Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Research Desk evaluates: How does immigration affect Social Security's finances?

By Dylan Matthews

ManuelMorales asks:

It is always said that the reason Medicare and Social Security are facing such a crisis is that there are will be so fewer young people paying into the system than older people receiving benefits over the next decade. I am wondering if immigration reform would have an impact. How would Social Security and Medicare projections differ if the current batch of undocumented immigrants (who are generally young workers) were suddenly paying into the system via payroll taxes?

Actually, many undocumented immigrants are already paying into Social Security. While illegal immigrants generally do not file income tax returns, or more precisely the few who earn enough to have to pay income taxes generally do not, their employers will more often than not pay FICA taxes for Social Security and Medicare. The Social Security administration estimates that 8.8 million undocumented workers, or three quarters of the total, provide about $9 billion in yearly tax revenue.

These workers do not add to the program's costs, as they do not have Social Security cards and thus cannot claim benefits later on. How Social Security would credit their payments, should a comprehensive bill providing a path to citizenship be passed, is an open question. In 2006, the White House proposed not counting payments made during illegal residences toward eventual Social Security benefits, but that would lead to far lower payments to new citizens when they retire, which is especially problematic because former undocumented workers likely lack years of retirement savings to fall back upon.

In any case, legal immigration, with immigrants receiving benefits later on, still improves the fiscal health of Social Security, by providing more workers and thus improving Social Security's ratio of taxpayers to beneficiaries. The Social Security Trustees' report compared how different immigration levels would affect the program's solvency and found that an additional 285,000 immigrants a year would reduce the shortfall by 26.4 percet, and an additional 590,000 would reduce it by 58.8 percent:

social_security_solvency_under_different_immigration_scenarios,_2010-2034.png

By Dylan Matthews  |  August 11, 2010; 4:02 PM ET
Categories:  Social Security  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Rogoff and Reinhart strike back
Next: Reconciliation

Comments

THANKS!

By your own data, we KNOW of 11.73 million criminal aliens (8.8 / 0.75) filling jobs which could be filled by unemployed citizens! Correcting the criminal alien problem would result in a HUGE reduction of the unemployment rate!

Taxpayers are paying benefits to the 11.73 million unemployed citizens, so the cost of each criminal alien is quite high. It should be easy to confiscate all money earned by criminal aliens before deporting them; likewise, it should be easy to penalize those who hired such criminal aliens rather than hiring unemployed citizens. If the SSA indeed has the names of the 8.8 million criminal aliens, why isn't the federal government enforcing its own statutes?

Posted by: rmgregory | August 11, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of social security, everyone talks how the Baby Boomers are aging, and thus increasing the projected expenditures for social security over the next decades.

However, eventually these people are going to pass away, and from the rough numbers I've seen, the number of working people versus the number of retirees is going to come closer to where it is now. Has the government or another body done any research on this? It is projected that sometime in the 2030s the expenditures are going to me more than the revenues. Is there the chance that in, say the 2060s that may reverse itself and the revenues will be more than the expenditures?

Posted by: cassidymullen | August 11, 2010 4:58 PM | Report abuse

"If the SSA indeed has the names of the 8.8 million criminal aliens, why isn't the federal government enforcing its own statutes?"

You'll find it actually helps to read Dylan's post, which states:

"These workers do not add to the program's costs, as they do not have Social Security cards and thus cannot claim benefits later on."

Undocumented workers do not provide their names and addresses to the SSA.

And, on the broader topic of federal enforcement, the Obama administration is auditing and prosecuting employers of illegal immigrants at record numbers:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/10/us/10enforce.html

Posted by: Patrick_M | August 11, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

rmgregory -

1) "it should be easy to penalize those who hired such criminal aliens rather than hiring unemployed citizens."
Focusing on employers who hire illegal aliens is a cornerstone of comprehensive immigration reform supported by Democrats. Glad to see a conservative like yourself offer such a full-throated endorsement of the plan.

2) "If the SSA indeed has the names of the 8.8 million criminal aliens"
3) "Correcting the criminal alien problem would result in a HUGE reduction of the unemployment rate!"
I wasn't sure whether to respond to this part, because you're probably being purposely obtuse. But in the interests of good faith: it is possible to estimate the number of illegal aliens without having all of their names. Even if one did have their names, not to mention their employers, addresses, etc., the massive operation required to round up and deport 8 million people would be wrong, wretched and expensive. Billions of dollars would go down the drain, millions of police officers would spend time chasing people around Arizona rather than watching our streets, and the civil rights violations toward legal and illegal immigrants would no doubt be staggering.

I cannot believe I live in an America where the conservative party advocates massive government deportation. Its time the Republicans officially dropped the "conservative" label and just called themselves the nativist or xenophobic party.

Posted by: CarlosXL | August 11, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

"It should be easy to confiscate all money earned by criminal aliens before deporting them...."

Oh yes, the vast fortunes earned through day labor, picking lettuce, washing dishes, changing the linens in dingy motels, meat packing, leaf blowing (etc. etc.), are doubtlessly squirreled away in numbered Swiss bank accounts.

Posted by: Patrick_M | August 11, 2010 5:27 PM | Report abuse

CarlosXL, very well said. TY

Posted by: DS121 | August 11, 2010 5:41 PM | Report abuse

You said that employers make Social Security and Medicare payments on behalf of undocumented workers and then go on to say that these workers do not have social security cards so they cannot claim benefits.

Please do explain how an employer makes a FICA payment on behalf of someone without a social security card. I have made numerous payments on behalf of employees and can assure you that the amount you pay has to be allocated among the employees. You don't just mail in a lump sum to the government.

This entire post is suspect.

Posted by: TomLindmark | August 11, 2010 5:48 PM | Report abuse

TomLindmark,

Illegal immigrants often use false identities, forged documents, or incorrect Social Security numbers.

The money that is paid in by employers on their behalf is eventually directed towards the SS "Earnings Suspense File."

The prevention of the use of this sort of false taxpayer identification is the major argument behind the biometric worker ID card proposals in connection with immigration reform plans.

Posted by: Patrick_M | August 11, 2010 6:24 PM | Report abuse

By looking forward and ignoring the past you cannot see how we got into this mess in the first place. Thus you risk solving the wrong problem.

Even if ALL age groups were equal in size (which they are not with a growing population) the problem with Social Security is still largely due to increasing life expectancies. In 1950 there were 16 Workers for every Retiree, life expectancy was only 68 years, while the retirement age was set at 65 (Retiring with Dignity: Social Security vs. Private Markets by William G. Shipman, Cato Institute, August 14, 1995). Today the average life expectancy is close to 80 while the retirement is still set at 65 and the ratio of Workers to Retirees has fallen to 2.94 to 1 (Social Security Board of Trustees: Long-Range Financing Outlook Remains Unchanged, August 5, 2010).

Assuming that the average working age started at age 16 in both 1950 and 2010 it means that in 1950 the average Worker worked for 49 years and retired for three years. Thus there would have been 16 Workers for every Retiree all age groups being equal. This matches with the statistic dead on.

Today the average Worker works for 49 years and retires for 15 years. Do the math and you find out that this means there should be 3.3 Workers for every Retiree, all age groups being equal. Since the actual rate is 2.94, that means that increased life span ALONE has caused 97% of the reduction in the number of Workers per Retiree from 1950 to 2010. Does everyone see the real trend yet? Or does everyone still want to believe the propaganda that it is all the fault of the Baby Boomers? This means that even if you flood the USA with immigrants today, as soon as those immigrants reach retirement age we will be back to the same old problem.

Posted by: Norski | August 11, 2010 6:24 PM | Report abuse


"These workers do not add to the program's costs, as they do not have Social Security cards and thus cannot claim benefits later on."

Not true. Historically, when formerly illegal immigrants become legal (e.g. after the 1986 amnesty), they can get credit for Social Security payments made while they were illegal. Illegal aliens already qualify for "emergency" medical treatment under Medicaid. In California, this includes regular kidney dialysis.

And then there's the fact that illegal workers depress wages, which depresses tax revenues.

Finally, to evaluate the economic impact of illegal immigration, one needs to look at a lot more than Social Security in isolation. How many economists believe that millions of unskilled, low-wage, non-English-speaking workers, and a continuous supply of new ones, are key to a strong US economy in the 21st century?

Posted by: WylieD | August 11, 2010 6:37 PM | Report abuse

WylieD,

Your statement (that illegal immigrants who obtained legal status under the Reagan era immigration reform were able to obtain credit for social security payments made before they became documented workers) does not contradict Dylan's observation that currently illegal immigrants who are paying into social security do not have valid social security cards and cannot apply for social security benefits.

Both statements can be true at the same time.

And the post is not about evaluating the overall economic impact of illegal immigration; it is simply an answer to the more narrow question posed by a reader about how immigrant labor impacts the finances of Social Security.

Posted by: Patrick_M | August 11, 2010 6:57 PM | Report abuse

"but that would lead to far lower payments to new citizens when they retire, which is especially problematic because former undocumented workers likely lack years of retirement savings to fall back upon."

Or, they can always retire to Costa Rica, or some unnamed third world country from whence they came, where their retirement savings might allow them to live like kings. Sort of like a lot of Americans are doing.

Posted by: bgmma50 | August 11, 2010 7:56 PM | Report abuse

Norski,

Your comment is interesting. Would you possibly have any stats on what the retirement age would have to be raised to in order to solve the problem? (sans the flood of new citizens)

Posted by: bgmma50 | August 11, 2010 8:02 PM | Report abuse

We as Americans need to reflect on the Values and Principles of good that built our great Nation.

Good, not greed will be the only salvation for our now torn Country.

A very wise 1840's French Historian said: "America is great because it is good, when it ceases to be good, it ceases to be great."

Deporting Mothers and Fathers away from their "Legal" Citizen Children, can not be considered as "Good" in any Country in the World!

Sadly since the fall 2007 Mass Exodus of America's Hardest and Most Devoted workers, in advance of the coming Everify Law and the I.C.E Deportation/Incarceration Programs, has Crashed our Economy!

The States that Deported or Starved away their Hard Working Tax Base now find them selves with Massive vacated dwellings/Forclosures, this has caused massive area's to be overbuilt, completely halting construction and growth, costing millions of Americans their good jobs.
Since the U.S. Census Bureau counted these Immigrants the same as all Americans to base the Total size of our Government Services on, States now have Massive Excesses of all Government, both State and Federal.
States like Arizona are trying to raise Taxes on the remaining 60% of the population/Tax Base that remains.

This will not work!

Sheriff Arpio still has a 3,000 man Army, even though Arizona now has 30 to 40% less Population/Tax Base.
In short Arpio should have fired the proportionate amout of his deputies as he Deported and Starved away his Tax Base.
This action is now inevitable, however Arpio simply isn't smart enough to realize it yet?

When the Federal Government quits Bailing, Tens of Thousands of Government Employees will have to be fired, until The size of Government matches the smaller Tax Base.

Simple Math/Logic?

The above should now even be painfully obvious to Politicians, and those calling themselve's "Economists". (What a joke.)

The absolute Fact is: The HARD LABOR these Good Immigrants gladly did was the Foundation/Backbone of America's Total Economy!

This HARD LABOR didn't take any American jobs, it Supported all other JOBS!

To: good, and Btoherhood, from sea to shining sea.

Posted by: nicholsdaves | August 11, 2010 8:10 PM | Report abuse

Actually, the Social Security Trustees' report probably examined how adding young, immigrants, earning average wages, would affect the system. But that is misleading.

The reason that the Social Security system will run a deficit is because some people get more in benefits than they pay into the system. If everyone paid in more than they got, it would be mathematically impossible for the system to run a deficit.

The system is set up so that higher income workers cross-subsidize lower paid workers. Some people are net contributors to the system over their lifetime. Some are net beneficiaries. The system is set up to favor very low income workers or workers with few years of contributions -- they are net beneficiaries, a financial burden (by design) on the system.

The problem with legalizing the current population of illegal immigrants is that they are lower income workers who will generally work fewer years. As a group, they will be net beneficiaries and drain the system.

The actual illegal immigrants, as opposed to hypothetical "average" immigrants, will not earn enough to pay their way. In the early years before they retire, they may appear to help the system. But once they retire, they will make the problem worse.

Posted by: kevin9 | August 11, 2010 9:00 PM | Report abuse

"Actually, the Social Security Trustees' report probably examined how adding young, immigrants, earning average wages, would affect the system. But that is misleading....The problem with legalizing the current population of illegal immigrants is that they are lower income workers who will generally work fewer years. As a group, they will be net beneficiaries and drain the system."

People keep commenting on things the report does not address. The report does not discuss "how adding young, immigrants, earning average wages, would affect the system" or what we happen after the hypothetical "legalizing the current population of illegal immigrants." As Dylan's post says "How Social Security would credit their payments, should a comprehensive bill providing a path to citizenship be passed, is an open question."

Instead, this report discusses what is actually happening today, which is that immigrants pay $9 billion in to the system and are not eligible to collect benefits. This contribution is not exclusive to illegal labor. The government of India and various Indian tech comapanies that operate inside the USA are currently unhappy about the fact that Indian nationals legally working in the USA under H1-B and L work visas contribute about a billion dollars annually to the Social Security fund, with no eligibility for benefits or refunds.

Posted by: Patrick_M | August 11, 2010 10:27 PM | Report abuse

Patrick_M wrote:

"...it [the article] is simply an answer to the more narrow question posed by a reader about how immigrant labor impacts the finances of Social Security."

I suggest you reread the original question. The reader asked about "undocumented immigrants" not "immigrant labor."

Dylan Matthews begins by narrowly addressing the question of illegal immigrants but then quickly broadens the discussion to include legal immigrants. My comments simply continued that expansive approach. It is Matthews who brings up the issue of SS credit to illegal immigrants should reform create a path to citizenship. In light of that, it's worth noting historical precedents, such as the 1986 amnesty.

And a biometric Social Security card is a great idea. It could be implemented today. There is no reason to hold it hostage to immigration reform. It's many merits are independent of immigration, unless one thinks that illegal immigrants are behind most Social Security fraud. Is that what you believe?

Posted by: WylieD | August 11, 2010 11:50 PM | Report abuse

Dylan gives a misleading impression of what the Trustees Report says about the impact of "net immigration" levels on Social Security's solvency when he says:"The Social Security Trustees' report compared how different immigration levels would affect the program's solvency and found that an additional 285,000 immigrants a year would reduce the shortfall by 26.4 percent, and an additional 590,000 would reduce it by 58.8 percent:"

First, the percentage change in the programs cumulative deficit over a particular time frame depends on the size of the deficit during that time frame. Dylan choose 2010-2034 when the deficit is smallest, so a given change has the largest percentage impact. From 2010-2084 the deficit is much larger and the same change has a much smaller impact. I suggest he re-read the section of the report that demonstrates the sensitivity of results to the assumptions chosen and then ask someone who understands what it means.

Second, the positive impact of immigration on finances is highest in the short term when immigrants are still of working age and only paying taxes. Eventually they get older and (most) become beneficiaries, too.

In any case, the report (p 166) states clearly "Increasing average annual net immigration by 100,000 persons improves the long-range actuarial balance by about 0.07 percent of taxable payroll." Put another way, an additional 100,000 immigrants would reduce the deficit by about 3.6% (.07/1.92) of the long-range (2010-2084) deficit of 1.92 percent of payroll.

Posted by: joefox1 | August 12, 2010 12:32 AM | Report abuse

"And a biometric Social Security card is a great idea. It could be implemented today. There is no reason to hold it hostage to immigration reform. It's many merits are independent of immigration, unless one thinks that illegal immigrants are behind most Social Security fraud. Is that what you believe?"

No, WylieD, I certainly don't believe that at all. And I have no objection to a biometric Social Security card, provided it is to be used for purposes of taxpayer identification and employment status verification at the time of hiring (and is not adopted as a "national id card" that must be carried at all times).


"Dylan Matthews begins by narrowly addressing the question of illegal immigrants but then quickly broadens the discussion to include legal immigrants. My comments simply continued that expansive approach. It is Matthews who brings up the issue of SS credit to illegal immigrants should reform create a path to citizenship. In light of that, it's worth noting historical precedents, such as the 1986 amnesty."

Yes, Dylan mentions that it is an "open question" as to how payments by illegal immigrants might be treated in the event that we ever do have comprehensive immigration reform, and if that reform includes a "path to citizenship." So again I can't agree with your statement that it is "not true" when Dylan states that presently illegal immigrants cannot claim benefits (simply because of a prior amnesty program enacted a quarter of a century ago under Ronald Reagan -- what happened then may indeed be "worth noting" but events in the past do not change the truth of what Dylan correctly says are the current circumstances, or dictate what must be contained in any future legislation).

Whether we have any reform legislation at all in the foreseeable future, and (if we do) whether that reform includes a path to citizenship, and (if it does) whether potential citizens will receive any credit or entirely forfeit the taxes that they and their employers have already paid into the Treasury, are all open questions that our elected representatives will have to work out when and if the current political gridlock on this topic is ever overcome.

Posted by: Patrick_M | August 12, 2010 2:03 AM | Report abuse

Patrick_M still hasn't explained how an employer makes an anonymous payment into the Social Security System. As TomLindmark mentions "You don't just mail in a lump sum to the government."

The SSA has an employer name associated with each of the payments it has received. Existing, yet currently unenforced, statute requires that employer to have I-9 documentation for each employee. The admission that criminal aliens commit the additional crimes of forgery and perjury is not surprising: criminal aliens are, after all, criminals.

Despite all of the liberal pouting, the fact remains that 11.73 million jobs, each paying more than the zero-dollars paid by unemployment, are being usurped by criminal aliens. Despite all liberal efforts at distraction, the 11.73 million jobs can be identified by the SSA, which has the names of employers making payment into the SSTF.

Posted by: rmgregory | August 12, 2010 9:19 AM | Report abuse

Why does the political left find illegal
immigrants so precious? Once they are made citizens, the left will look at them, like they look at the rest of us.

Posted by: Rightthinkingkindofguy | August 12, 2010 10:22 AM | Report abuse

When will people stop insisting that if there were no illegal immigration there would be no unemployment? I live in Lewis County, NY, and I know for a fact that without immigrant labor all the larger farmers would have to close up shop (except the Amish, who have large families to work their farms). The fact is that unskilled labor is almost impossible to come by around here. You can hire some just-graduated high school student, but he won't be working a month before the sick calls start, or he just simply fails to show up now and then. People who find our low wages unbelievably high are reliable, punctual and do good work while they are on the job. Stop with the immigrants-are taking-our-jobs nonsense.

Posted by: tughillb | August 12, 2010 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Why Legalise Them In This Economy ??? To Give Them Two Years UNEMPLOYMENT , Then WELFARE ... DUH ,,,

Posted by: lennybeachboy999 | August 12, 2010 11:23 AM | Report abuse

rmgregory,

I already explained what I have read. The Social Security Administration explains that undocumented workers frequently obtain employment using identity information. Eventually the system detects a mismatch between the social security payments and an invalid or incorrect number, and the money is then credited to the SS Earnings Suspense File. If you disagree that this is how illegal immigrants obtain employment, please share your alternative explanation.

The payments are not "anonymous," they are associated with incorrect or invalid social security numbers provided by the worker to is or her employer.

You go on to say that "Existing, yet currently unenforced, statute requires that employer to have I-9 documentation for each employee." The opposite is true. Audits and enforcement of I-9 information are now taking place at record levels:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/10/us/10enforce.html?scp=1&sq=illegal%20workers&st=cse
http://www.mysanantonio.com/business/ice_fines_23_texas_companies_for_worksite_violations_99058874.html

Posted by: Patrick_M | August 12, 2010 11:47 AM | Report abuse

To bgmma50

Including Employer Contributions Social Security taxes are 12.4% of wages. This equates to a ratio of 8.06 to one for dollars paid into Social Security versus dollars earned by each Worker. If in retirement you expect to get 65% of what you earned as a worker, a Worker to Retiree ratio of 5.25 to one would be self sustaining.

An increase in the retirement age from 65 to 70 would increase the Worker to Retiree ratio, all age groups being equal, too 5.4 to one (54 years working compared to 10 years in retirement). Thus, Social Security would be self sustaining at an average life span of 80 years even if we have no population growth and no new immigration.

Posted by: Norski | August 12, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if legal immigration that led to large numbers of immigrants that were over 50 and had no high school diploma ... if that would be any different than an immigration policy that led to a large number of 20 year old immigrants with masters degree's?

Posted by: cautious | August 12, 2010 2:51 PM | Report abuse

The numbers presented are false. Of course the illegal immigrants once made legal would pay into social security as would their employers. HOWEVER, since most are poor they would qualify fot the Earned Income Tax Credit. They could potentially receive back from the Treasury more than they paid on Social Security taxes. The money would go into one source and be taken out of another. Currently the maximum benefit is in excess of $5,000. I really wonder how constituents are going to feel if immigration reform happens and the illegals file back tax returns as they are allowed to do under current law. It is not going to be popular when it is reported that some families received checks from the IRS in excess of $20,000. With the EITC and the child credits this could happen. I guess that will put a dent in the expected Social Security payments all Americans, including Hispanics, think they should be receiving based on their work history.

Posted by: EFDTN | August 12, 2010 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Part One of my Comment:
Most of the arguments both ways in this discussion forum don’t even matter. How much public if any assistance they get, how much if any free schooling that get, how many crimes if any they commit, how many children they have, how much if any free medical care they get; none of this matters. What matters is that they have broken the United States immigration laws and do not belong here and must be deported.
Yes, we are a nation of immigrants but we being a nation of laws have a right to choose who immigrants to our country and from where. The USA allows approximately one million people to legally immigrant to our country each year from many countries. They go through the proper channels, get the proper documents, and go through the required interviews. They respect and obey our laws. Sometimes it takes them years to get the approval. They are welcome to our country with open arms.
Illegal immigrants not only have no respect for our laws, they do not care about the people who are trying so hard to come to this country from other countries legally who they harm. If there wasn’t so much illegal immigration, there would be a lot more legal immigration. We had a friend that wanted to come here from Ukraine a few years ago. She had to go to the embassy for an interview. If you read USA immigration law, it states in section 214b that visa applicants must demonstrate to the Consular’s satisfaction that they have strong ties to a permanent residence outside of the U.S. which would compel them to leave the U.S. upon the completion of their authorized stay. And I know from talking to many rejected people in other countries, that this is hard to demonstrate for most people. In other words, if you visit the USA, you can’t just say you will return when your visa expires, you must somehow prove it. When our friend from Ukraine went to the American Embassy she told us it was like a funeral, people waiting in line, getting rejected, women crying. It you were from a white country in Eastern Europe over the last 20 years, it has been nearly impossible for you to get a visa to come to the USA because you were classified as a poor country. If you were Mexican, no problem, just walk across the border and then everyone will feel sorry for you or your U.S. citizen baby and let you stay. The White Europeans cannot come because they have to have their papers to board a plane or ship to travel to the USA across the ocean. If we should feel sorry for the Mexicans out of compassion for them wanting a better life, then why were we not compassionate to the 20 million Eastern Europeans that wanted to come here? Because we banned all these people from coming does that mean we are a racist country against whites? Do the Mexicans that cheat our system care about the dreams they steal from people who try to come here legally from other countries? NO. Do they care about our laws? NO. So why should we care about them?

Posted by: AmericanJoe2 | August 12, 2010 8:46 PM | Report abuse

Part Two of my comment:
The saddest part of this is that they will ultimately destroy this country. Yes, the USA will be here in 2050 but we will likely be a 3rd world economy just like Mexico. It is estimated that white people will be the minority in the USA by 2042. In 1970 before the Latin illegal immigration started in mass, the white population in the USA was 84%. In 2008, it was down to 66% and by 2050 it is estimated to be 46% and it keeps going down from there. Who is going to create wealth in this country when all the white people are gone? If it is going to be the Mexicans, then why can’t they create wealth in their Mexico without us? Who are the illegal Mexicans going to leach from when nearly everyone in the USA is Mexican?
The only reason we were a super power before was because of the Engineers, Scientist, innovators, and educated populous and the problem solvers that our country had. The USA has less than three times the population of Mexico but has produced 100 times the amount of Nobel Prize scientist. We were the technological leader of the world and that is already on a steep decline. Of these millions and millions of Mexicans come across our border, most cannot even speak English and will never learn fluent English and the average education level is 8th grade and of the children they have that are born in the USA, half of them can’t even complete High School even when our school system is now, partly due to them, the worse of all industrial nations (meaning it is the easiest). The vast majority of these people will never contribute to our countries wealth even from their manual labor because their incomes will be too low to pay taxes. Because of our progressive tax system in the USA, only the top 53% of income earners in the USA pay taxes that supports the government, national defense, schools, parks, libraries, reduced in-state tuition, law enforcement, etc. Everyone else gets a free ride and who do you think a lot of them are? How are they going to take the place of white earners and support these institutions when they and their children have done so poorly?
So goodbye America; as with the Roman Empire and many others, powers raise and fall. Now thanks to illegal immigrants from Mexico, your time has come to fall. Then when all these Mexican American descendants look at each other in a few decades in the ashes of a former power and wonder why is the USA no better off than Mexico. They will just blame it on the whites. We are already racist for wanting our laws enforced. So what else is new? We are the blame for everything but try to get the American dream to work without us. Did it work in Mexico?

Posted by: AmericanJoe2 | August 12, 2010 8:48 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company