OCCOM BILL wrote:DontTreadOnMe wrote:dude, ya gotta get past declaring anyone who disagrees with ya about this issue a bigot or ignorant or both.. or whatever.
if anyone
here, on a2k was saying shite like, "i'm cool with any illegals being here except mexicans, or salvadorans, or chinese" or whatever; then
that would be bigotry or racism.
but noone on this thread has said anything like that. not that i've noticed anyway.
you're just hurting the cause that you seek to champion when ya do that.
That just means you haven't noticed. Bigotry is amply demonstrated by McG's "beaner" slur, countless bogus reports of ridiculously exaggerated crime statistics and CJHSA's pronouncement that 30 million Mexicans need a ride out of the country...
You are giving bigots, liars and idiots a free pass by pretending my use of mostly conditional invectives is without due cause.
fair enough, i usually scroll past their posts..
and although i'm holding my nose as i type this, mcg's post, as i understand it was a quote from a mexican comic. that's where alot of this stuff gets messed up. to me, if a word is bad.. well, it's bad. and if it's a word that's used to describe a group that you belong to, ya probably are better off not using it about yourself. it just keeps the **** afloat.
however, i really don't think either mystery or okie have been racist in their posts. i know damn well i haven't.
as far as a free pass goes, i don't give racists a free pass. no matter what ethnicity they belong to.
hey, it's a free country. ya can say what ya want. but i'm just saying that when ya lump everyone that's disagreeing with ya on this in with the true bigots, you're hurting your argument.
DontTreadOnMe wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote:DontTreadOnMe wrote:dude, ya gotta get past declaring anyone who disagrees with ya about this issue a bigot or ignorant or both.. or whatever.
if anyone
here, on a2k was saying shite like, "i'm cool with any illegals being here except mexicans, or salvadorans, or chinese" or whatever; then
that would be bigotry or racism.
but noone on this thread has said anything like that. not that i've noticed anyway.
you're just hurting the cause that you seek to champion when ya do that.
That just means you haven't noticed. Bigotry is amply demonstrated by McG's "beaner" slur, countless bogus reports of ridiculously exaggerated crime statistics and CJHSA's pronouncement that 30 million Mexicans need a ride out of the country...
You are giving bigots, liars and idiots a free pass by pretending my use of mostly conditional invectives is without due cause.
fair enough, i usually scroll past their posts..
and although i'm holding my nose as i type this, mcg's post, as i understand it was a quote from a mexican comic. that's where alot of this stuff gets messed up. to me, if a word is bad.. well, it's bad. and if it's a word that's used to describe a group that you belong to, ya probably are better off not using it about yourself. it just keeps the **** afloat.
however, i really don't think either mystery or okie have been racist in their posts. i know damn well i haven't.
as far as a free pass goes, i don't give racists a free pass. no matter what ethnicity they belong to.
hey, it's a free country. ya can say what ya want. but i'm just saying that when ya lump everyone that's disagreeing with ya on this in with the true bigots, you're hurting your argument.
Damn it DTOM, that's just it; I haven't. Nor have I directly accused you, MM or Okie of bigotry. I have offered numerous opportunities to be counted with the bigots, conditionally... but thus far MG and CJHSA are the only two people I recall coming right out and calling bigots. Those who wish to continuously quote absurd crime stats, after they've been demonstrated false, are guilty of bigotry, ignorance or both... so I offer the choice. What's unfair about that?
DTOM, look just above for an excellent example of stubbornly clinging to bias BS. How would you explain it?
Watch:
Foxy, how many times does that crap need to be disproved? Watch:
The Heritage Foundation wrote: Over the last 40 years, immigration into the United States has surged. Our nation is now experiencing a second "great migration" similar to the great waves of immigrants that transformed America in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Problem is; a simple FACT check reveals that our population growth per decade increased by an average of less than 12% over the last 40 years of available census data. Meanwhile the average growth per decade over the balance of the Century was well over 15% and from 1820 through 1900 the average was over 30%... yet somehow the Heritage Foundation is asking us to believe that the last 40 years have seen a "surge". In FACT; only one decade from 1820 through 1960 showed a smaller percentage increase than the average over the last 40 years.
Absent from it's anti-Hispanic screed is any recognition that the "low income" average of Hispanics might have something to do with the fact that half of them don't currently have legal status. Absent as well is the high probability that those forced to work under the table likely didn't report their true employment status. The work was clearly done, not as an unbiased study, rather one put together with a designated conclusion in mind, to appeal to a particular audience; you.
Feel free to do the math for yourself. U.S. Census Stats are provided below for your convenience.
1820 and 1830 = 33.5%
1830 and 1840 = 32.7%
1840 and 1850 = 35.9%
1850 and 1860 = 35.4%
1860 and 1870 = 22.6%
1870 and 1880 = 30.2%
1880 and 1890 = Unreliable, do to fire.
1890 and 1900 = 21%
1900 and 1910 = 21%
1910 and 1920 = 15%
1920 and 1930 = 16.2%
1930 and 1940 = 7.3%
1940 and 1950 = 14.5%
1950 and 1960 = 18.5% growth
1960 and 1970 = 13.4%
1970 and 1980 = 11.4%
1980 and 1990 = 9.8%
1990 and 2000 = 13.2%
I don't believe I mentioned numbers of people. I believe I mentioned costs in direct response to a post by another member. So lets see your numbers re the costs Obill.
TODAY'S EDITORIAL
May 23, 2007
Washinton Times
Anyone who looks closely at the fiscal implications of the Senate immigration bill owes a debt of thanks to Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation. Mr. Rector is light years ahead of everyone else in carefully examining the assumptions of the bill -- particularly as they apply to millions of low-skilled illegals (50 to 60 percent of whom are high-school dropouts) who would be permitted to remain indefinitely in the United States.
Heritage Foundation research methods are identical to those used by the National Academy of Science a decade ago in a study, "The New Americans," which found that low-skill immigrants receive far more in government-financed benefits than they pay in taxes. Mr. Rector calculates that this is mostly true of the illegals who would get amnesty under the Senate bill, who will cost taxpayers $2.3 to $2.5 trillion over the next few decades.
In an interview and at a press conference Monday with Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama and Sen. Jim Bunning of Kentucky, both Republicans, Mr. Rector made a powerful case that the immigration "compromise" now before the Senate lays the groundwork for a vast expansion of the American economic underclass -- particularly among the elderly. With it there will be perhaps the largest expansion of government since the Great Society. The amnesty bill promises an explosion in federal, state and local spending on public education, subsidized housing and entitlement programs, and extraordinary new fiscal pressure on three of the fastest-growing federal entitlement programs, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. If immigration "reform" is enacted in anything remotely resembling the bill before the Senate, staggering tax increases are inevitable in the decades just ahead. The senators responsible for the debacle won't be seen responsible because they will be safely dead. The largest spending and tax increases demanded by this "reform" will occur decades from now.
The White House misleads with its claims that the amnesty recipients won't get welfare benefits. For the first decade or so they are in the United States, the adults can't get means-tested welfare benefits but their children could. And after that first decade, the adults get to partake of the welfare state as well. For the next 40 years, notes Mr. Rector, they are eligible "for every single type" of these welfare benefits.
"So the bottom line is that each of these households receives about $30,000 in government benefits, pays about $10,000 in taxes, at a net cost of around $19,000 per year [after rounding]. That's the equivalent of buying each of these households an automobile and every year of their lives as long as they're in the United States." He easily debunks the myth that amnesty will "contribute to solving Social Security's actuarial crisis." Precisely the opposite is true; it is certain to exacerbate that crisis and many of this country's other fiscal problems. "What we found was that this type of household is in net fiscal deficit -- the benefits exceed their taxes -- at every year from the point they enter the United States. There's no year where they pay more in taxes, on average, than they take out in benefits." When these people retire, they pay just $5,000 a year in taxes and get $37,000 a year in benefits. That's some contribution to a solution.
Thanks for the link. Illuminating in light of the immigration bill we're being asked to swallow. There seem to be those here who are ready for it to be passed even before its final version is released (and they've also approved it without reading the fine print - check out the details of that "background check").
The 2000 Census, by most researchers' data, undercounted illegals significantly for a variety of reasons, but here are some numbers to consider:
Quote:Net advance by illegal aliens has also soared from about 130,000 per year in the 1970s, to 300,000+ per year in the 1980s to over 500,000 per year in the 1990s to over 700,000 per year in the 2000s. Total entrance by illegal aliens may be as high as 1,500,000 per year [in 2006] with a net of at least 700,000 more illegal aliens arriving each year to join the 12,000,000 to 20,000,000 that are already here. (Pew Hispanic Data Estimates[1]) [8]
http://www.answers.com/topic/illegal-immigrant-population-of-the-united-states
"Soared" - "surged" - what's in a word.
Re Au's post and Hokiebird's post, that's the whole point of Rector's report for the Heritage Foundation. It is another case of very good intentions that could have very bad unintended consequences.
Foxfyre wrote:I don't believe I mentioned numbers of people. I believe I mentioned costs in direct response to a post by another member. So lets see your numbers re the costs Obill.
I demonstrated that the report you think is worth revisiting is full of sh!t, but I see you still don't care. It is useless to prove anything to you.
Foxfyre wrote:Re Au's post and Hokiebird's post, that's the whole point of Rector's report for the Heritage Foundation. It is another case of very good intentions that could have very bad unintended consequences.
Yes, I see neither of them are bothered by the sites inconsistency with the U.S. Census's either.
Many experts agree that the data collected by the US Census is off.
Way off.
HokieBird wrote:Many experts agree that the data collected by the US Census is off.
Way off.
Show me one expert that doesn't think there's 300,000,000 people in this country. Just one.
Isn't it odd how some can pick one thing out of one report and attempt to use it as proof that another report is full of sh*t? But if the stuff they post has an error in it, they'll defend it til hell freezes over while inferring that people arguing a different point of view are racist or bigots or whatever.
Psssst to Obill. Population figures and immigration figures are two separate things. Further immigration figures and ILLEGAL immigration figures are also two separate things.
Just once I wish you could actually discuss the issues without getting your shorts in a wad and attacking by word or inference those who are making an argument that you seem to simply not wish to hear at all.
I'll repeat my "error" and say if there are only 12 million illegal aliens then they are all in California.
What are you babbling about? I fact checked the first easily fact checkable statement he made and found it to be specious. Great Migration again? Not even by half. You expect me to bother with a report that starts out with blatant BS? Or to further fact check when you've just proven again that you couldn't care less if it is BS?
cjhsa wrote:I'll repeat my "error" and say if there are only 12 million illegal aliens then they are all in California.
California, which is the state with the largest illegal alien population, estimates there are 3 million illegal aliens within the state.
Foxfyre wrote:
Isn't it odd how some can pick one thing out of one report and attempt to use it as proof that another report is full of sh*t? But if the stuff they post has an error in it, they'll defend it til hell freezes over while inferring that people arguing a different point of view are racist or bigots or whatever.
Psssst to Obill. Population figures and immigration figures are two separate things. Further immigration figures and ILLEGAL immigration figures are also two separate things.
Just once I wish you could actually discuss the issues without getting your shorts in a wad and attacking by word or inference those who are making an argument that you seem to simply not wish to hear at all.
I think some here are just unwilling to face reality. They have some romanticized notion (maybe a hero complex) of rescuing millions and circumstances and consequences be damned.
The bill in its current form is very bad for the future of this country - for many reasons, not least of which is security.
dyslexia wrote:cjhsa wrote:I'll repeat my "error" and say if there are only 12 million illegal aliens then they are all in California.
California, which is the state with the largest illegal alien population, estimates there are 3 million illegal aliens within the state.
Oh crap... now that 12 million figure has been printed on the internet, Foxy and Co. are going assume it's cold hard irrefutable fact...
HokieBird wrote:I think some here are just unwilling to face reality.
That's for sure. I waste my time debunking BS, and some people are impervious, preferring to swallow BS that agrees with their preconceived ideas to the truth.
2007
The Amnesty Fraud
By Thomas Sowell
Nothing is more common than political "solutions" to immediate problems which create much bigger problems down the road. The current immigration bill in the Senate is a classic example.
The big talking point of those who want to legalize the illegal immigrants currently in the United States is to say that it is "unrealistic" to round up and deport 12 million people.
Back in 1986 it was "unrealistic" to round up and deport the 3 million illegal immigrants in the United States then. So they were given amnesty -- honestly labeled, back then -- which is precisely why there are now 12 million illegal immigrants.
As a result of the current amnesty bill -- not honestly labeled, this time -- will it be "unrealistic" to round up and deport 40 million or 50 million illegal immigrants in the future?
If the current immigration bill is as "realistic" as its advocates claim, why is it being rushed through the Senate faster than a local zoning ordinance could be passed?
We are, after all, talking about a major and irreversible change in the American population, the American culture, and the American political balance. Why is there no time to talk about it?
Are its advocates afraid that the voting public might discover what a fraud it is? The biggest fraud is denying that this is an amnesty bill.
Its advocates' argument is that illegal immigrants will have to meet certain requirements to become citizens. But amnesty is not about how you become a citizen.
The word is from the same root as "amnesia." It means you forget or overlook some crime, as if it never happened. All this elaborate talk about the steps illegal immigrants must go through to become citizens is a distraction from the crime they committed when they crossed the border illegally.
Instead, all attention is focused on what to do to accommodate those who committed this crime. It is a question that would be recognized as an insult to our intelligence on any other issue.
For example, there are undoubtedly thousands, perhaps millions, of unsolved crimes and uncaught criminals in this country and we cannot realistically expect to find and prosecute all these fugitives from justice.
But does anyone suggest that our focus should be on trying to normalize the lives of domestic fugitives from justice -- "bring them out of the shadows" in Ted Kennedy's phrase -- and develop some path by which they can be given an acceptable legal status?
Does anyone suggest that, if domestic criminals come forward, pay some fine, and apply to have their crimes overlooked, they can be put on a path to be restored to good standing in our society?
Just as we don't need to solve every crime and catch every criminal, in order to have deterrents to crime, neither do we have to ferret out and deport every one of the 12 million illegal aliens in this country in order to deter a flood of new illegal aliens.
All across this country, illegal aliens are being caught by the police for all sorts of violations of American laws, from traffic laws to laws against murder. Yet in many, if not most, places the police are under orders not to report these illegal aliens to the federal government.
Imprisoning known and apprehended lawbreakers for the crime of illegally entering this country, in addition to whatever other punishment they receive for other laws that they have broken -- and then sending them back where they came from after their sentences have been served -- would be something that would not be lost on others who are here illegally or who are thinking of coming here illegally.
Just as people can do many things better for themselves than the government can do those things for them, illegal aliens could begin deporting themselves if they found that their crime of coming here illegally was being punished as a serious crime, and that they themselves were no longer being treated as guests of the taxpayers when it comes to their medical care, the education of their children, and other welfare state benefits.
Incidentally, remember that 700-mile fence that Congress authorized last year? Only two miles have been built. That should tell us something about how seriously they are going to enforce other border security provisions in the current bill.May 22, 2007
This was in the NY Times today.
Laughing and Crying
