How President Eisenhower Dealt With America’s First Illegal Immigrant Crisis

[ttwtt78640]

Obama deported 2.5 million illegal immigrants

Yep, and what did that do to the total number of illegal immigrants inside the US? The problem is that Jose can illegally cross the border into the US 4 times and be counted as as 3 deportations (removals or returns) yet still be here.

 

[Frigidweirdo]

Yep, and what did that do to the total number of illegal immigrants inside the US? The problem is that Jose can illegally cross the border into the US 4 times and be counted as as 3 deportations (removals or returns) yet still be here.

And under Eisenhower, how many were deported and came back again and were counted 10 times?

 

[ttwtt78640]

And under Eisenhower, how many were deported and came back again and were counted 10 times?

I have no idea, yet we seem to agree that improved border security is required to stop that nonsense.

 

[Fledermaus]

and still, if a project of this scale was proposed today with a top tax rate of 91% and a union membership rate of 35%, the right wing would lose its ****.

Capitalism and Defense... Why would "the right" lose its ****?

Pining for the high marginal tax rates of the 1950s doesn't do us any good. The rich still avoided paying taxes in those days — and the taxes they did pay went to funding Cold War militarism, not domestic spending.

The high point of taxation on the wealthy came during World War II, when the IRS reported (in 1943) that the wealthiest 0.2 percent of Americans were forking over a full 49.3 percent of their reported income just in income taxes. This fell to a little over 31 percent by 1949, then briefly spiked up to 35 percent in 1950 to pay for the Korean War. By 1960, despite official top marginal tax rates of 91 percent, the richest Americans were paying only 31 percent of their income in income taxes. Aided by tax shelters, rich people were making a mockery of the nominal rates.

Give Us AOC’s 70% Tax Rates — But Save the 1950s Nostalgia

 

[Glitch]

How President Eisenhower Sent 3 Million Illegals Packing



Today, this person would be ostracised and a target of violence. How things have changed.

President Eisenhower did not have to deal with America's first illegal immigrant crisis, President Wilson did in 1916. President Wilson sent General "Blackjack" Pershing into Mexico for a year in search for Poncho Villa and his gang (who he never found), who had attacked Columbus, New Mexico (killing 19), before retreating back into Mexico.

 

[Frigidweirdo]

I have no idea, yet we seem to agree that improved border security is required to stop that nonsense.

Sure, but attacking Obama is kind of ridiculous.

Attacking the whole system makes sense, because it's become so partisan that nothing good can ever happen.

 

[Helix]

Capitalism and Defense... Why would "the right" lose its ****?

Pining for the high marginal tax rates of the 1950s doesn't do us any good. The rich still avoided paying taxes in those days — and the taxes they did pay went to funding Cold War militarism, not domestic spending.

The high point of taxation on the wealthy came during World War II, when the IRS reported (in 1943) that the wealthiest 0.2 percent of Americans were forking over a full 49.3 percent of their reported income just in income taxes. This fell to a little over 31 percent by 1949, then briefly spiked up to 35 percent in 1950 to pay for the Korean War. By 1960, despite official top marginal tax rates of 91 percent, the richest Americans were paying only 31 percent of their income in income taxes. Aided by tax shelters, rich people were making a mockery of the nominal rates.

Give Us AOC’s 70% Tax Rates — But Save the 1950s Nostalgia

because the right loses its **** over any top marginal tax rate that is more than another tax cut for the rich.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Sure, but attacking Obama is kind of ridiculous.

Attacking the whole system makes sense, because it's become so partisan that nothing good can ever happen.

Until we seriously address the employment demand the rest is simply a sideshow.

 

[Fledermaus]

because the right loses its **** over any top marginal tax rate that is more than another tax cut for the rich.

Nice sidestep....

The top 1% pays how much of the taxes?

In 2016, the top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined. The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid roughly $538 billion, or 37.3 percent of all income taxes, while the bottom 90 percent paid about $440 billion, or 30.5 percent of all income taxes.

Summary of the Latest Federal Income Tax Data, 2018 Update

 

[Frigidweirdo]

Until we seriously address the employment demand the rest is simply a sideshow.

Which is never going to happen properly until the system is sorted out.

Until people get the representation they actually want, then the political cons (doesn't mean conservative here) actually have to think about what the people they supposedly represent want.

 

[Frigidweirdo]

Nice sidestep....

The top 1% pays how much of the taxes?

In 2016, the top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined. The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid roughly $538 billion, or 37.3 percent of all income taxes, while the bottom 90 percent paid about $440 billion, or 30.5 percent of all income taxes.

Summary of the Latest Federal Income Tax Data, 2018 Update

And how much advantage does the government give them so they can earn that much of the taxes?

 

[Individual]

Ah, I see you subscribe to the asinine idea that anything the government spends money on is "socialism."

If so, that would include the military, police, etc.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Which is never going to happen properly until the system is sorted out.

Until people get the representation they actually want, then the political cons (doesn't mean conservative here) actually have to think about what the people they supposedly represent want.

It is never going to happen because of two groups (with some overlap): 1) those who want more immigration (legal or not) to accelerate what they see as favorable demographic changes and 2) those who want more immigration (legal or not) to keep US labor costs down.

 

[Frigidweirdo]

It is never going to happen because of two groups (with some overlap): 1) those who want more immigration (legal or not) to accelerate what they see as favorable demographic changes and 2) those who want more immigration (legal or not) to keep US labor costs down.

Of course, well it's not going to happen because neither the reps nor dems see it in their interests to give up power, and the rich and powerful like being able to easily control government.

There are two differing views on immigration, but surely the people should be able to decide what happens to their country. But because of the way the political system works, they get NO SAY AT ALL.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Of course, well it's not going to happen because neither the reps nor dems see it in their interests to give up power, and the rich and powerful like being able to easily control government.

There are two differing views on immigration, but surely the people should be able to decide what happens to their country. But because of the way the political system works, they get NO SAY AT ALL.

Folks cannot expect to get change by re-electing over 90% of the congress critters.

 

[Frigidweirdo]

Folks cannot expect to get change by re-electing over 90% of the congress critters.

Folks don't seem to even want change, simply because they've been told they don't want it.

Every thread about Proportional Representation is met with a wall of bad information from people who want to keep the status quo. You have to wonder why they want this.