Irishman set to be deported from the US

joseywhales wrote: »

It's hardly laziness, they have the highest salaries in the world, high social mobility, excellent infrastructure, education and health systems, they also have more land , less population density than other developed countries. They are clearly the optimal choice for living standards. I guess you could move to Somalia and be less "lazy" about it.

You had to pick a basket case country, didn't you? Not Germany, Sweden, France etc.

More land? What's that got to do with anything?
Join a wagon train and head West??

pinkyeye wrote: »

You're completely wrong. He was paying tax and providing employment.

It's a particular hypocrisy in the US that you can pay tax even if you are illegal. :rolleyes:

And it’s a bigger fallacy when we hear the illegals pay taxes in the US. sure they do... pay $1 and use $10. Sales tax, tax lumped into their rent and a few others… but nothing compared to the tax dollars they utilize like the cost of schooling for their children, roads, bridges, infrastructure, welfare and medical care. If the illegals stopped paying their taxes AND stopped getting tax benefits the US would come out over $100 billion ahead (revenue from illegals $11.6 billion, yet tax outlay costs for them are over $116 billion).

notobtuse wrote: »

And it’s a bigger fallacy when we hear the illegals pay taxes in the US. sure they do... pay $1 and use $10. Sales tax, tax lumped into their rent and a few others… but nothing compared to the tax dollars they utilize like the cost of schooling for their children, roads, bridges, infrastructure, welfare and medical care. If the illegals stopped paying their taxes AND stopped getting tax benefits the US would come out over $100 billion ahead (revenue from illegals $11.6 billion, yet tax outlay costs for them are over $116 billion).

Pish. A child born in the US to illegals is a US citizen the same as a child born in the US to a legal immigrant which is the same as a child born to a direct descendant of the Mayflower. As such, each citizen is entitled to schooling etc.


Notwithstanding, as I am sure you are aware, the quality of public education is the US is extremely highly location dependent. Feel free to contradict me if you disagree. Schools will also actually get funding depending on their scores. What that means is that if the students of a particular score badly, it gets less money for resources. So you have a cycle where students in poorer areas start off surrounded by people who are struggling and not really focused on education. Often with English not spoken or as a second language. They then go to poorly funded schools and receive poor education, get low scores and the school keeps on its low level funding for the next generation. This of course is ignored by the better off who can afford to move the the better neighbourhood with the better local schools. Or maybe even send their kids to a nice private school. And then they can point the finger at little Jose whose parents came illegally and worked cleaning toilets and had a flat in the rough area of the city. They can tell themselves that the reason their little Tarquin is outscoring Jose is that Jose is lazy and they convince themselves that Jose has equal opportunity and that if only he took advantage of his opportunity to "work hard".


And, as I am sure you are well aware, plenty of illegals work and pay tax under false SSNs. Employers don't check or turn a blind eye to menial jobs that they can't find natives to do anyway. I think that the illegals can theoretically get an ITIN easier but many just submit their taxes under the false SSN. As such, they pay into the system but can't draw Social Security out of it at the other end.


Without the "illegals", plenty of sections of US economy would disintegrate. Whether that is picking fruit and vegetables or the company that comes in to empty the bins in your office and hoover at night. It's a form of exploitation. Which is also often conveniently ignored by the types of people who want to start charging them for using their roads and bridges..........

malinheader wrote: »

So if you're illegally in the USA you're still entitled to welfare and medical care.

Medical care yes, education yes, many also have bough social security cards so I am sure there is social security somehow.

That is not the issue. Currently the town where I live is small. 10 years ago there were 36 illegals living here. Now there are over 500. It puts pressure on services, it costs local tax payers a fortune, yes money from mine and every other tax payer locally funds the education of illegals children...do I mind.. not really.

Due to the numbers of children, they now want to build a new school...estimate 20 million. That I DO have an issue with. Paid out of local funds (small population) will mean large tax increases.

I have no issue with people coming to the States, but to come here illegally and expect all the services without contributing fully is not right for them or the general population.

A simple idea, charge people for temporary work visas with the chance of a green card based on contributions to tax and also society. This will solve quite a few issues...it will record these people who are mostly frightened, it will also allow them to stop being abused by unscrupulous employers and also give them a fighting chance to live normal lives not in the shadows.

A work visa costs around 5000 dollars with lawyers fees, charge them 2000. This would also raise money for the services that they use.

Bob24 wrote: »

I am no US immigration specialist, but what I would think is that once you break some immigration laws (entering or remaining illegally), you are forfeiting your entitlement for most legal immigration routes.

Berserker wrote: »

No problem at all.
No, they review it on a case by case basis and immigration services will decided whether or not you are up to the standards that are required to gain citizenship. Given the nature of the crimes committed by this guy, coupled with the fact that he's been working on a consistent basis, I think he may have accepted.

Actually I was correct.

Confirmation here that that simple fact of overstaying does indeed void certain rights related to legal immigration: https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/things-are-not-looking-good-for-cork-man-facing-deportation-from-us-936921.html

“On the same programme immigration lawyer James O’Malley, who is originally from Limerick, but is now based in New York, said that under the ESTA visitor visa system, if a person overstays they automatically waive the right to challenge the deportation system.”

Cork Trucker wrote: »

I had a recent vetting disclosure done and i just looked at it. I was convicted of Section 2 ( common) assault under the non fatal offences against the person act 1997, there are 2 convictions for the same offence recorded on the same date in May 1998, 4 months after i turned 18, i was out on the lash and got heavily drunk/into a fight with 2 people, both matters were dealt with simultaneously by the courts i was convicted on one, the other taken into consideration, this is where i was caught in the legislation as it is classed as more than 1 conviction from the same incident. I've carried that cross for the last 21 years and been rejected by both the U.S and Oz in 2008 as a result, the spent convictions legislation does not apply to my case.

Did you actually serve a custodial sentence of over 12 months? For Australia you would only be rejected if you spent more than 12 months inside.

malinheader wrote: »

So if you're illegally in the USA you're still entitled to welfare and medical care.

Yup, 63% of non-citizen households access welfare programs compared to 35% of native households. Emergency medical services are guaranteed by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (1986) and require hospitals to provide emergency care regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay.

seasidedub wrote: »

Can I just add that I recently paid a painter 970e to paint the outside of the house which was done over the course of a week, couple of hours in the evening as the painter is so busy and has a waiting list.

I imagine if the man in question comes back, he'll be ok for work......

Ironically that painter probably doesn't paint the outside of his own house.


That's because I assume that his own house does not have block walls and is surrounded by glass. And it's located at the top of a really steep hill. With nothing else for over one mile in every direction. And he sits there all day looking out through his telescope.


I'm guessing the above. But all I know is

NSAman wrote: »

And where does the balance of that headline bill come from? Other insured people.

I know I have been on both ends of this scale, with insurance and without insurance for the same thing.

With insurance, the cost was 5000 dollars

Without insurance it cost me 200 dollars.

Drugs in insurance cost me 350 dollars without insurance it cost me 40 dollars....

All this has to be paid for.It is the American Citizen and legal immigrants who are footing the bills in the form of tax and higher costs personally.

Don't get me wrong, I am not anti-immigration (I am one myself) but there is a way legally to do it.

If you are used to US system, you are familiar with the difference between in-network and out-of-network. And that difference can be substantial. What you would pay a few tens of Euros for in Ireland could be billed as a headline figure for thousands in US

Headline figure is usually not the one paid

NSAman wrote: »

I'm familiar with the terms.

When you have NO insurance... which was the case (thanks Obama Care) these are the figures, not simply in-network and out-of-network.

Oh add to that the penalty of 700 dollars for not having insurance on my Tax return.

By the way, the figures above were for the same treatment for the same issue, IN the same hospital.

You missed my point.


The hospitals do not charge the economic cost of their services as their headline costs. The insurance companies do deals for in-network charges although they don't necessarily actually receive this amount as there will be other discounts - this is especially true for medication. Suppose you have a procedure done. As a simplistic example for those not familiar with how it might typically work, you have a $20 deductible/co-pay and your plan pays 80% of the remainder. The out-of-network cost is quoted as $250. The in-network is quoted as $120. You are in-network. Then you pay $40 ($20 co-pay + 20% of 100). You'd naively expect the insurance has to pay the other $80 but in reality they don't. They have other discounts and rebates behind the scenes so that they might also only actually pay another $20. So the provider actually receives $60 in total.


When you are saying that drugs with insurance cost you $350 I assume you are referring to what was on the bill to your insurance. As explained above, you will have your contribution based off this figure of $350. The insurance company doesn't actually pay the remainder. What the system does is make is make you pay a larger contribution while also tricking you into thinking you are getting more benefit than you actually are from your insurance. Additionally, for drugs, there are actually a lot of other middle men creaming off along the way before the money gets back to the maker of the drugs. The actual cost can be pennies on the dollar.

If you are out-of-network, your insurance company will either cap what they will pay out on - although this is usually based on a comparison basis with other providers in the area and so there is a cartel/pseudo-collusion effect. You will have a much higher deductible for out-of-network and then a lower percentage covered.



Anyway, my point to the above is that if you are just one individual with no insurance, they hospital will take advantage of you for the $250 if they can get away with it. Nothing is done about it because most people have insurance and don't care. If you can't pay, maybe they'll do a deal with you for $50. They will still make money on that.



If you get knocked off your bicycle and brought to the ER by ambulance and have a few scans/X-rays taken and are kept in overnight for observation, it isn't actually costing the hospital $10k to do that. That could be their headline costs. But nobody is paying that. (I'm not exaggerating on the 10k cost either, as I am sure you can attest to if you are familiar with the system). What the law quoted in that other post basically says is that if you are badly injured and lying in the door of the hospital, they can't refuse to treat you until you prove you can pay their fees.

holyhead wrote: »

As an illegal he wouldn't have been paying taxes?

Actually, illegals can pay taxes in the US. They can have an SSN and be fully compliant in most aspects of their lives, bar visa/citizenship. This guy was apparently running a painting business and employing others, IIRC.