If Ronald Reagan were alive today, he probably would have cringed when he realized that his own party, the Republican Party, has been blocking the way for a comprehensive immigration reform. A law that our country is in desperate need, not only to resolve the issue of 15 million undocumented immigrants, but also to help kick start the return of an economically robust economy.
In fact Reagan would probably abhor the way many conservative republicans have been handling the immigration reform debate and would be worried about the eventual demise of the Republican Party, caused by the stranglehold of anti-immigrant conservatives. Regan, similar to Obama, fundamentally saw America as a land open to immigrants that believe in the “American Dream.” In November 1979 when announcing his candidacy for the presidency Reagan proposed a treaty allowing for full freedom of movement for all workers throughout North America. Even as far back as 1952 when the US immigration policy was still controlled by the very restrictive Immigration Act of 1924, Reagan gave a speech embracing nearly unlimited immigration: “I . . . have thought of America as a place in the divine scheme of things that was set aside as a promised land . . . [A]nd the price of admission was very simple . . . Any place in the world and any person from these places; any person with the courage, with the desire to tear up their roots, to strive for freedom, to attempt and dare to live in a strange and foreign place, to travel halfway across the world was welcome here . . . I believe that God in shedding his grace on this country has always in this divine scheme of things kept an eye on our land and guided it as a promised land for these people.
Every U.S. president since 1956 has permitted temporary immigrants immigration assistance. This begins with President Eisenhower in 1956 paroling 923 foreign-born orphans into the custody of U.S. military families looking to adopt them. During 1959-to 72, Presidents Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard Nixon used executive powers to parole into the U.S. a majority of 621,403 Cuban asylum seekers fleeing from Castro’s Cuba. In 1976, President Gerald Ford granted extended voluntary departure to defend from deportation an unknown number of Lebanese who escaped Lebanon for the U.S. President Jimmy Carter paroled 123,000 Cubans and Haitians into the U.S. during the Mariel boatliff in 1980 and most importantly President Ronald Reagan deferred deportation for children in more than 100,000 families if the parents of the families were gaining legal status under the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, IRCA, and granted AMNESTY to over three million immigrants . In 1990, President George H. Bush used executive powers to postpone deportations of up to 1.5 million spouses and children of people legalized under IRCA and in 1992, Presidents George H. Bush and Bill Clinton approved stays of deportation to about 190,000 El Salvadorans whose temporary protected status that permitted them to live and work in the U.S. had expired. And finally in 2012 President Barack Obama applied executive power to defer deportations for up to 1.8 million young immigrants in the U.S. illegally., who entered before they were 16 years of age and less than 31 years old,.
In his January 2011 Obama, in his State of the Union address in 2011, reminded the nation that success in the 21st century can only be accomplished though education, innovation, ,and rejuvenating America's infrastructure. Obama integrated immigration reform as a fundamental element in the "reinventing" of America. He announced that he was "prepared to work with Republicans and Democrats to protect our borders, enforce our laws and address the millions of undocumented workers who are now living in the shadows." Reagan's and Obama’s dream of peaceful, hardworking immigrants is diametrically opposed to anti-immigration views advocated glibly by the Tea Party, Mitt Romney, Martin Levin, Lou Dobbs, Bill O'Reilly, Pat Buchanan, Past Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, and many others who claim the mantle of Ronald Reagan. Reagan's work in immigration reform was unreserved. At a 1982 ceremony at Ellis Island he spoke emotively of immigrants who "possessed a determination that with hard work and freedom, they would live a better life and their children even more so." In 1986 he signed the immigration reform law that legalized almost 3 million illegal immigrants in exchange for sanctions against employers that knowingly hire illegal workers and for better border protection. In fact under President Reagan's term, more immigrants became part of the United States legally than under any previous U.S. president since Teddy Roosevelt. Reagan saw illegal immigrants not as criminals but as human beings working honestly for a better life for them and their family. In a 1977 radio show he pointed out that apples were rotting on New England trees because no Americans were willing to pick them. "It makes one wonder about the illegal alien fuss. Are great numbers of our unemployed really victims of the illegal alien invasion or are those illegal tourists actually doing work our own people won't do?" Reagan said. "One thing is certain in this hungry world; no regulation or law should be allowed if it results in crops rotting in the fields for lack of harvesters." Reagan’s consistently affirmative attitude towards immigrants and immigration was a fundamental aspect of his positive image of America. Republicans that disagree with Reagan's position on immigration would have to, in order to be consistent, discard much of Reagan’s approach to social and economic and social policy. Today's anti- immigration conservatives can continue their fight for immigration restrictions but they should not do so under the guise of Reagan republicanism. Reagan understood the economics of immigration in the U.S. Congress in preparing to engage in the upcoming immigration reform debate should take in earnest a study from the Cato Institute that concludes that there would be an estimate of a trillion dollar benefit to our country if the most expansive immigration policies are pursued. Economists Peter Dixon and Maureen Rimmer (Peter Dixon is the Sir John Monash Distinguished Professor and Maureen Rimmer is a Senior Research Fellow at the Centre of Policy Studies at Monash University in Australia. The U.S. Departments of Commerce, Agriculture, Homeland Security, and the U.S. International Trade Commission have applied the USAGE model of the U.S. economy. In doing so, they discovered that increased enforcement and reduced low-skilled immigration have a significant negative influence on the income of U.S. households by reducing U.S. household welfare by about 0.5 percent, or $80 billion. In distinction, legalization of low-skilled immigrant workers would produce significant income gains for American households and workers. Under an optimal visa tax the positive impact for U.S. households of legalization would be 1.27 percent of GDP or $180 billion. In Reagan’s farewell message to the nation he said “I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here.”
We've all heard the story of the Boy who "Cried Wolf," but have you heard the story of the President who cried Wolf so any time that his words lose all meaning.Here's how the story goes. On September 5, 2014, at the end of a two-day NATO summit, President Obama, without offering details or a timetable, failed to make a much anticipated commitment about whether he would use his executive power for immigration reform, in the coming weeks as he had earlier pledged. Instead he said "My expectation is that fairly soon, I'll be considering what the next steps are," In making this statement, he repeated his quotable words by saying that without congressional action to overhaul the immigration system, he would take steps to increase border security, to upgrade the processing of border crossers, to encourage legal immigration and to give immigrants who have been illegally in the United States for some time a path to become legal residents, pay taxes, pay a fine and learn English."I want to be very clear: My intention is, in the absence of...action by Congress, I'm going to do what I can do within the legal constraints of my office, because it's the right thing to do for the country," Haven't we heard this before?For the last several weeks, in Washington and the nation's immigrant communities, there's been a buzz, that President Obama would circumvent Congress and use his executive power to spare millions of illegal immigrants from deportation by offering them temporary legal status. There have been dozens of stories in the last few weeks suggesting that some sort of executive relief for the undocumented was just around the corner. An August 9 editorial in The New York Times, titled "Mr. Obama, Your Move," implied that some type of executive action was practically a fait accompli. The article went on to say, "The most obvious thing is to lift the threat of deportation from immigrants who should be the lowest priority for removal: those with citizen children, jobs, clean records and strong community ties. Some reports put the size of that group at four million to five million." But what's happening today is nothing new. Even before 2008, the same rhetoric has been traveling the same circle.Let's just list a few of Obama's "wolf cries"1. On Saturday, President Obama announced that he would postpone action on his repeated promises to overhaul federal immigration policies through executive authority until after the midterm elections in November.2. Just recently in June 2014, President Obama promised to take executive action on immigration reform by the end of the summer. And the president said he will not act after the November elections. 3. On October 16, 2013, notwithstanding nationwide demonstrations in early October that led to the arrest of eight House Democrats (Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), immigration activist Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (D-IL), and Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY). The other House members who were arrested when they blocked a street near the Capitol are Reps. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Joe Crowley (D-NY), Keith Ellison (D-MN), Al Green (D-TX), and Jan Schakowsky (D-IL). President Barack Obama reaffirmed his commitment to comprehensive immigration reform, assuring all that he would pressure Congress to bring up the issue the morning after a deal to reopen the government and raise the debt ceiling is passed.
4. On July 8, 2010, during an appearance on "John King USA," Univision anchor Jorge Ramos accused Obama and congressional Republicans for failing to take action to repair the nation's broken immigration system.
5. Guest host Jessica Yellin showed a video clip of Ramos asking candidate Obama in 2008 if he would commit to reforming the immigration system. Obama responded, "I cannot guarantee that it's going to be in the first 100 days. But what I can guarantee is that we will have in the first year an immigration bill that I strongly support and that I'm promoting and that I want to move that forward as quickly as possible."
That first year came and went and still, no immigration bill in sight. 6. In April 2012 interview on Univision, a Spanish language television network. Appearing on Univision's "Al Punto" show, Obama stated, "I can promise that I will try to do it [comprehensive immigration reform] in my first year of my second term." "La Promesa de Obama," his promise to achieve immigration reform during his first year as president, has proved empty.
7. On October 24, 2012 President Obama said emphatically that he is "confident" that, if reelected, he will oversee the route to immigration reform next year, in part because Republicans will have an interest in reaching out to a growing Latino voting bloc they have "alienated" in recent years.8. Remembering the 2008 campaign cycle, President Obama promised to overhaul immigration in his first year in office. Though he called for comprehensive reform in June of 2009, the effort got little push from the White House and since then it has gone nowhere.
9. Despite nationwide rallies in early October 2013 that led to the arrest of eight House Democrats, immigration reform has been relegated to Congress's back burner during the shutdown and debt ceiling crises, President Barack Obama (D) reaffirmed his commitment to immigration reform, promising that he would pressure Congress to bring up the issue the morning after a deal to reopen the government and raise the debt ceiling is passed.
Now after five years as president, who for the most part was carried into office on the backs of immigrant voters, Obama Wolf Cries again? And seriously, who still believes him?
September 5, 2014 - It’s been a year since the Senate passed a comprehensive immigration bill with bipartisan backing. The bill would resolve most of the open immigration issues plaguing this country. However, in light of the fact that the Tea Party Republicans have been holding prisoner the House of Representatives by a controlling a faction of the Republican Party for the last few years, the Senate bill has languished this whole time. Tea Party Republicans have pushed the House with a specific end goal, to engage the most supremacist and intolerant areas of their voting base.
Notwithstanding the way that the lion's share of Americans, and an extensive group of Republicans, feel that undocumented immigrants ought to be given a pathway to citizenship, the Tea Party has declined to move. Despite the fact that numerous powerful pioneers in the business, money related and agrarian fields have turned out and backed exhaustive migration change, to a great degree traditionalist wing of the House couldn't care less. Even, after the Congressional Budget Office has assessed that the Senate's bill will cut government planned shortages by $158 billion within one decade.. Notwithstanding, these formidable facts 'Tea Party traditionalists' won't permit this bill to see the House floor.
Other than the evident racial issues at play behind the Tea Party's complaints to anything that helps non-white foreigners get to be nationals, the other significant reason they are battling this without holding back is they expect that Democrats will win the gold ring for immigration change and for a considerable length of time to come, keep it. The truth of the matter is, the greater part of Hispanics and Asians in this nation vote in favor of the Democratic Party. The far-right is concerned that giving a great many undocumented immigrants a chance to venture out of the shadows and into the light will fundamentally mean the GOP will never have the capacity to win the White House. Particularly when you consider that today's GOP basically just engages old white individuals who scorn government and tan individuals with equivalent enthusiasm.
In this way, instead of progress their approaches and approach, and endeavor to be more comprehensive in their vision, Republicans, and particularly the Tea Party (however it is getting to be increasingly hard to separate between the two), have chosen to simply continue pushing against the tide of progress and grasp the contempt and bias that has turned into their trademark. I figure the inclination is that they simply need to speak to their constantly contracting base and verify that they can some way or another appear to vote in more prominent numbers than the much bigger area of the nation that rejects their vision. It is clearly a Quixotic arrangement, and is bound to fall flat, however in the without further ado, it may permit them to win decisions and clutch larger parts in gerrymandered voting locale.
Be that as it may, it creates the impression that the tide may be changing now in certain House races. In a key race in Colorado, Democratic competitor Andrew Romanoff has been pounding his adversary, officeholder Republican Rep. Mike Coffman, on his record and talk concerning movement issues. The AP ran a story on Friday itemizing how the GOP's absence of activity on migration might exceptionally well cost them this House seat, and in addition fate Senatorial competitor Cory Gardner in his offer to unseat Democratic officeholder Mark Udall. On his crusade site, Romanoff has a rundown of Coffman's activities and articulations with respect to migration change since taking office. As of now, this decision is seen as a throw up. Be that as it may, if Coffman loses, a key element will be his stance on migration.
In the mean time, in Nevada, Democratic competitor Erin Bilbray has likewise tried for the throat regarding highlighting her rival's perspectives and voting record on migration change. Rep. Joe Heck (R-NV) has called far-reaching migration change a "political contrivance" and has declined to go against the radical wing of the House GOP.
And there’s the rub for today's Republican Party. In their mechanical effort to charm the most moderate part of the American populace, and grasp the monstrous bigotry that rose to the surface amid and after Obama's decision, they've basically told the individuals who are not white, hetero, Christian guys, "We have no utilization for you." ((By permitting the Tea Party to essentially set the stage for the Republican Party these recent years, the GOP has betrayed its own particular long haul dissolvability)). With the party's activities these recent weeks, Republicans have fixed their destiny. Advancing, they will be simply a local political gathering. No longer a prominent political party.
September 4, 2014 - Over many years, it has been firmly established that the U.S. government tax collections would get a multi-billion-dollar bump if President Obama followed through on his promised executive order calling for temporary legal status to millions of undocumented residents. That is, if Obama does not take the same posture that he did with Syria, setting a “red line” for Assad not to use his chemical weapons hoard, and then calling off airstrikes.
In a report on Thursday the Center for American Progress said
1. Estimated $21.2 billion in additional payroll taxes would be collected over five years under one situation available to Obama, who has verbally made immigration reform a n alleged priority of his second term.
2. The increase in revenue is based on a setting where 4.7 million undocumented immigrants receive temporary legal status, permitting them to obtain work permits.
3. "Many workers and employers will be able to emerge from the underground economy and pay payroll taxes for the first time," the report said.
Obama, who had stalwart support from the Latino community in his 2012 re-election, had pressed Congress to pass a bill that would provide a pathway to citizenship for some of the 11.7 million undocumented inhabitants in the United States.
That struggle made advancement in the Democratic-led Senate, which passed a comprehensive immigration overhaul last year, but it got stuck in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, which refused pass the proposed legislation.
The Obama administration has since been analyzing administrative actions it can take on its own.
Of the 8 million illegal immigrants already working in a assortment of industries, about 3 million workers and their employers paid payroll taxes in 2010, the Center for American Progress report said. Granting work permits would mean the other 5 million workers "will go on the books."
The report predicts the wages of previously undocumented workers would grow by about 8.5 percent. Giving them full entry to the U.S. labor market would facilitate them in finding jobs to match their skills and maximize their earnings, it said.
THIS REPORT IS NOTHING NEW
A report issued by the Texas advocacy group, Greater Houston Partnership (GHP), a years ago, verified that legalization of undocumented workers would result in those workers paying more taxes and earning higher wages. The report used data collected by industry, in the Houston area from the Pew Hispanic Center to estimate the number of unauthorized immigrants.
The results where that if all undocumented workers in the Houston region were legalized and they and their employers paid Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, and federal income taxes, the additional tax revenues would exceed $1.4 billion. The report also demonstrates that with even with less than 100% legalization, there are still substantial potential revenues. If only 25% of the undocumented community is legalized, an additional $356.1 million in tax revenues would be generated.
Two-thirds of illegal immigrants currently pay Social Security, Medicare and personal income taxes
Consider this: a surprising two-thirds of illegal immigrants currently pay Social Security, Medicare and personal income taxes. According to the Congressional Budget Office and the Social Security Administration, undocumented immigrants pay many different types of taxes, including sales, property, and social security taxes individual income,
The influx in payment of taxes began in earnest in 1996, when the IRS created nine-digit individual taxpayer identification numbers (ITINs), It was designed to enable the IRS to track the tax returns of those who are ineligible for a Social Security number. It is believed that most taxpayers who use ITINs are illegal immigrants although a small portion of legal residents also has them.
Officially, the Social Security Administration estimates that about seventy five percent (75%) of illegal workers contribute to the overall solvency of Social Security and Medicare by paying taxes.
About $75 billion in wages from people who filed W2 forms with incorrect or mismatched data, about $9 billion in taxes was paid.
In 2005 the agency estimates that on about $75 billion in wages from people who filed W2 forms with incorrect or mismatched data, about $9 billion in taxes was paid.
This amount would include illegal immigrants using fake names and Social Security numbers. Although the influence on Social Security is considerable because most of the money received is never claimed by the illegal immigrant who pays into the system. Instead of the money returning to the rightful owner, it is used to cover the deficit in retirement checks payable to legal workers.
A study conducted by the Social Security Administration from census and Immigration and Customs Enforcement data in 2007 enabled them to project the effects of higher and lower immigration patterns. They concluded that with high immigration the SSA's combined trust fund would be exhausted in 2043 and if the immigration numbers were half the amount, the fund would run out four years earlier.
At a Congressional hearing in 2006 then IRS Commission Mark Everson told Congress "many illegal aliens, utilizing ITINs, have been reporting tax liability to the tune of almost $50 billion from 1996 to 2003."
Even with hard numbers and facts verified by our own government anti-immigrant proponents continue to mislead the public. Illegal immigrants contribute $428 billion dollars to the nation’s $13.6 trillion gross domestic product in 2006.
True, the contributions of illegal immigrants remain contentious. There are those that argue that illegal aliens make no contribution because they are parasites to governmental programs; they do not pay anywhere near the amount they take to make up for it. Another group argues that they pay more than they should because they will not be eligible for the Social Security they are paying for until their immigration status is resolved, if ever. Dr. William F. Ford a professor at Middle Tennessee State University and an expert on immigration and taxes assesses that (illegal immigrants contribute $428 billion dollars to the nation’s $13.6 trillion gross domestic product in 2006.) “If anything we need more immigrants coming into the country, not less, especially with the baby boomers retiring,” said Ford in an Associated Press article
The constantly increasing number of taxpayers parallels the national immigration reform debate.
Francine J. Lipman, a Professor of Law at Chapman University School of Law, in the S Harvard Latino Law Review wrote an article "Taxing Undocumented Immigrants: Separate, Unequal and Without Representation,” In it she wrote: "[U]ndocumenteds actually contribute more to public coffers in taxes than they cost in social services...
[E]ach year undocumented immigrants add billions of dollars in sales, excise, property, income and payroll taxes, including Social Security, Medicare and unemployment taxes, to federal, state and local coffers. Hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants go out of their way to file annual federal and state income tax returns.
Yet undocumented immigrants are barred from almost all government benefits...Generally, the only benefits federally required for undocumented immigrants are emergency medical care, subject to financial and category eligibility, and elementary and secondary public education. Many undocumented immigrants will not even access these few critical government services because of their ever-present fear of government officials and deportation.
Undocumented immigrants living in the United States are subject to the same income tax laws as documented immigrants and U.S. citizens. However, because of their status most unauthorized workers pay a higher effective tax rate than similarly situated documented or U.S. citizens. Yet, these workers and their families use fewer government services than similarly situated documented immigrants or U.S. citizens...As a result, undocumented immigrants provide a fiscal windfall and may be the most fiscally beneficial of all immigrants."
In general, though, illegal immigrants get fewer tax breaks. They cannot claim the Earned Income Tax Credit, which can be $4,700 for a family of four earning less than $12,000.
It is not just federal taxes that illegal immigrants pay, All illegal immigrants pay state sales taxes, contributing to the upkeep of public facilities such as roads, police and fire departments, and many pay property taxes that contribute toward the schooling of their children. The non-partisan National Research Council found that they contribute on average $80,000 more to federal treasury than they consume.
One can only imagine, the far-reaching positive effect to our country’s economy the passage of an immigration reform law would have. The 11 million illegal immigrants would become a fully contributing part of American society and the economy would blossom; just what the founders of our constitution envisioned in the first place.
August 22, 2014 - Alpha Natural Resources, one of the largest coal producers in the country, revealed last month that it plans to lay off approximately 1,100 coal miners and support staff by mid-October. These job cuts are sweeping through the country this year.
What can the dismissed employees do if they have problems paying their mortgage, household expenses or credit card debt?
There are Two Solutions – Chapter 7 and Chapter 13
A Chapter 7 bankruptcy refers to the chapter of the Bankruptcy Code that contains the bankruptcy law. A Chapter 7 bankruptcy is sometimes called "liquidation" bankruptcy. This is because a successful bankruptcy liquidates (wipes out) most of your debts.
The Chapter 7 bankruptcy in both New York and New Jersey process takes from three to six months. Usually there is only one appearance. This is not in front of a judge, but in front of a Trustee ( a lawyer who represents the bankruptcy court). A New york or New Jersey licensed bankruptcy lawyer appears with you at the 341 meeting.
The Petition: To file for bankruptcy, you fill out a petition and several other forms. Normally a licensed New York or New Jersey bankruptcy lawyer prepares and files the petition and forms with the bankruptcy court in your area.
Once filed the automatic stay goes into effect!
The Automatic Stay: One of the most important benefits of filing bankruptcy is the "automatic stay." The automatic stay is very powerful and immediately stops your creditors from trying to collect what you owe them. Even if they have sued you in court state court or your property is being sold, everything must stop. Creditors cannot legally take (garnish) your wages, empty your bank account, go after your car, house or other property, or cut off your utility service or welfare benefits. This is true for New York, New Jersey and every other state. The automatic stay goes into effect immediately upon filing your bankruptcy petition with the bankruptcy court.
Court Control: Until your bankruptcy case is completed your financial problems are in the hands of the bankruptcy court. It assumes legal control of the property you own and the debts you owe as of the date you file. Certain properties are exempt, which is yours to keep and the court does not control. Until the end, nothing can be sold or paid without the court's permission. Whether a property is exempt depends on the state you reside. The exempt properties in New Jersey are different than the exempt properties in New York.
The Bankruptcy Trustee: The bankruptcy court appoints person called a "bankruptcy trustee." The bankruptcy trustee is interested in finding out what you own and what property you claim as exempt. This is due to the fact that the bankruptcy trustee's primary duty is to make sure that your creditors are paid as much as possible on what you owe them, if you have the ability to pay from your property that is not exempt. The more assets the bankruptcy trustee recovers for creditors, the more the bankruptcy trustee is paid.
The “341 Meeting of Creditors”: At the “341 Meeting” the bankruptcy trustee reviews the papers you filed and asks you questions, which you must respond. This meeting is usually very short and takes less than five minutes. Creditors are entitled to attend, too, but rarely do, unless there was some fraud committed. You appear with your bankruptcy lawyer.
At the conclusion of the bankruptcy process, the bankruptcy court wipes out most of your debts in what is called a “discharge in bankruptcy.” You are no longer in debt to your creditors. Note that you cannot file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy again for another eight years from the date of your filing.
A chapter 13 bankruptcy is an ideal part of our federal laws. You apply it to stop a house foreclosure, make up the missed mortgage payments and keep the house. You can also pay off back taxes through your New Jersey Chapter 13 plan and stop interest from accruing on your tax debt. It lets you rearrange your financial affairs, repay a portion of your debts and put yourself back on your financial feet. The most important thing about Chapter 13 is that it will allow you to keep your valuables—especially your home and car—which might otherwise be lost. You repay your debts through a Chapter 13 plan. The plan shows how you intend to repay of all or a portion of your debts.
Under a typical chapter 13 bankruptcy plan, you make monthly payments to a person called the Chapter 13 trustee, who is appointed by the bankruptcy court. The chapter 13 Trustee collects the money paid by you under the plan and disburses it to your creditors as the plan directs. Upon completion of the payments in the chapter 13 plan, you will be discharged from liability for the remainder of your debts. The plan can last from 3 to 5 years.
You should consider filing a Chapter 13 plan if you:
Own your home and are behind in your monthly mortgage payments;
Are behind on debt payments, but can catch up if given some time;
Have valuable property, which is not exempt, but you can afford to pay creditors from your income over time.
You have a 2nd Mortgage and the value of your home has dropped.
You will need to have enough income in a debt consolidation plan to pay off your basic monthly expenses, including your monthly mortgage and have enough for the monthly Plan payments.
Meet a Bankruptcy Lawyer