You still don't get it. ALL THE FACTS IN THE ARTICLE ARE CORRECT.
YOU ARE WRONG. Now do you get it? You said facts and you are 100% wrong.

As far as ethical goes, reporting what a local politician is planning to tell congress and interviewing the source of the politicians data, who clarified the data so it wouldn't be misleading is unethical?
Looks to me like your pattern of crying foul and calling names on anyone that you don't agree with, again. :eyebrow:

LOL......is Bruce really MaggieL??????????

Nope. I know them both and they are definitely different people, albeit both are correct about you.

And BrianR misses the point on two counts......

Emphasis my own.


Now, who's the one who was accusing everyone else of racism? And who's the one who says that it doesn't matter where you are, because you can still know where things stand?

Ibram....................dear sweet MaggieL decided, before I had even taken a standpoint, that my opinions were void because I'm not a legal resident of the US. For that reason alone, I mock her with her own brand of racism.
Not only that, but when a friend of mine happened to point out that this forum was not particularly open to opinion, she rather ignorantly referred to my good American friend as a 'sock puppet', thus proving charlene's point.
...it's a waste of time trying to even ascertain the facts when the board is more interested in finding reasons to discredit you before you've even lodged your position. The facts and figures are out there, very easy for either side of the debate to locate and process, but the question of why people choose their debating stances remains a mystery. The only real thing that I have gleaned from this forum is that they are overwhelmingly on one side of the issue, and deeply resent any nasty foreigner asking questions as to why.

Enjoy your closed circle, there's no benefit to me in trying to figure out why you support this legislation if I don't value the process you use to determine your opinions.

So everyone is automatically on the same side if they don't agree with you? My stance on the issue is really probably closer to yours than Maggie's, but you are the one being a jerk, from my standpoint. I'm not trying to discredit you, you did that yourself. I'm just giving you a hard time on everything, because you are giving everyone else a hard time on everything. Maybe you don't realize it, maybe you don't mean to, but it is my opinion, and I will act on it.

Billy forgets that he started off with *my* opinons being void because I live in Pennsylvania, where he originally claimed than none of this really matters to us because we're all so white and far away from Mexico. I pointed out how similar NZ law (you know, the immigration law that has benefited him so much personally that his immigration has been subsidized by the NZ government) is to our own, but that's irrelevant when it invalidates his opinon, because I'm a xenophobe, and what's happening to him personally is somehow not germane. In the face of the most incredible potty-mouthed invective it is I who is rude, and I'm "deluded by stereotypes" in the eyes of a man who assumes that all females must be housewives.

It's pointless arguing with him; everything turns into a response driven by projection: So everybody else is a racist and a xenophobe, and once he's caught sockpuppeting he randomly accuses others of being sockpuppets...but that's not his fault, it's mine, of course; I forced him to do it.

Next we'll be told we're all projecting, I'm sure.... :-)

Personally, I embrace being a racist xenophobe. And I see enough illegals seeking treatment that I know why I'm not getting a raise this year despite sterling performance.

You mean you don't get a raise, even though business is booming? :-)

Well, if it was the *children* of illegals you were treating, that would be different, because they are citizens.

Wouldn't it? :-)

I still think that new NZ law has the right idea on that score...
...and I think the wording of the Fourteenth Amendment would support that interpretation, too...even though that's not how it's currently applied. (We seem to have a problem with how we apply the Second Amendment too, go figure.)

Obviously an illegal alien isn't "under the jurisdiction of the US", nor are their children...at least until they're apprehended. This is yet another way to reduce the incentives to break immigration law, along with making it unprofitable to hire illegal labor. "Dive across the border and have a kid as quickly as possible; the gringos will pay for it."

To keep flies away, it's more important and easier to cover the food than to mend the holes in the screen.

Ah, yes, but a wise person does at once, what a fool does at last. Both do the same thing; only at different times.

Uh... what?

Comparing people to flies...well, ain't that nice?

There's nothing "nice" about the situation. If the analogy disturbs you, maybe it should; I think the most disturbing thing is how apt it is. Flies don't care that it's your kitchen and your food, all they care about is they're hungry and you can't stop them.