they can do about it.

The type of crime is irrelevant. I don't enforce any. I advocate strongly on this one. One, the law was broken when they entered illegally. Two, it's not only unfair to the American People, it's unfair to those who could be Legal Temporary Migrant Workers who are denied access because their jobs had been filled by the Illegal. There are many more valid reasons. Not to mention exploitation of the Illegal.

Why, by hiring them at a lower scale, you advocate exploitation. That's abusive.

I know, Miguel is young, handsome and comes across as a kind, gentle man. I respect his opinions. I asked him the question. FYI, he has stated he only has 2 more years to becoming a citizen. If he were here only on a student VISA, why would he apply for citizenship? To me applying for citizenship would mean his only reason to go back to South America is to visit.

The new Immigration Law that is in effect today. Rounding up and deporting Illegal Immigrants.

24 and 36.
That's great!
You're young enough that when she needs you to you can change her Depends.
Some of them older gals are hot until you get to my age. 12 ta' 15 years older than me would be almost Grave Robbing!

My last thread was a bit long. My apologies.
Your Law Enforcement Agencies may be a bit concerned about the amount of flack or resistance they will get upholding your new Law. Don't tie up 911 but call, email and fax them. Let them know you will support their efforts and applaud their bravery. Let them know, you, as a Citizen will assist if called upon.
Sure wish Texas would belly up and get some balls!