homesick_american

Actually, Gary, they don't all do that. Again, this is just one example but Javier paid his taxes the whole time he was here illegally. Neither did he commit ID theft because he never had a fake SSN. The idea that all illegals have also committed other criminal offenses is ridiculous as we have proof here they don't. This is just another example of a generalization that is made of illegals because everyone assumes they know how illegals live. Very rarely do Javier or I get asked what our lives were like while he was here illegally.

Question, how did Javier pay taxes without a valid SSN card? If he had one how did he get it? If there is a way then I congratulate him on that much. It is my impression that the vast majority don't do that. They are either paid under the table or use a fake or stolen SSN. I refer you to this thread as supporting evidence.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=72912

I think illegals can get some other type of number...an ITIN I think...in order to pay their taxes. The IRS doesn't care if you're illegal or not, they'll take your money anyway.

That isn't to say that illegals don't engage in a lot of ID theft; they do. Just not all of them.

It's true that people here are quite ignorant about Texas. With such a rich mixture of different cultures I'd say that Texas is a far more tolerant place than the vast areas of the U.K where the majority is overwhelmingly white.

Hurrah for non sequiturs!

Not really...you did post this:

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...st&p=978567

What about it?

vamos's post is a logical fallacy. Somehow Texas must be more tolerant than the UK because there are more minorities? How so exactly? Plus for the "large areas of the UK that are white" there are also major urban areas (i.e. cities) which are extremely culturally diverse.

Or do you simply not know what a non sequitur is?

Yes, I do know what a non sequitur is...we do have schools in America too.

Do you know what argumentum ad hominem means?

I do not agree that vamos's post is a logical fallacy; it's kind of arrogant to say that it's illogical just because you disagree with it. It's perfectly logical that when people grow up in culturally diverse areas, they are more used to people of different creeds/cultures and are therefore more tolerant of them. You yourself accepted the logic of the argument when you defended the UK by pointing out that its larger cities are "extremely" culturally diverse.

Instead of begging the senators to support this lame legislation, he should beg the American people for forgivness for his incompetence, arrogance, and his refusal to uphold his sworn duty to protect this country from foreign invasion by refusing to secure the border.

This illegal alien fiasco rests solely on his shoulders. He was the one that threw open the back door welcome mat to millions of illegal aliens because he thought he could pull a fast one on the American people and get away with it.

Bush is pure sleaze.

That's what I've been saying since 1994 when he first ran for governor of Texas. Nobody listened then; they should have!

if i lived in mexicao, and had a family and thought my life and theirs would be better if i came to america ..then i would do what i need to do to take care of them...

Mexico is the most prosperous country in Latin America, yet they encourage and promote the export of their unskilled and illiterate to the US, where, in turn, our politicians and their sycophants tell us that the influx of cheap labor will help grow our economy. If economic theory holds that the incorporation of low-skilled illiterates is so good for an economy, why isn't Mexico anxious to benefit their economy even further with such a precious commodity?

PWND! :thumbs:

It's true that people here are quite ignorant about Texas. With such a rich mixture of different cultures I'd say that Texas is a far more tolerant place than the vast areas of the U.K where the majority is overwhelmingly white.

Hurrah for non sequiturs!

Not really...you did post this:

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...st&p=978567

I stopped reading when they talked about the 300K miles that a hummer will go.

Everyone knows that no American made car will ever last that long.

My dad's old Chevy K-5 Blazer lasted from 1976 until 1996, when we sold it. It probably graced Dallas's roads for a few more years after that. When he sold it it had about 300,000 miles on it. Then again it only got 8mpg highway.

It's true that people here are quite ignorant about Texas. With such a rich mixture of different cultures I'd say that Texas is a far more tolerant place than the vast areas of the U.K where the majority is overwhelmingly white.

:thumbs: :thumbs:

HI MargotDarko and everyone

i meant that 8.000.00 is my wife 's 401k account so will this ammont overcome the income deficiency we have ?

WHAT does it mean her assests have to be 3 times or more the difference between her income and the required income.??

thanks for any clarification

If your income is 13,000 and the poverty level is 17,500 then subtract 13,000 from 17,500 which gives you $4,500. You have to have three times that in assets, which is $13,500. This is just an example.

In your case you need almost $6,000 in assets. I don't know if a 401(k) can be used or not. Probably it can.

Are the incomes you're listing before or after taxes? The amount that matters is the salary before tax, and it seems a bit strange that someone's salary would be $15,162.00 instead of a rounder number.

I am not sure if stocks can be counted as assests or not. I believe the requirement is that money can be turned into cash within one year. If you are able to include the stocks of $8,000 and that is how much she would actually received if she cashed out, then even if the $15,000 USD salaray is you've given is before tax, then you would be okay without a co-sponsor. She will need to show roughly $6,000 of assests if her income is roughly $15,000 a year before tax.

The guideline she's supposed to meet is $17,112.50 a year before tax. Assests have to be three times or more the difference between her income and the required income.

That sounds right; I can never remember how that works.

HI EVERYONE

Want to know if the annual income of 15.162.00(2006)

15.029.00(2005)

13.953.00(2004) of 2 household besides having around 8,000.00 as STOCK is enough and thus we need no cosponsor? ? IT 'd be better if i hear from ones who already got their visas.

THANKS TO ALL

Right off the top of my head I would say that is not enough. The income definitely isn't for any of the years you've mentioned. I don't know whether your assets would be enough to overcome the income deficiency but off the top of my head I would say no, since if memory serves assets can't be used on a 1:1 basis but must be multiplied in order to overcome income deficiencies.

I think you'll need a co-sponsor.

BTW - Its not a crime to have a communicable disease in this country - might get you denied an immigration visa; but it is within the realm of possibility for a person to catch such a disease while in the country. Its not like the US is a disease-free nation...

Yes, and there is evidence to suggest that illegals contribute a great deal to the USA's TB burden.

without hard facts ... you assume the worst.

Can you prove these illegals don't have STD's? Show us where their medical records are available for the US gov't to review and prove they’re STD free.

If not, then we must assume that 100% do have STD's.

That sounds slightly suspect to me. OK - they're here illegally. Not sure what purpose it serves demonising them further and equating them with the worst types of violent criminals.

they will come un-checked unless stopped.

Even in the Ellis Islands days ... people of poor health were sent back. Why not now?

Are these people sneaking across the border today hiding something? Or think they are too good to submit to an examination?

I'm not sure how useful it is to dehumanise people with that kind of labelling.

As I said - this is an emotional subject. It really doesn't need melodrama.

Natty Bumpoo has a point, though. I don't agree that we must assume that 100% of illegals have STDs/TB but STDs and especially TB are MASSIVE public health issues. Illegals coming in unchecked are absolutely spreading these diseases among themselves and the native US population. This ends up costing public health services money, since they usually don't have insurance. Melodrama aside, this is a serious issue that needs to be addressed.

The Republicans were in charge from 1994 to 2006, when illegal immigration exploded in the United States. Bush has been in office since early 2001. There is NO excuse for the current state of affairs.

Who controls the house and senate??

Currently, the Democrats. Between 1994 and 2006, mainly Republicans. There was a brief period when the Senate reverted to the Democrats but that did not last very long. The Republicans have been in charge of both the legislative and executive branches for most of the length of the ramp-up in the number of illegals, and they clearly did not do anything about it. I blame them. They were in charge. They didn't try to fix the problem. End of.

Yeah, in '86 the dems were in charge and we got amnesty 1. They get it back and the first thing they do is try amnesty 2. The reps didn't fix it when they were there but the dems throw gas on the fire when they get power. Look forward to more of this if the dems hold the house and we get a dem president.

Yeah....is that the same amnesty bill that was signed by Ronnie the Ray Gun in 1986? Gee, wasn't he a REPUBLICAN?

Count me among the minority who does not support it.

The Republicans were in charge from 1994 to 2006, when illegal immigration exploded in the United States. Bush has been in office since early 2001. There is NO excuse for the current state of affairs.

Who controls the house and senate??

Currently, the Democrats. Between 1994 and 2006, mainly Republicans. There was a brief period when the Senate reverted to the Democrats but that did not last very long. The Republicans have been in charge of both the legislative and executive branches for most of the length of the ramp-up in the number of illegals, and they clearly did not do anything about it. I blame them. They were in charge. They didn't try to fix the problem. End of.

So...I'm supposed to feel sorry for these companies because Americans won't tolerate that level of exploitation? Eh...no. The way illegals are treated basically amounts to neo-industrial feudalism and this is what happens when you put the interests of business above all else. We have the current crop of ReTHUGlicans to thank for that.

May I point out that the '86 amnesty was a Kennedy bill as well as the current amnesty bill? May I also point out that the dems are the ones that don't want to secure the border? I would say its more of a dem thing to welcome the cheap labor and not the reps.

The Republicans were in charge from 1994 to 2006, when illegal immigration exploded in the United States. Bush has been in office since early 2001. There is NO excuse for the current state of affairs.

I sense the local employment office will be busy soon ... and the unemployment rate for the area will be less too

Bingo!

As will wages be higher.

And a stable ... dependable work force. One that obeys the law and has a tendency to not be taken away.

Costs go down: less repeat training, no fines for hiring illegal’s, no bribes to pay for notification of future "raids", puts money into the community (pay taxes), etc.

actually.. not.. from the examples in NC... when Smithfields had the ICE raid, and after that the 300-400 other employees quit cuz they were skeered.. wages didn't increase, USC's got paid the same.. also.. no, I'm not trying to be an 'enabler'.. but ask any RH person from those big plants, and they don't want Americans.. why, those jobs (meat, fruit, processing etc), are hard, and since the illegals don't have a lot of options, they stay.. Americans have a very high rate of rotation in those plants, thats why they even had to use re-hiring policies (rehire after 1 year, rehire after 90 days), cuz people work for 2 weeks, then quit, go somewhere else, and try to go back.. theres 50 new people every week, 30 leave, 20 stay.. so the training costs increase a lot... don't believe me, call Smithfields packin, Mountaire farms or Prestage farms from NC...

so.. it's not that easy..

So...I'm supposed to feel sorry for these companies because Americans won't tolerate that level of exploitation? Eh...no. The way illegals are treated basically amounts to neo-industrial feudalism and this is what happens when you put the interests of business above all else. We have the current crop of ReTHUGlicans to thank for that.

First I want to let everyone know that I married my beautiful wife on June 8th. And, seconf I would like to know how many couples are in the greater Dallas/Ft. Woth area?

Thank,

Bryan & Marie

Congrats to you both. We'll be joining the ranks of DFW couples on June 24th when we finally arrive back in the USA.

First choice, Al Gore. Second and third, just chose randomly cos I don't like any of them.

To me, those polls mean nothing. It's almost a year and a half until the 2008 election. A lot can, and will, happen between then and now.

Those polls will be much more meaningful at this time next year.

But it is an interesting snap-shot of the mood of the people today. To me it shows that despite the damage Bush did to himself and the reps the people still prefer Giuliani to any of the dem candidates. I also have a poll that shows the dems in congress have a 27% approval rate which is lower than Bush. I think the immigration fiasco and all the talk of "cut and run" in Iraq has hurt the dems a lot. If the dems "stay the course" on their agenda not only will we have a rep president but the reps will take back the house.

I'm not pleased with some of the things the Dems have done so far, but the Republicans were far worse. The damage they have done to the United States will take decades to undo...if we manage to even try. The last thing we need is a hawk like McCain, an ill-tempered a$$ like Giuliani. Romney is a non-starter because the religious right still wants their concessions; the Bush administration has been pretty much all talk for them. They won't support Romney...or Giuliani for that matter.

A snapshot is a snapshot; polls today are pretty meaningless. More candidates could jump in, candidates could drop out...there could be a huge scandal...etc, etc.

To me it shows that despite the damage Bush did to himself and the reps the people still prefer Giuliani to any of the dem candidates.

If the Dem candidates are Hillary and Obama, I'm not surprised.

I'm more of a Dem voter, but I'd sooner vote Giuliani or McCain than Hillary.

Yeah, but you won't be able to vote in 2008.

I wouldn't vote for any of the candidates in this straw poll. Giuliani, McCain, Clinton, and Obama all suck big time.

Some of the 2nd and 3rd tier Republicans have caught my eye, but will never be nominated because they are not in corporate America's hip pocket.

I wouldn't hire any of the Democrats to shine my shoes. They all veer too far to the left or are space cases. Kucinich? Richardson? No way, Jose´.

I might sit this one out if this is the best there is to offer.

By the time the primaries get to Texas, my vote is irrelevant anyway. ALL the primaries should be cast on the same day. What relevance do the crown jewels New Hampshire and Iowa have to Texas (or the rest of the 48 for that matter)?

Yeah, no joke. Our system of primaries sucks. And don't even get me started on the electoral college!

Which translates into 552 identity theft victims. I hope no one we know

Yeah really...and then people expect us to feel sorry for the illegals. Yeah right!

You mean more worldly and tolerant.

We're talking about the same Texas here right?

Duh...yep. People are so ignorant about Texas, I don't know whether to be amused or annoyed.

I was just testing your for touchiness. Texas is lovely*.

*Well apart from Houston which is a ###### hole.

Eh...some parts of Houston are lovely but mostly it's pretty ugly. Then again, Dallas isn't a very attractive city either but looks aren't everything.

To me, those polls mean nothing. It's almost a year and a half until the 2008 election. A lot can, and will, happen between then and now.

Those polls will be much more meaningful at this time next year.

One of the HS out here recently started a voluntary drug testing program. Students can volunteer to sign up to be randomly tested and the results have been positive. In conjunction, I believe the students can seek drug counseling with impunity.

I don't understand the point of this. Why would someone volunteer for a drug test when they have knowingly been using drugs? I thought people could always seek rehabilitation with impunity.

I went to Dallas schools 1980-1993 and drugs were a problem back then too. The student leader of D.A.R.E. at my school, an anti-drug organization, got kicked out when he tested positive for drugs. Yeah, those programs work!

You mean more worldly and tolerant.

We're talking about the same Texas here right?

Duh...yep. People are so ignorant about Texas, I don't know whether to be amused or annoyed.