"The American Indians found out what happens when you don't control immigration."
Foxfyre wrote:Do I think any of these to be wacko fringe sources? No I don't. Which ones do you consider to be wacko fringe sources? Why?
http://www.americanpatrol.com
Current headline:
States Fight Treason
More and More Oppose Merger With Mexico
But no, I'm not surprised that this doesnt look fringe to you. I suspect it's probably close to your mainstream.
Quote: I thought I was pretty careful to read each one to ensure that it did.
This is a 100% lie. There's no possible way that you
looked, even glanced, at some of those links, and concluded that they support your case whatsoever.
Also, here's a tip about Teh Google for you: 90k hits is
nothing. Practically every search you make will number in the tens of millions. For something to score so low really does indicate that it is rare.
The various Liberals and Moderates here have shown that your argument was incorrect to begin with, and the evidence you showed to support that term was used 'pretty much universally
' showed the exact opposite. Your argument has been crushed on its' foundations, which have nothing to do with your personality or you specifically at all, and everything to do with the fact that it was a
sh*tty argument to begin with. You should try swallowing your pride and admitting it so we can move on.
Or not - frankly, it's entertaining either way
Cycloptichorn
Low-skilled aliens exact a burden
By S.A. Miller
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
April 5, 2007
Immigration reforms that increase the number of low-skilled workers entering the United States threaten to impose a high cost on taxpayers, says a study being released today.
The Heritage Foundation report calculates that for every $1 unskilled workers pay in taxes they receive about $3 in government benefits, including Medicaid, food stamps, public housing and other welfare programs.
It should serve as a warning to President Bush and lawmakers proposing to give illegal aliens a so-called path to citizenship or what critics call amnesty, said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, which handles immigration bills.
"We need to make sure any legislation does not further strain government services and taxpayers' wallets," said Mr. Smith, who will make public the report for the conservative Washington think tank today.
The report on low-skilled workers, who are defined as those without a high school diploma, did not focus on immigrants, but its authors say 25 percent of legal immigrants and 50 percent of illegal aliens fall into the category. About 9 percent of native-born Americans lack a high school diploma.
Using data from 2004, the report shows the average household headed by a low-skilled worker paid $9,689 in taxes but received $32,138 in benefits a year. The more than $22,000 difference is the "tax burden" which rises to $1.1 million over the worker's lifetime.
Mr. Bush has called for legalizing the estimated 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens in the United States, and for a new program to allow more foreign workers in the future.
He faces opposition from many congressional Republicans who say allowing illegal aliens to remain amounts to amnesty. They also want Mr. Bush to focus on better immigration enforcement before beginning a new guest-worker program.
Chief among the critics is Rep. Brian P. Bilbray, chairman of the Immigration Reform Caucus, who hailed the study.
"The Heritage Foundation report proves what we already know, that illegal immigration is a drain to the American people," the California Republican said. "At more than $22,000 a year, it's like having the American taxpayers buy everyone who doesn't have a high school diploma a brand new Ford Mustang convertible."
Eric Rodriguez, deputy vice president of the National Council of La Raza, the country's largest Hispanic civil rights organization, said studies frequently overlook significant contributions immigrants make to the economy.
"A lot of the more recent studies we've seen show that more undocumented workers are contributing to Social Security and they will never be eligible for Social Security benefits," Mr. Rodriguez said. "A lot of that tends not to be captured by these types of studies."
In 2004, according to the Heritage Foundation report, the country had 17.7 million low-skilled households that together cost taxpayers $397 billion that year. Those households, without an influx of new unskilled workers, will cost at least $3.9 trillion over the next 10 years.
The Heritage Foundation plans to release a separate analysis focused solely on low-skilled immigrant households in the next few weeks.
Stephen Dinan contributed to this report.
I'm no longer entertained. Pretending it's personal after OE went to a fair amount of trouble to obliterate your false claims is yet another deplorable denial of the facts. I try not to waste much time on people who lack the decency face facts head on. Nimh demonstrated the falseness of your argument, before you even produced your list (was that the third time that happened yesterday?
) and then OE thoroughly exposed your fabled research. It is clear that you, yourself, never even bothered to do the homework you pretended to do, then demanded that a response should be comprehensive (not cherry picked). I'll try very hard not to waste time in the future digging up facts for one who has no respect for same.
(A brilliant man once painted an image for me of a woman sitting at the kitchen table, reading hyper-partisan nonsense, nodding eagerly, as it confirmed her preconceived misconceptions. Boy, did I laugh...)
Foxfyre wrote:For somebody who has yet to credibly substantiate ANY of his claims or show with any credibility how mine have been in error other than those I have admitted...
The amazing thing is; you
really seem to believe that.
I've challenged O'bill on many issues, many times. I've even attacked him personally, something which I tend to do when I lose my temper (I'm working on it). He's never attacked me personally back, even though he had provocation. You may want to consider that the problem lies with You, Fox, and not with everyone else.
Cycloptichorn
You're obviously not working on it hard enough.
Foxfyre wrote:You're obviously not working on it hard enough.
Flip answer, but immaterial to the current discussion.
Cycloptichorn
nimh wrote:Foxfyre wrote:Do I think any of these to be wacko fringe sources? No I don't. Which ones do you consider to be wacko fringe sources? Why?
http://www.americanpatrol.com
Current headline:
States Fight Treason
More and More Oppose Merger With Mexico
But no, I'm not surprised that this doesnt look fringe to you. I suspect it's probably close to your mainstream.
Yes, I would have picked that website, too. It's a splendid example of a wacko fringe source....
[URL=http://www.americanpatrol.com/REFERENCE/Homeland-Insecurity.html]AmericanPatrol.com[/URL] wrote:
And no, they don't hate Bush because they're so wacko leftwing communist. They hate him because they're so wacko rightwing nationalist.
But obviously my definition of "wacko fringe" is different from yours, as you've already professed that you don't consider them to be "wacko fringe".
Foxfyre wrote:No I don't.
old europe wrote:nimh wrote:Foxfyre wrote:Do I think any of these to be wacko fringe sources? No I don't. Which ones do you consider to be wacko fringe sources? Why?
http://www.americanpatrol.com
Current headline:
States Fight Treason
More and More Oppose Merger With Mexico
But no, I'm not surprised that this doesnt look fringe to you. I suspect it's probably close to your mainstream.
Yes, I would have picked that website, too. It's a splendid example of a wacko fringe source....
[URL=http://www.americanpatrol.com/REFERENCE/Homeland-Insecurity.html]AmericanPatrol.com[/URL] wrote:
And no, they don't hate Bush because they're so wacko leftwing communist. They hate him because they're so wacko rightwing nationalist.
But obviously my definition of "wacko fringe" is different from yours, as you've already professed that you don't consider them to be "wacko fringe".
Foxfyre wrote:No I don't.
Did you observe that the first American Patrol headline you posted referred to a CNN interview including Lou Dobbs and others? And did you read the articles under the insulting photos of the second instance you are citing here? If insulting photos condemn a site as wacko fringe, then you will have to include A2K in that designation as well.
I included the American Patrol as a mostly anti-conservative, anti-Bush, anti GOP site taking the opposite side of many issues that interest me. It was included as an equal-opportunity site to help counter some of the more conservative sites I also posted.
I have not generally found it as blatantly dishonest as some of the wacko fringe sites though, but if you want to designate it as wacko fringe, I could be persuaded.
Foxfyre wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote:Foxfyre wrote:For somebody who has yet to credibly substantiate ANY of his claims or show with any credibility how mine have been in error other than those I have admitted...
The amazing thing is; you
really seem to believe that.
I absolutely believe that.
The proof is pretty much that every time you are challenged on a specific issue, you change the subject or personally attack.
Others here also are ignoring any questions or facts presented by me or anybody else that would be really embarrassing for them to acknowledge or answer.
You'll find little agreement with that assessment from friend or foe. That you would even state such nonsense shows your character. For years, you've appreciated my takes when they're conservative, and now that we disagree on a subject you'll pretend there's something inherently wrong with my technique? Here; I'll give you an example of what a personal attack would look like:
"Foxfyre; you are a shallow hypocrite who lacks the integrity to face the truth when it's presented. You are so thoroughly dominated by hyper-partisanship, it is rare when you produce a thought of your own, let alone demonstrate any ability to defend it. Your accusations are as obviously false as your positions are predefined. Outside of being a dependable gopher for conservative op-eds; I have rarely had much use or respect for your input." <-- That's what a personal attack would look like.
Gee Bill. Are you saying that this is not the opinion of me that you have been prsenting all along on this issue?
Yes, I have appreciated your take on things on most issues, and I have zero problem with you taking a different position than mine on this issue as we have disagreed on other issues as well. This is the first time however that you've chosen to make it personal as well as hateful and ugly. Forgive me if I take exception to that. I don't think it is helpful or useful to the debate.
Amendment to my previous post to OE. I should have left anti-conservative out of my list for American Patrol. I honestly don't know what their ideology is there since they focus on immigration issues. But I would invite you to persuade me as to their wacko-ism by providing an article or point of view they present that you would consider too dishonest or off the wall to be a credible point of view.
Foxfyre wrote:Gee Bill. Are you saying that this is not the opinion of me that you have been prsenting all along on this issue?
Yes, I have appreciated your take on things on most issues, and I have zero problem with you taking a different position than mine on this issue as we have disagreed on other issues as well. This is the first time however that you've chosen to make it personal as well as hateful and ugly. Forgive me if I take exception to that. I don't think it is helpful or useful to the debate.
I grew tired of your false accusations and decided to comply. I assure you there is no hate, I'm just weary of the nonsense, and will adjust my own behavior accordingly. Good day.
Oh, and OE, you have been persistent in expecting an answer to your questions. I have attempted to answer all or at least most recently I think. I am still waiting for your response to this one:
Quote:You might have a better argument, however, if you could show how the phrase (anchor baby) is in fact perjorative as opposed to a convenient term to describe a specific immigration issue.
Also in your honest effort to show American Patrol as a wacko fringe site, did you overlook this question from the same post after your assertion that all of my listed sites did not use the phrase anchor baby?
Quote:Which ones do not use the phrase)? I thought I was pretty careful to read each one to ensure that it did. Nor did I say that they all related to the immigration issue. I thought I mentioned that some gave other definitions for the term. If I didn't do that, that was my intent. My whole point with the list was to show that it is a descriptive and not a racistl or defamatory term. Of course it can be used that way. ANY word can be used that way. I don't use it that way.
