If you don't know about the person in need, how then can you make a choice at all? Again taking same said person in "some far away city" in your own state, gets arrested for shop lifting food, and then is arrested, processed, housed, prosecuted and ect. Where as we can by pass all that trifle bother by handing out food stamps and lowering petty theft that therefore decreases theft, keeps jail costs low, and altogether keeps food prices lower.
The only thing I need to know is that the resource is coming from my own private property. (Am I forced to care about someone else?) Taxes are one thing, social handouts another. They are not the same. My personal belief is that the Government shouldn't be justified to essentially give one person's resources to another.
To you, social handouts keep people off the street, out of jails and overall save money (which is probably true), but to me it just breeds stagnation and laziness at the expense of the working class. Two different mindsets I think. I definitely agree something needs to be done, but I don't think welfare is it. At least not in its current form.
The rest of your post I 100% agree with. Thank you for stating it better than I.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My apologies, children, for I am afraid I cannot save you all.
Ah, so the superiority (technological, social, whatever) of the white race is to blame? But yet because white people are the pinnacle of the social hierarchy in North America, other races are clearly at a social disadvantage owing to the fact that they aren't quite so white as you.
No, other races are at a disatvantage because they didn't invent [insert something relevant here] or didn't win [insert important war here]. Any other group of individuals could have changed history. But the fact remains that discrimination isn't ever really about a single thing. Today it could be racial, during WWII it was religious. When you discuss a political topic, those sorts of statistics should be left out because there's so many exceptions and generalizations. Coming full circle, I'm against welfare not because I have something against a particular race, but because the government has decided for me that I should help somebody else. That should be my choice.
What you're basically doing is saying "white people came out on top through sheer effort, so the current social situation is okay." Doesn't work like that.
I never said it was ok, but I recognize it for what it is, just like you. It's really unfortunate that some employers may be racist, but the entire white race shouldn't be held accountable for that.
If your issues are so great, I hear there's a political party that backs socially regressive policies you can vote for. Not sure how well they'll do against Obama in the next election, but hey, if you don't like their prospects, you can always run, yourself.
Actually I can't run, there's age laws on a presidential candidacy, plus I have no political background so no one would take me seriously anyway. And yes, I doo vote a certain way, so?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My apologies, children, for I am afraid I cannot save you all.
I'm curious how you separate race and so on from social privilege when for decades upon decades, the only people with any power at all were rich white people. We aren't so far from that legacy that we can claim to be past it. Especially not when the figures for income and education and so on still skew towards whiteness. I appreciate that facing racial classism is an uncomfortable thing, but the fact is classism is alive and kicking.
I'm surprised you can't separate it. Sure, white people are on top now (in the United States anyway), but why is this? Superior numbers, better technology, winning key wars, greater advances, whatever the reason...it's still all environmental. Any other race could have had the same outcome, but they didn't. We're not the dominant race simply because we're white, like we suddenly slipped in by default for no reason.
Racial classism exists today, but that's an unfortunate by product of social dominance, which came into being mostly from environmental factors. Back in ancient [insert famous city here], everybody was basically the same race, and there was still a hierarchy of people, segregated by nobility, power, war victories, whatever. Race, specifically, has nothing to do with social dominance. (or privilege)
The fact that you didn't take any handouts when you probably could have is, I guess, commendable, but arguing in favour of denying that chance to others is selfish to extremes. If you don't like handouts, don't take them. Simple as that.
I hate to break it to you, but life - and our basic biological impulses - are about survival, which is inherently selfish. Every living thing on Earth is selfish. From the food you eat, to the air you breath, to the things you use - another living thing could probably use it better/more. Being selfish isn't this horrible thing you make it out to be. (In some instances it can be, sure)
That said, I have no problem if the Government finds a cache of gold in a public area and distributes it to less fortunate people. But when that resource comes directly from me, then I have an issue. I have the right to be selfish on my personal property. If you don't agree, that's your prerogative. Is everyone who sells anything instead of giving it away selfish too?
I didn't read the rest of the thread, but it sounds like you're getting into it with PeterG now, so I'll casually back out.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My apologies, children, for I am afraid I cannot save you all.
You don't see very many heterosexual, socio-normative white males working the truly horrible jobs like being the 3 AM janitor at Walmart or something. Reason for this is they don't have to. Meanwhile, a guy from Mexico who'll take literally any job he can get even if it pays below minimum wage under the table? Sure, he'll be more inclined. I shouldn't have to point out the difference here, but apparently I do. The white guy gets such a huge advantage from his race (and from following other social norms—an openly genderqueer guy who wears makeup and skirts isn't going to be welcomed too warmly either). Even a poor white guy has better prospects than the poor Mexican immigrant (let alone the poor Mexican illegal immigrant). Plus his citizenship is never questioned. As far as illegal immigrants go, well, they're at such a disadvantaged position compared to the highly privileged citizens (especially the white citizens) that it basically dominates their lives. If you don't believe me, go talk to one sometime.
There's a fine line between recognizing the way the world works and being racist yourself. I don't really want to get into that with you right now, because that's a whole other issue. (See below for the brunt of my reply)
The important aspect of privilege that you don't seem to understand is that privilege matters in literally every aspect of social interaction. It matters at school, at work, at play, everywhere. It's usually invisible, especially to those who have it, but it's still always there. Why do you keep on trying to deny it? Certainly during your less pleasant days, you should have noticed others' privileges of money, stable housing, and so on at work. I'm not invalidating your experiences at all—it's terrible that you had to go through that. I'm simply baffled at how you can't connect that experience to others' situations.
I made no such claims of denial. Sure, I'm socially privileged by default. But what I actually said is that it doesn't matter to the issue at hand.
Social handouts are never acceptable regardless of how and why somebody got rich. Race doesn't factor in at all. If a white privileged male is born into money, or a gay Jewish black dude wins the lottery after a life of hardship, neither should be required to support other people in the form of social handouts with that money. They can choose to of course, of their own free will. I support and encourage this.
You seem to believe that social handouts are justified. Privileged individuals are successful mostly because of their social privilege, so we need to even the playing field. It's the same sort of logic as Affirmative Action. (which I also disagree with on a fundamental level) Somebody higher up sees how the world works, as it were, and tries to compensate.
I understand where you're coming from, I just don't agree. I believe that social privilege comes to those who have dominance, wealth, power, status and education. (It is relative after all) Racial or other factors should be left out of the equation - so you remove stereotyping, generalizing or other numerous exceptions - and just look at it from a generic perspective.
Anyway, I think I've said here all that I've wanted to say, so unless something new comes up I'll just leave it at that.
Here's the thing, though: How is supporting a citizen who doesn't pay taxes any different from supporting an illegal immigrant who doesn't pay taxes?
Fundamentally, one is doing something illegal and one isn't. Practically, they are equal. But please note that I don't support Welfare or other similar handout systems either.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My apologies, children, for I am afraid I cannot save you all.
Everyone who pays income taxes, sales taxes, and so on contributes to these things. Unless you're going to say that illegal immigrants never pay any taxes ever on anything, which is implausible at best.
I'm not sure why you chose to ignore this part of my post, but please see my response below:
If illegals are paying taxes and supporting themselves in the same way a citizen would, there is no reason they should remain illegal. That's a broken system, and needs to be refined. I actually think getting citizenship should be easier here. It's the people who enter the country with the intention of abusing the system that I have a problem with.
You're right. I was wrong in making an assumption about you. I assumed you could process a simple simile. To be clear, I didn't say that you are that type of anti-corporation person, but that you're like them. You casually complain about things you benefit from and make use of.
Wasn't directed at me, but:
"All I want is that the money I make at my job, that I work extremely hard for, goes to me instead of somebody else."
That's a pretty standard anti-taxation argument.
I wasn't aware of that. Sounds like an assumption, but what do I know?
Quite simply, you gain massive social privilege simply from being white, from being male, from being heterosexual (or closeted), from conforming to social norms, and so on and so forth. Also, from having money. You're never marginalized. Never written off using labels. Never systematically discriminated against. Everything is, at its core, centred around the privileged. The privilege are never denied jobs, housing, financial services, and so on simply out of hand. Thus a massive advantage is garnered but never fully appreciated.
If you don't conform to the stated profile, then by all means, state how you're different. Tell me how your identity isn't how I predicted. Tell me of any hardships you're enduring or have endured. I'll listen. I won't try to invalidate anything you say. But if all you're going to do is make privilege-denying claims of "I don't see how identity gives social advantage," I'm going to call it as I see it.
I quoted this block of text because the issue (I thought) at hand is illegal immigration, and once again you've brought in race, sex, orientation and privilege into a discussion where it has no place.
You don't like me, I get it. I understand the ramifications of being born into the dominant race. But, I don't control how the world works. How other people act towards other people isn't my fault, nor my concern. I don't think I'm better than anyone else, I just don't care about everyone else.
What I don't understand is why you think that that taints and invalidates my opinion. It doesn't, sorry. When I was younger, I failed out of traditional college. I was emotionally and financially cut off from my friends and family, I worked three minimum wage jobs to make ends meet, while putting myself completely through college, which demanded 50+ hours of work a week to keep up. At any given time all I had was a suitcase and less than $1.00 in savings to my name. No internet, no electricity, and during transitory periods I would sleep at the 24/7 Whataburger. I know some people have it much worse, but I know exactly how soul-crushing a minimum wage job can be. But, even then, my stance on illegal immigration was and is the same. Is my opinion more valid now?
No, of course not. Circumstantial evidence doesn't matter here, which is why I think bringing up my upbringing is inappropriate. It's simply a deflection. Unless of course you're suggesting that I got where I am because I'm socially privileged - which in context to the issue at hand, means that you believe social handouts are acceptable because of discrimination. I 100% disagree with that at a fundamental level.
I understand the practical implications of illegal immigration and how much time and effort it would be to make a change. But that doesn't mean I can't or shouldn't voice my opinion in a discussion forum. I've read multiple responses now that basically boil down to "There's no hope, so why don't you just give up?" On principle, I don't agree with that either.
Thankfully, I don't care what you think of me. The fact of the matter is you have a fundamental misunderstanding of social privilege and it's tainting your opinions something fierce.
I don't really care about you either, so it all shakes out.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My apologies, children, for I am afraid I cannot save you all.
Do you use public utilities? Roads? Did you go to a public school? Are any medications you take approved by the FDA? Do you enjoy being protected from crime by the police? None of these things pay for themselves, you know. If you want to play the Internet-libertarian card, then sure, play it, but you should realize just how much benefit other people's taxes give you.
Yes, yes and yes. I do use all of those things and pay taxes to support them. I don't understand your point, really. There's already tax brackets in place that dictates somebody rich will pay more to drive on the same roads as somebody poor. The situation at hand is people using roads that aren't paying for them.
If illegals are paying taxes and supporting themselves in the same way a citizen would, there is no reason they should remain illegal. That's a broken system, and needs to be refined. I actually think getting citizenship should be easier here. It's the people who enter the country with the intention of abusing the system that I have a problem with.
To be totally honest, it comes off like someone complaining about big corporations at a Starbucks. You go on about how "all you want is the money you make" but you make use of contributions from other people.
I have no problem with big corporations, which shows how you little you know of me, and how much you assume. Big corporations provide jobs and can afford to take the risks associated with innovation, which is a good thing.
I think people who are so offended by social assistance should go and live with people who are on it for a month. These are not happy people. The vast majority of them desperately want a job. They are often supporting family with non-existent income. Social assistance, be it welfare or whatever, is not enough to live above the poverty line. If you're actually offended by your money going to people who don't deserve it, complain about Club Fed. Now THAT is an absurd misuse of public funds.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Am I required to care about other people?
What I want is people who insist on all this "I want all the money I earn" nonsense to look me directly in the eyes and tell me how much of a leech I am (or whatever else). I want to see if their convictions are so strong that they can apply them to real people as opposed to dehumanized conceptualizations of other people. It's much harder than you'd think. Most armchair libertarians can't do it.
It's easy to say when you have your own hardships, and when you see people abusing the system, stressing it for everyone else involved. But you know what? If a rich person decides not to donate to charity, that's fine. If people want to help, they can in their own way. But it shouldn't be required.
I very much doubt Darklich has ever faced any kind of real hardship in his life. I'd say he's middle class at worst. Probably white, too. Also heterosexual and the standard list of other things. It really tends to be a package deal for that kind of ignorant self-entitlement.
Not only is half of this paragraph simply false, but I fail to see how my race, sex or orientation is relevant to the topic at hand. Care to enlighten? If not wanting to pay my hard-earned money to support people who abuse the system and aren't interested in helping themselves is entitled, then YES I AM. But lucky for me, it isn't. I shouldn't be required to care about other people. Heartless? Maybe. Your self-entitled claims are totally out of line.
After reading your last couple of posts, I've concluded that you are one of the most ignorant people I've met. Funny how that worked out.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My apologies, children, for I am afraid I cannot save you all.
If someone's not a citizen but is still kicking around, you seriously do have to weigh the benefit of simply accepting their presence vs the cost of deporting them.
I understrand this, which is often times why nothing is being done, or it's baby steps. That doesn't mean that I can't discuss my thoughts and feelings on an internet forums about it.
Yes, they're illegal. I acknowledged this in my post. But rather than leaving it at complaining about them, why not try to make the best of a situation that's not going to change any time soon? Policing immigration and jobs and so on even harder would take up more money than simply letting these people contribute to the economy—yeah, they get paid under the table, so no income taxes from them, but they're still buying things with that money. Sales taxes are good for the economy, and the more people buying things, the better.
You realize that there's no sales tax on food and clothes under a certain amount, right? What luxury items do you think they're buying?
Your entire post comes across as ignorant and full of self-entitlement.
It's anything but. I'm the one who lives in the United States, right next to a place overrun with illegal immigrants. You don't even live in the country, and I'm the ignorant one?
All I want is that the money I make at my job, that I work extremely hard for, goes to me instead of somebody else. And I'm self-entitled? I don't think so. People who abuse the system are scum, and we shouldn't cater to them.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My apologies, children, for I am afraid I cannot save you all.
Better than their children not getting school service, because an education means these children can live better lives than their parents and help the economy along in ways other than taking crappy work no one else wants to.
Note that I'm not arguing in favour of illegal immigration. They're illegal immigrants for a reason, and there are legal ways to immigrate. However, the reality of the situation is that it will never be fully addressed, so we might as well accept whatever positives come with it. If you want to look at it as a way of minimizing losses in order to make it more palatable to you, then do that.
Except that me and the rest of the tax base are the ones paying for their schooling, which I don't care to do. I'd rather they took the crappy jobs. I mean, somebody has to do them.
Also, they're illegal no matter how you slice it, so no I don't have to just accept it. That's asinine.
Basically meh to this entire post.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My apologies, children, for I am afraid I cannot save you all.
To be fair, you're not being racist per se, but you're still being supremely ignorant.
Illegal immigrants, some of whom work for less than minimum wage, actually help the economy somewhat rather than hurt it. If you're going to hire someone to do the most menial labour, would you rather hire them at $X/hour, or the $X+Y minimum wage? That $Y can go towards expanding the company (and no, not all money saved this way goes directly into executives' pockets, despite the stereotype). Bigger companies hire more workers. I assure you, giving these menial jobs to citizens wouldn't really help in the long run as much as you'd think.
You simply can't look at it in a vacuum. Sure, illegal immigrants will work for lower than minimum wage, however:
1) They don't pay taxes.
2) They get free health care by going to the ER and never paying.
3) Their children get free school service, despite not paying taxes.
4) They get into car accidents but don't have insurance.
All of these things are a drain on the system, some in a huge way.
I'd imagine that if an illegal did have to pay taxes, they wouldn't be so quick to work for near nothing. (Although in this economy...)
Lastly, an illegal immigrant is a person who enters the country illegally. It has nothing to do with race whatsoever, so I'm not sure why it was brought up twice.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My apologies, children, for I am afraid I cannot save you all.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The only thing I need to know is that the resource is coming from my own private property. (Am I forced to care about someone else?) Taxes are one thing, social handouts another. They are not the same. My personal belief is that the Government shouldn't be justified to essentially give one person's resources to another.
To you, social handouts keep people off the street, out of jails and overall save money (which is probably true), but to me it just breeds stagnation and laziness at the expense of the working class. Two different mindsets I think. I definitely agree something needs to be done, but I don't think welfare is it. At least not in its current form.
The rest of your post I 100% agree with. Thank you for stating it better than I.
No, other races are at a disatvantage because they didn't invent [insert something relevant here] or didn't win [insert important war here]. Any other group of individuals could have changed history. But the fact remains that discrimination isn't ever really about a single thing. Today it could be racial, during WWII it was religious. When you discuss a political topic, those sorts of statistics should be left out because there's so many exceptions and generalizations. Coming full circle, I'm against welfare not because I have something against a particular race, but because the government has decided for me that I should help somebody else. That should be my choice.
What you're basically doing is saying "white people came out on top through sheer effort, so the current social situation is okay." Doesn't work like that.
I never said it was ok, but I recognize it for what it is, just like you. It's really unfortunate that some employers may be racist, but the entire white race shouldn't be held accountable for that.
If your issues are so great, I hear there's a political party that backs socially regressive policies you can vote for. Not sure how well they'll do against Obama in the next election, but hey, if you don't like their prospects, you can always run, yourself.
Actually I can't run, there's age laws on a presidential candidacy, plus I have no political background so no one would take me seriously anyway. And yes, I doo vote a certain way, so?
I'm surprised you can't separate it. Sure, white people are on top now (in the United States anyway), but why is this? Superior numbers, better technology, winning key wars, greater advances, whatever the reason...it's still all environmental. Any other race could have had the same outcome, but they didn't. We're not the dominant race simply because we're white, like we suddenly slipped in by default for no reason.
Racial classism exists today, but that's an unfortunate by product of social dominance, which came into being mostly from environmental factors. Back in ancient [insert famous city here], everybody was basically the same race, and there was still a hierarchy of people, segregated by nobility, power, war victories, whatever. Race, specifically, has nothing to do with social dominance. (or privilege)
I hate to break it to you, but life - and our basic biological impulses - are about survival, which is inherently selfish. Every living thing on Earth is selfish. From the food you eat, to the air you breath, to the things you use - another living thing could probably use it better/more. Being selfish isn't this horrible thing you make it out to be. (In some instances it can be, sure)
That said, I have no problem if the Government finds a cache of gold in a public area and distributes it to less fortunate people. But when that resource comes directly from me, then I have an issue. I have the right to be selfish on my personal property. If you don't agree, that's your prerogative. Is everyone who sells anything instead of giving it away selfish too?
I didn't read the rest of the thread, but it sounds like you're getting into it with PeterG now, so I'll casually back out.
There's a fine line between recognizing the way the world works and being racist yourself. I don't really want to get into that with you right now, because that's a whole other issue. (See below for the brunt of my reply)
I made no such claims of denial. Sure, I'm socially privileged by default. But what I actually said is that it doesn't matter to the issue at hand.
Social handouts are never acceptable regardless of how and why somebody got rich. Race doesn't factor in at all. If a white privileged male is born into money, or a gay Jewish black dude wins the lottery after a life of hardship, neither should be required to support other people in the form of social handouts with that money. They can choose to of course, of their own free will. I support and encourage this.
You seem to believe that social handouts are justified. Privileged individuals are successful mostly because of their social privilege, so we need to even the playing field. It's the same sort of logic as Affirmative Action. (which I also disagree with on a fundamental level) Somebody higher up sees how the world works, as it were, and tries to compensate.
I understand where you're coming from, I just don't agree. I believe that social privilege comes to those who have dominance, wealth, power, status and education. (It is relative after all) Racial or other factors should be left out of the equation - so you remove stereotyping, generalizing or other numerous exceptions - and just look at it from a generic perspective.
Anyway, I think I've said here all that I've wanted to say, so unless something new comes up I'll just leave it at that.
Fundamentally, one is doing something illegal and one isn't. Practically, they are equal. But please note that I don't support Welfare or other similar handout systems either.
I'm not sure why you chose to ignore this part of my post, but please see my response below:
So we've devolved into personal attacks now?
I wasn't aware of that. Sounds like an assumption, but what do I know?
I quoted this block of text because the issue (I thought) at hand is illegal immigration, and once again you've brought in race, sex, orientation and privilege into a discussion where it has no place.
You don't like me, I get it. I understand the ramifications of being born into the dominant race. But, I don't control how the world works. How other people act towards other people isn't my fault, nor my concern. I don't think I'm better than anyone else, I just don't care about everyone else.
What I don't understand is why you think that that taints and invalidates my opinion. It doesn't, sorry. When I was younger, I failed out of traditional college. I was emotionally and financially cut off from my friends and family, I worked three minimum wage jobs to make ends meet, while putting myself completely through college, which demanded 50+ hours of work a week to keep up. At any given time all I had was a suitcase and less than $1.00 in savings to my name. No internet, no electricity, and during transitory periods I would sleep at the 24/7 Whataburger. I know some people have it much worse, but I know exactly how soul-crushing a minimum wage job can be. But, even then, my stance on illegal immigration was and is the same. Is my opinion more valid now?
No, of course not. Circumstantial evidence doesn't matter here, which is why I think bringing up my upbringing is inappropriate. It's simply a deflection. Unless of course you're suggesting that I got where I am because I'm socially privileged - which in context to the issue at hand, means that you believe social handouts are acceptable because of discrimination. I 100% disagree with that at a fundamental level.
I understand the practical implications of illegal immigration and how much time and effort it would be to make a change. But that doesn't mean I can't or shouldn't voice my opinion in a discussion forum. I've read multiple responses now that basically boil down to "There's no hope, so why don't you just give up?" On principle, I don't agree with that either.
I don't really care about you either, so it all shakes out.
Yes, yes and yes. I do use all of those things and pay taxes to support them. I don't understand your point, really. There's already tax brackets in place that dictates somebody rich will pay more to drive on the same roads as somebody poor. The situation at hand is people using roads that aren't paying for them.
If illegals are paying taxes and supporting themselves in the same way a citizen would, there is no reason they should remain illegal. That's a broken system, and needs to be refined. I actually think getting citizenship should be easier here. It's the people who enter the country with the intention of abusing the system that I have a problem with.
I have no problem with big corporations, which shows how you little you know of me, and how much you assume. Big corporations provide jobs and can afford to take the risks associated with innovation, which is a good thing.
I didn't say I knew the full ramifications of the subject, but I did say that it's probably more than you, which may or may not be true, I don't know.
Ignorant? Maybe. I don't claim to know everything. Anarchy? I have no idea where you got that idea.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Am I required to care about other people?
I'm sorry, where did I say I hated paying taxes? Taxes are inevitable, and I pay them. The problem I have is with people abusing the system.
It's easy to say when you have your own hardships, and when you see people abusing the system, stressing it for everyone else involved. But you know what? If a rich person decides not to donate to charity, that's fine. If people want to help, they can in their own way. But it shouldn't be required.
Not only is half of this paragraph simply false, but I fail to see how my race, sex or orientation is relevant to the topic at hand. Care to enlighten? If not wanting to pay my hard-earned money to support people who abuse the system and aren't interested in helping themselves is entitled, then YES I AM. But lucky for me, it isn't. I shouldn't be required to care about other people. Heartless? Maybe. Your self-entitled claims are totally out of line.
After reading your last couple of posts, I've concluded that you are one of the most ignorant people I've met. Funny how that worked out.
Well I'm not, and there's nothing wrong with that.
I understrand this, which is often times why nothing is being done, or it's baby steps. That doesn't mean that I can't discuss my thoughts and feelings on an internet forums about it.
You realize that there's no sales tax on food and clothes under a certain amount, right? What luxury items do you think they're buying?
It's anything but. I'm the one who lives in the United States, right next to a place overrun with illegal immigrants. You don't even live in the country, and I'm the ignorant one?
All I want is that the money I make at my job, that I work extremely hard for, goes to me instead of somebody else. And I'm self-entitled? I don't think so. People who abuse the system are scum, and we shouldn't cater to them.
Except that me and the rest of the tax base are the ones paying for their schooling, which I don't care to do. I'd rather they took the crappy jobs. I mean, somebody has to do them.
Also, they're illegal no matter how you slice it, so no I don't have to just accept it. That's asinine.
Basically meh to this entire post.
You simply can't look at it in a vacuum. Sure, illegal immigrants will work for lower than minimum wage, however:
1) They don't pay taxes.
2) They get free health care by going to the ER and never paying.
3) Their children get free school service, despite not paying taxes.
4) They get into car accidents but don't have insurance.
All of these things are a drain on the system, some in a huge way.
I'd imagine that if an illegal did have to pay taxes, they wouldn't be so quick to work for near nothing. (Although in this economy...)
Lastly, an illegal immigrant is a person who enters the country illegally. It has nothing to do with race whatsoever, so I'm not sure why it was brought up twice.