Opinion L.A.

Observations and provocations
from The Times' Opinion staff

« Previous Post | Opinion L.A. Home | Next Post »

Meg Whitman changes her message on immigration yet again

Meg Whitman So Meg Whitman, who went down to defeat in November's gubernatorial election, has returned to public view with this message:

"The immigration rhetoric the Republican Party uses is not helpful." What's more, she said  Tuesday at a George W. Bush Institute conference, "we as a party are going to have to make some changes, how we think about immigration, and how we talk about immigration."

She should know, I  guess. She "changed" the way she talked about the subject quite dramatically right in the middle of  her campaign. During the GOP primary, when she was wooing conservative voters, she was outspoken in her opposition to illegal immigration. She ran an ad in which former Gov. Pete Wilson (well known for his support of Proposition 187, which would have denied government services to illegal immigrants) said she would be "tough as nails" on the immigration issue. She said that if elected she would "prosecute illegal aliens and criminal aliens in all of our cities, in every part of California."

Then, when she won the GOP primary and had to win votes from the center against a Democratic candidate, she struck an entirely different tone. Plastering billboards across Latino neighborhoods and buying time on Spanish-language radio and TV stations, she decried "harsh rhetoric" on the subject and said that she agreed with much of what Jerry Brown had to say about immigration. She touted her opposition to Proposition 187.

Eventually, her $180-million campaign was crippled by the news that for more than a decade she had employed (and continued to employ) an illegal immigrant housekeeper. Given everything else that had been said in the campaign, voters understandably found that hypocritical.

Whitman is not the first candidate to shift tone in an effort to tailor her message to her audience, or to soften her rhetoric when moving from a primary to a general election. But are we really to be expected to take her seriously now when she offers her opinions on the subject?


Appeals court blocks Arizona's law. Is the Supreme Court next?

Will state attorney general support limiting Secure Communities?

Arizona's Rep. Jeff Flake shifts support from comprehensive reform

Editorial: Let police pursue criminals, not immigrants

-- Nicholas Goldberg

Photo: Meg Whitman, former President and CEO of EBay Inc., makes closing remarks on the first day of the 4% Project, Driving Economic Growth conference Tuesday in Dallas. Credit: Tony Gutierrez / Associated Press photo


Comments () | Archives (57)

The comments to this entry are closed.


Who really cares what she says?


You lost... go away.


It's good to see the Quaker Oats guy in the news again.


DG3: Off topic and funny

Eric Bressler

@DG3, Very mean, but hilarious.


Really? Meg Whitman? Who cares what she thinks. And DG3, you win best comment of the day! Very funny, thank you!


why is it that defeated GOP candidates continue to act as though they are relevant?



You win.


DG 3

You win.


who cares what this guy thinks?


Does Meg believe in anything except herself?


Republicans, as personified and represented so well by pompous windbag Whitman, continue to be completely irrelevant.


Thanks DG3, I can never eat oatmeal again.


Meg who?

Jack Johnson

Regardless of what Meg say illegal immigration/aliens are destroying the state and the country.


Believe her only if she cries, announces she has sinned and asks forgiveness (like every other hypocrite)


Meg Whitman is irrelevant. Of course, when they mention proposition 187, they always forget to mention that it won by a wide margin, and the only reason it didn't go in to law is because one judge decided his vote was more important than the votes of the people of California. What kind of a democracy is that?


"It's good to see the Quaker Oats guy in the news again."



It is too late. The Republicans need to write off California and let it sink into an abyss.



BEST comment I've seen in years, anywhere!


"It's good to see the Quaker Oats guy in the news again."

How rude! The Quaker Oats guy is MUCH better looking and has a GENUINE smile!

And I don't think he ever beat up any of his workers.


"and the only reason it didn't go in to law is because one judge decided his vote was more important than the votes of the people of California. What kind of a democracy is that?

Posted by: dwfain"

It's called a CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY. try taking a low-level civics class...like the one you obviously failed in high school.


Nice how when they're running they just say, "ship 'em all out they broke the law" to appeal to their rabid base of hatemongers but when they're out of power they seem to realize to do so would tank the economy. Which thanks to Republican policies, Wall Street already did.

More illegals are leaving now than coming in since they're aren't enough jobs. As that illustrious Republican Dubya said, "Mission accomplished".


btw - spot on DG3

John Cruiserj

Let's all guess what percentage of her income Meg Whitman pays in taxes this April 18th

I vote for 0 to 1%


Oh my God, they robbed affableman.
Oh, you caught the guy?
What, enforce the law and prosecute? You Hate mongers!

Peter Griffin

Shut up, Meg.


Illegals are still destroying California. Prop 187 was a valid attempt to do something about them. Because the GOP wants to get the Mexican vote, they think they should not express the truth about the damage illegals have caused or talk about reversing the flow. Not surprising, since we know pols love to pander. What does it say about the hispanic voters who don't care about the illegal aliens entering the US? That's what you get with anchor babys as a result of flawed concepts like birthright citizenship. A bunch of voters who care more about illegal aliens than native residents.


Democrats, as personified and represented so well by pompous windbag Bob, calso ontinue to be completely irrelevant.


"But are we really to be expected to take her seriously now when she offers her opinions on the subject?"

No. But we shouldn't be expected to take the LA Times seriously when it offers its opinions on the subject either.



That is so wrong but at the same time so right.

A Rothman, Los Angeles

Please, please go away. You are the poster child of what is wrong with the Republican party. You don't know what you or the party stand for.

I need a drink.

Food for Thought

Hey DG3 -Thank you for the comedic relief. Very funny!

Tom Gelsthorpe

Hobson, of "Hobson's choice," was a legendary stable keeper who said the customer could rent any horse he wanted, as long as it was the one closest to the door. The U.S.A. has a "Hobson's choice" immigration policy. We border only one poor, relatively unfree country. That country is shaped like a funnel with the long border facing the U.S., the short border at their southern end. That country has many reasons for people to migrate out and an easier time keeping people from migrating in. So U.S. de facto policy is first-come, first-served for almost all the immigrants we can absorb from only one country. Millions of people elsewhere would like to try the U.S., are qualified to try the U.S. but are limited by geography to observing formal immigration procedures. Are we cruel and heartless that we let most spaces get taken up by nearby, self-selected immigrants? Then hang out the "No Vacancy" sign for people from the Orient, South America or almost anywhere else? Because of its shape and because its policies are stricter than ours, Mexico forms a de facto barrier to would-be American immigrants from countries only a little farther south, with ethnically similar people. So you can't plausibly scream "racist," either. What is most peculiar about American immigration policy is that there's such a large domestic constituency who feels the people living here now should have so little say about who gets to live here next.


"Eventually, her $180-million campaign was crippled by the news that for more than a decade she had employed (and continued to employ) an illegal immigrant housekeeper. Given everything else that had been said in the campaign, voters understandably found that hypocritical."

The LA Times doesn't even hid their ultra-left wing B.S. Hey, how about mentioning that when she did find out her criminal maid was commiting fraud, she fired her. Why was this maid not prosecuted for fraud when she admitted to using false documents to remain employed by Whitman all those years? I guess Gloria only believes in certain parts of the law!


Should I care?


Go away Meg.

Nah nah nah nah, nah nah nah nah, hey hey hey...


Republicans change their rhetoric on immigration depending on the prevailing labor needs of the country.


Randy L: "as for illegals, disgusting little things".
Same to you, buddy. Put yourself in their poverty stricken shoes for just one goddamn second.

Sean Roaney

The only thing I found notable about this article is that apparently there is something called the "George W. Bush Institute". It smacks of a mean joke, like the "Tobacco Research Council" or the "Scott Petersen Family Counseling Center."

Paco Mexicana


She talks out of both sides of her mouth. She would make a great democrat socialist.

She condems illegal immigration and then hires an illegal, then says immigration by aliens is okay.



She paid that maid $23 an hour but only officially gave her 15 hours of work per week. What a chisler.

Joel Wischkaemper

It is a serious mistake to suggest the idea is a 'republican' idea. The idea of enforcing the Immigration Law is the idea of the American People. Our Government and both parties have apposed the illegal aliens for close to thirty years. And.. for thirty years, the illegal aliens, the administration, the Dope Cartels, the Catholic Church, the Foundations supporting La Raza, Congress and the Mexican Government have avidly supported breaking that law. There is a big story here.. read it carefully. The people want that law enforced and they do not want those folks to jerk them around.

A serious majority of the people of this country want the law enforced. The coming election is going to have a whole lot of establishment losers no matter how hard you attempt to cut the discussion and efforts off. The Illegal Aliens are going home.


The LATimes spent all of last year demonizing and castigating this fine woman. If she had been Democrat none of that would have happened, but the Times had to get Brown elected.

She has done more and will continue to do more than all of the haters on this board. Brown? Let's just see where how he is viewed in a year of so . . .


Didn't she lose the election?


>>But are we really to be expected to take her seriously now when she offers her opinions on the subject?

Short answer: No.

Now go away, Nutmeg. Your millions couldn't buy a not-ready-for-prime-time-candidate the gubernatorial election and now you want to be taken seriously?? Not . . .


Wait, who's Meg Whitman again? The name doesn't seem to ring a bell...

Mitchell Young

Once again it's time to remind everyone that Pete Wilson won, handily. When we had our 'summer of swelter' in 2000, Pete was asked to appear on statewide PSA's with then governor Davis to ask us to conserve energy. I life sized statue of Pete Wilson stands in front of Horton Plaza in San Diego, hardly an area without 'Latinos', unmolested, untagged, despite being protected by a one foot high railing. In other words, while Pete Wilson may be viewed as a demon amongst the ethno-political entrepreneurs and ideologues with whom LATimes ed board members asociate, in real life he his generally respected as a good mayor and good governor, moderate and forward thinking. No doubt that is why he realized the damage that illegal immigration was doing, and now has done, to the state.

As for 'tough as nails' Whitman, she proposed no actual policies to deal with illegal immigration, she did not support Arizona, and she pandered shamelessly to Latinos in the general election. Not a good combination -- especially if you spend your time attacking the public service unions. You see, public service is about the last place white workers with no college degrees, or even degrees from some of the lesser rated institutions, can earn a decent wage in California. Decent here means a wage that can give them a lifestyle close to what their parents' had in terms of being able to afford a decent house in a neighborhood with good schools. Whitman's attacks on the stronghold of white folks (still the largest electoral block) in the state naturally resulted in a poor showing. She won only 50 percent of whites, an abysmal showing for a Republican.


Read this whos to blame for our economy, its NOT the POOR MIGRANTS.


Before you Scream and show Ignorance and Hate at least read the Immigration Law regarding Undocumented Immigrants.

1. Myth: Undocumented immigrants are getting government services for free.

REALITY: They actually give more than they take. Over the past two decades, most studies that have tried to estimate the fiscal impact of immigration in the United States have concluded that the tax revenue generated by immigrants —both legal and undocumented— exceeds the cost of the services they use. Thus, an Economic Report of the President published in 2005 estimated that all immigrants, regardless of status, paid on average US$80,000 per capita more in taxes than the cost of the government services they were expected to use over their lifetime. Stephen C. Goss, the chief actuary of the Social Security Administration, said that by 2007, the Social Security trust fund had received a net benefit of somewhere between US $120 billion and US $240 billion from undocumented immigrants. That represented 5.4% to 10.7% of the trust fund’s total assets of US$2.24 trillion that year. The Social Security Administration estimates that two-thirds of unauthorized immigrant workers (about 5.6 million people) were paying into the system in 2007. Unauthorized immigrants paid a net contribution of US$12 billion in 2007 alone.

2. Myth: Undocumented workers do not pay taxes.

Reality: They do, and in several different ways. According to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the majority of undocumented immigrants pays income tax using, among other mechanisms, Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITIN’s), while most employers withhold federal, state and local taxes from such workers. In fact, between one-half and three-quarters of undocumented immigrants pay federal and state income taxes, Social Security, and Medicare taxes.Undocumented immigrants pay the same real estate taxes—whether they own homes or taxes are passed on to them through rents—and the same sales and other consumption taxes as everyone else. The majority of state and local costs for schooling and other services is funded by these taxes. Additionally, the U.S. Social Security Administration has estimated that three quarters of undocumented immigrants pay payroll taxes, and that they contribute US$6-7 billion in Social Security funds that they will be unable to claim (Porter 2005). This amount, moreover, keeps accumulating, generating US$6 to US$7 billion in Social Security annual tax revenue, and an additional US$1.5 billion in Medicare taxes. This money, according to the 2008 annual report of the Social Security Board of Trustees, will help reduce the SSA’s projected longterm
deficit by 15%, which is equivalent to a 0.3% rise in the pay roll tax.

3. Myth: Undocumented workers are a burden on the U.S. economy.

Reality: Immigrants not only pay taxes, but they also contribute significantly to the economy.

In a 2007 report, the White House Council of Economic Advisers concluded that, because immigrants increase the size of the total labor force, they complement the U.S. born workforce, and stimulate capital investment by adding workers to the labor pool. Immigration increases the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by roughly US$37 billion each year.9 Given that employment has been the main driver behind undocumented immigration to the U.S. in recent decades, it should come as no surprise that this group is particularly hard working and has a high employment rate (96%).10 Moreover, beyond undocumented immigrants, the Hispanic community as a whole has increasingly contributed to the U.S. economy. According to the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. Census Bureau, Hispanic owned firms increased by nearly 44 percent between 2002 and 2007, growing from 1.6 million businesses to 2.3 million. Employment at Hispanic-owned firms also grew by 26 percent from 1.5 million to 1.9 million workers, a growth rate significantly higher than that of non-minority-owned firms. Hispanic-owned businesses generated US$345.2 billion in sales in 2007, up 55.5 percent compared with 2002. And finally, of all Hispanic-owned firms with multiple employees, approximately 44,000 have revenues of more than US$1 million, representing an increase of more than 51 percent over 2002.

4. Myth: Undocumented immigrants are taking jobs away from Americans.
REALITY: Undocumented Immigrants differ from U.S. citizens in their economic sectors and occupation.

Among unauthorized immigrants in the labor force, 30% are service workers and 21% are construction workers. An additional 15% are production and installation workers. Two-thirds (66%) of unauthorized immigrant workers are employed in these three broad categories; by contrast, only 31% of U.S.-born workers perform those jobs. Unauthorized immigrants provide an important source of manpower in agriculture, construction, food processing, building cleaning and maintenance, and other similar jobs, at a time when the share of low-skilled, U.S.-born individuals in the labor force has fallen dramatically. Not only do unauthorized immigrants provide an important source of low-skilled labor, but they also respond to market conditions in ways that legal immigration presently cannot. Undocumented inflows broadly track economic performance, rising during periods of expansion, and stalling during downturns. Undocumented immigration is sensitive to labor market demand. Immigrants are more likely to work in seasonal activities, such as agriculture, which suffer the largest job losses during downturns. Therefore, the size of the immigrant population changes in response to economic downturns or expansion. Immigration is not the cause of today’s high unemployment rates. In fact, reliable estimates show that immigration levels —both undocumented and applications for H-1B visas for high-skilled professionals— have fallen along with the economic downturn. In the longer term, however, the U.S. economy is also likely to need immigrant labor as the fertility rate in the United States, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, is projected to fall below the replacement level by 2015-2020. The number of workers age 55 and over will likely increase by 49%, compared to projected increases of only 5% among those 25 to 54 and 9% among the 16 to 24 age group, creating a gap in the population pyramid between the economically active population and those in retirement age that is likely to be filled by immigrants.

5. MYTH: Undocumented immigrants are a burden to the healthcare system.

REALITY: Quite the contrary, immigrants contribute more than they take.

Federal, state and local governments spend approximately US$1.1 billion annually on healthcare costs for undocumented immigrants, aged 18-64, or approximately US$11 in taxes for each U.S. household. This compares to the US $88 billion spent on all health care for non-elderly adults in the U.S. in 2000. Foreign-born individuals tend to use fewer health care services because they are relatively healthier than their U.S.- born counterparts. For example, in Los Angeles County, “total medical spending on undocumented immigrants was US$887 million in 2000, 6% of total costs, although undocumented immigrants comprise 12 percent of the region’s residents.” A 2007 study based on data from the 2003 California Health Interview Survey found that “undocumented Mexicans and other undocumented Latinos reported less use of health care services and poorer experiences with care compared with their U.S.-born counterparts.” In 2007, the Oregon Center for Public Policy estimated that undocumented immigrants pay state income, excise, and property taxes, as well as federal Social Security and Medicare taxes, which “total about US$134 million to US$187 million annually.” In addition, “taxes paid by Oregon employers on behalf of undocumented workers total about US$97 million to US$136 million annually.” As the report goes on to note, undocumented workers are ineligible for the Oregon Health Plan, food stamps, and temporary cash assistance. A study by the Iowa Policy Project concluded that “undocumented immigrants pay an estimated aggregate amount of US$40 million to US$62 million in state taxes each year.” Moreover, “undocumented immigrants working on the books in Iowa and their employers also contribute annually an estimated US$50 million to US$77.8 million in federal Social Security and Medicare taxes from which they will never benefit. Rather than draining state resources, undocumented immigrants are in some cases subsidizing services that only documented residents can access.”

6. MYTH: Undocumented immigrants are responsible for higher crime rates.

REALITY: Current and historical studies show instead that immigration is associated with lower crime rates and lower incarceration rates.

Since the early 1990s, as the immigrant population, especially the undocumented one, increased to historic highs, the rates of violent crimes and property crimes in the United States decreased significantly, in some instances to historic lows - as measured both by crimes reported to the police and by national victimization surveys. Moreover, data from the Census and a wide range of other empirical studies show that for every ethnic group without exception, incarceration rates among young men are lowest for immigrants, even for those who are the least educated. This holds true especially for the Mexicans, Salvadorans, and Guatemalans who make up the bulk of the
undocumented population. These patterns have been observed consistently over the last three decennial censuses, a period that spans the current era of high immigration. One can also recall similar national level findings reported by three major government commissions during the first three decades of the 20th century. The lowest incarceration rates among Latin American immigrants are seen for the groups who account for the majority of the undocumented: the Salvadorans and Guatemalans (0.52 percent), and the Mexicans (0.70 percent).

THE BOTTOM LINE: Undocumented immigrants are an important component of the U.S. economy. They meet the labor demand in sectors in which they do not directly compete with U.S.-born workers. The great majority of migrant workers are taxpaying, hardworking, and law-abiding people who are integrating into U.S. society.



Q: “Is it true that illegal immigrants don’t pay taxes and drain our economy?”
A: As Ben Franklin said, “Nothing is certain but death and taxes.” Like the rest of us, unauthorized immigrants pay taxes on their property and anything they buy. More than half of them have taxes taken out of their paychecks, but because our immigration system is dysfunctional, these taxes are paid under false Social Security numbers. We need a new regimen in which we know who is paying taxes and can ensure that no one is getting a free ride. The only way to do that is to pull unauthorized immigrants out of the shadows and get them on the right side of the law.
Three state-level studies have found that unauthorized immigrants pay more in taxes than they use in benefits. In Iowa, unauthorized immigrants pay an estimated $40 to $62 million in state taxes, while they and their employers contribute an additional $50 million to $77.8 million in federal, Social Security, and Medicare taxes from which they will never benefit. In Oregon, unauthorized immigrants—who are not eligible for any state benefits—pay between $134 million and $187 million in taxes each year. Finally, in Texas, the State Comptroller found that, without unauthorized residents, the gross state product in 2005 would have been $17.7 billion less.

The economics of immigration, Stephen C. Goss, the chief actuary of the Social Security Administration and someone who enjoys bipartisan support for his straightforwardness, said that by 2007, the Social Security trust fund had received a net benefit of somewhere between $120 billion and $240 billion from unauthorized immigrants.

That represented an astounding 5.4 percent to 10.7 percent of the trust fund's total assets of $2.24 trillion that year. The cumulative contribution is surely higher now. Unauthorized immigrants paid a net contribution of $12 billion in 2007 alone, Goss said.

Previous estimates circulating publicly and in Congress had placed the annual contributions at roughly half of Goss's 2007 figure and listed the cumulative benefit on the order of $50 billion.

The Social Security trust fund faces a solvency crisis that would be even more pressing were it not for these payments.

Adding to the Social Security irony is that the restrictionists are mostly OLDER AND RETIRED WHITES from longtime American families. The very people, in other words, who benefit most from the Social Security payments by unauthorized immigrants.

Comprehensive Immigration Reform Would Boost the Economy & Help ALL American Workers: As opposed to the mass deportation, enforcement-only approach, addressing and fixing the immigration system in a wholesale manner will be a boon to the U.S. economy and all U.S. workers. That is why both the AFL-CIO and Change to Win created The Labor Movement’s Joint Framework for Comprehensive Immigration Reform. Dr. Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda conducted a 2010 report for the Center for American Progress and the Immigration Policy Center that found that “Unlike the current enforcement-only strategy, comprehensive reform would raise the ‘wage floor’ for the entire U.S. economy—to the benefit of both immigrant and native-born workers.” According to the study, granting legal status to undocumented immigrants and creating flexible legal limits on future immigration flows would generate enough consumer-spending to support 750,000-900,000 jobs. The report also found that the mass deportation approach would reduce GDP by 1.46 percent annually, amounting to a loss of $2.6 trillion over 10 years.


The Undocumented Immigrants pay the exact same amount of taxes like you and me when they buy Things, rent a house, fill up gas, drink a beer or wine, buy appliances, play the states lottery and mega millions . Below are the links to just a few sites that will show you exactly how much tax you or the Undocumented Immigrant pays , so you see they are NOT FREELOADERS, THEY PAY TAXES AND TOLLS Exactly the same as you, Now if you take out 10% from your states /city Budget what will your city/state look like financially ?

Stop your folly thinking , you are wise USE YOUR WISDOM to see the reality. They pay more taxes than you think, Including FEDERAL INCOME TAX using a ITN Number that is given to them by the IRS, Social Security Taxes and State taxes that are withheld form their paychecks automatically.

Taxes, paid by You & the Undocumented are the same in each state check your state : http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/sales.html

GAS Taxes paid by you & the Undocumented are the same. Go to and check out your states tax; http://www.gaspricewatch.com/usgastaxes.asp

Cigarette Taxes paid by you & the Undocumented are the same, check this out in : http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/cigarett.html

Clothing Sales Taxes, are the same paid by you & the Undocumented Immigrant; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_taxes_in_the_United_States

City Taxes, are the same paid by you or the Undocumented, since he pays rent and the LANDLORD pays the city : http://www.town-usa.com/statetax/statetaxlist.html

Beer Taxes, are the same paid by you or the Undocumented: http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/beer.html

TAX DATA : http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/245.html

Eight million Undocumented immigrants pay Social Security, Medicare and income taxes. Denying public services to people who pay their taxes is an affront to America’s bedrock belief in fairness. But many “pull-up-the-drawbridge” politicians want to do just that when it comes to Undocumented immigrants.

The fact that Undocumented immigrants pay taxes at all will come as news to many Americans. A stunning two thirds of Undocumented immigrants pay Medicare, Social Security and personal income taxes.

Yet, nativists like Congressman Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., have popularized the notion that illegal aliens are a colossal drain on the nation’s hospitals, schools and welfare programs — consuming services that they don’t pay for.

In reality, the 1996 welfare reform bill disqualified Undocumented immigrants from nearly all means tested government programs including food stamps, housing assistance, Medicaid and Medicare-funded hospitalization.

The only services that illegals can still get are emergency medical care and K-12 education. Nevertheless, Tancredo and his ilk pushed a bill through the House criminalizing all aid to illegal aliens — even private acts of charity by priests, nurses and social workers.

Potentially, any soup kitchen that offers so much as a free lunch to an illegal could face up to five years in prison and seizure of assets. The Senate bill that recently collapsed would have tempered these draconian measures against private aid.

But no one — Democrat or Republican — seems to oppose the idea of withholding public services. Earlier this year, Congress passed a law that requires everyone who gets Medicaid — the government-funded health care program for the poor — to offer proof of U.S. citizenship so we can avoid “theft of these benefits by illegal aliens,” as Rep. Charlie Norwood, R-Ga., puts it. But, immigrants aren’t flocking to the United States to mooch off the government.

According to a study by the Urban Institute, the 1996 welfare reform effort dramatically reduced the use of welfare by undocumented immigrant households, exactly as intended. And another vital thing happened in 1996: the Internal Revenue Service began issuing identification numbers to enable illegal immigrants who don’t have Social Security numbers to file taxes.

One might have imagined that those fearing deportation or confronting the prospect of paying for their safety net through their own meager wages would take a pass on the IRS’ scheme. Not so. Close to 8 million of the 12 million or so illegal aliens in the country today file personal income taxes using these numbers, contributing billions to federal coffers.

No doubt they hope that this will one day help them acquire legal status — a plaintive expression of their desire to play by the rules and come out of the shadows. What’s more, aliens who are not self-employed have Social Security and Medicare taxes automatically withheld from their paychecks.

Since undocumented workers have only fake numbers, they’ll never be able to collect the benefits these taxes are meant to pay for. Last year, the revenues from these fake numbers — that the Social Security administration stashes in the “earnings suspense file” — added up to 10 percent of the Social Security surplus.

The file is growing, on average, by more than $50 billion a year. Beyond federal taxes, all illegals automatically pay state sales taxes that contribute toward the upkeep of public facilities such as roads that they use, and property taxes through their rent that contribute toward the schooling of their children.

The non-partisan National Research Council found that when the taxes paid by the children of low-skilled immigrant families — most of whom are illegal — are factored in, they contribute on average $80,000 more to federal coffers than they consume. Yes, many illegal migrants impose a strain on border communities on whose doorstep they first arrive, broke and unemployed.

To solve this problem equitably, these communities ought to receive the surplus taxes that federal government collects from immigrants. But the real reason border communities are strained is the lack of a guest worker program.

Such a program would match willing workers with willing employers in advance so that they wouldn’t be stuck for long periods where they disembark while searching for jobs. The cost of undocumented aliens is an issue that immigrant bashers have created to whip up indignation against people they don’t want here in the first place.

With the Senate having just returned from yet another vacation and promising to revisit the stalled immigration bill, politicians ought to set the record straight: Illegals are not milking the government. If anything, it is the other way around.

$ 1,000,000,000

How many zeros in a billion? This is too true to be funny.

The next time you hear a politician use the
Word 'billion' in a casual manner, think about
Whether you want the 'politicians' spending YOUR tax money.

A billion is a difficult number to comprehend,
But one advertising agency did a good job of
Putting that figure into some perspective in
One of it's releases.

A billion seconds ago it was 1959.
A billion minutes ago Jesus was alive.
A billion hours ago our ancestors were Living in the Stone Age.
A billion days ago no-one walked on the earth on two feet.
A billion dollars ago was only
8 hours and 20 minutes,
At the rate our government
Is spending it.

While this thought is still fresh in our brain...
let's take a look at New Orleans ...
It's amazing what you can learn with some simple division.

Louisiana Senator,
Mary Landrieu (D)
Is presently asking Congress for
To rebuild New Orleans . Interesting number...
What does it mean?
Well .. If you are one of the 484,674 residents of New Orleans
(every man, woman, and child)
You each get $516,528.
Or... If you have one of the 188,251 homes in New Orleans , your home gets $1,329,787..
Or... If you are a family of four....
Your family gets $2,066,012.

Washington , D. C
Are all your calculators broken??
Building Permit Tax
CDL License Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Federal Income Tax (Fed)
Federal Unemployment Tax (FU TA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
IRS Penalties(tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Tax
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service charge taxes
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax (Truckers)
Sales Taxes
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Tax
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Tax
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
(And to think, we left British Rule to avoid so many taxes)


Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago.....
And our nation was the most prosperous in the world.
We had absolutely no national debt....
We had the largest middle class in the world.....
And Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

What happened?
Can you spell:

And I still have to
Press '1'
For English.

I hope this goes around
the U S A
At least 100 times


Mitchell Young


I am not going to respond to every point in your incoherent rant. I will, however, point out that most studies which purport to show that illegals 'contribute' more than they receive ignore several vital areas.

1) They tend to ignore the total household costs, particularly those of children of illegals for education and all the attendant support services ('free breakfasts', free lunches etc). Some of these kids are illegal immigrants themselves (though not at fault of course), and some are US born and thus citizens under an outdated interpretation of the Constitution, yet for both classes it is obvious we wouldn't have those costs if the illegal household wasn't here. BTW those US born children make the illegal headed household eligible for pro-rated transfer benefits like WIC, Section 8 housing subsidies and the like. It is completely in accord with standard economic practice to account for expenditures at the household level , yet somehow this goes by the wayside when 'studies' of illegals are in question.

2) The 'studies' also ignore our common public expenditures which can be congested. That is, having population X requires Y number of police, Z number of fire/emergencies services, Q acres of park space, W number of correctional officers, M miles of new roads/freeway lanes etc. Those spending requirements all go up with increased illegal populations (and their children), but these 'studies' typically ignore this increase.

3) The data on spending on illegals is also shaky, and likely under estimates the real situation, because agencies like police and schools are often forbidden to inquire into immigration status (Cali schools will ask were you live, and woe to you if you try to get your kid into a better institution outside your catchment area, but they don't want to know if you actually have the right to reside in the US).

4) Just today there is a create article out about the IRS's complicity in awarding tax credits to illegals. As this is new information, I wonder if 'studies' have accounted for it yet.

5) We have the empirical evidence. California, with an estimated 2.5 million illegals (much higher than the national average) is a fiscal basket case. Texas, formerly beloved of pro-mass immigration 'Conservatives' and libertarians as the anti-California (their reasoning, we can afford illegals if the state's public spending is low), also turns out to have fiscal problems. If illegals contributed so much, both states should be well in the black. And think about it, 30 years ago the person flipping hamburgers at your local McD's was likely a teenager or young twentysomething, living at home, with no kids in the school system and health costs taken care of by Mom and Dad's insurance. Now he's a 30 year old Mexican of dubious immigration status with three kids in the school system and no health benefits. Which one costs 'society' more.

1 2 | »



In Case You Missed It...



Recent Posts
Reading Supreme Court tea leaves on 'Obamacare' |  March 27, 2012, 5:47 pm »
Candidates go PG-13 on the press |  March 27, 2012, 5:45 am »
Santorum's faulty premise on healthcare reform |  March 26, 2012, 5:20 pm »


About the Bloggers
The Opinion L.A. blog is the work of Los Angeles Times Editorial Board membersNicholas Goldberg, Robert Greene, Carla Hall, Jon Healey, Sandra Hernandez, Karin Klein, Michael McGough, Jim Newton and Dan Turner. Columnists Patt Morrison and Doyle McManus also write for the blog, as do Letters editor Paul Thornton, copy chief Paul Whitefield and senior web producer Alexandra Le Tellier.

In Case You Missed It...