Welfare to kids of illegals in LA County costs $276 million per year

[SIZE="4"]Source:
LA Daily News - Los Angeles
http://www.dailynews.com

Welfare to kids of illegals at $276 million
http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_3751199

BY Staff Writer TROY ANDERSON mailto:troy.anderson@dailynews.com
Ph: (213) 974-8985

Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich said Tuesday that he will tell Congress that close to 100,000 children of illegal immigrants in the county collect $276 million in annual welfare benefits.

Antonovich, who is in Washington with the Board of Supervisors, will meet with congressional representatives and provide information about the impact of illegal immigration on county services.

Antonovich said 98,703 children of 57,458 undocumented parents received Cal-WORKS welfare checks in January, or a total of 156,161 recipients.

"If incorporated into a city, it would be the sixth-largest city in Los Angeles County," Antonovich said in a statement Tuesday. "While legal immigration is a positive influence on our culture and economy ... in public safety, health care and public social services, illegals cost county taxpayers nearly three quarters of a billion dollars a year."

Shirley Christensen, spokeswoman for the Department of Public Social Services, said her office provided the data to Antonovich.

"What I want to make clear is the children we aid are legally eligible to be aided," Christensen said. "They are the children of undocumented parents, but they themselves are not undocumented. They were born in this country."

Antonovich's comments come amid a debate in Congress and across the nation about illegal immigration.

No reliable studies have been conducted on the economic impact illegal immigrants have on California government budgets, according to a study by the Public Policy Institute of California.

In 2004, the Government Accountability Office concluded there was insufficient information to establish the costs to states of educating illegal immigrant children.

Some in the immigration debate say illegal immigrants are a drain on public coffers. Others say illegal immigrants pay more in taxes than they receive in services.

Illegal immigrants are not eligible for many government services, but they can use the public health care system and their U.S.-born children are eligible for welfare.[/SIZE]

All children born in the United States are considered citizens of the United States, with the same rights and responsibilities that you have.

Staff Writer TROY ANDERSON Should not be a journalist if he can't get his facts right.What a dick.

[SIZE=5]Whose phone number is that? The reporter?[/SIZE]

billybob wrote:

All children born in the United States are considered citizens of the United States, with the same rights and responsibilities that you have.

Not all children of illegal immigrants were born here....and if the illegals weren't here, their kids wouldn't be born here.

And I note in passing that NZ has just changed their laws to the effect that chiildren born in-country don't automatically become NZ citizens unless at least one parent is a citizen.

[CENTER]Illegal is illegal... period. But, since we all don't wanna' know what the gov't doin' and we don't care how many of our people are living below poverty...
[/CENTER]

MaggieL wrote:

Not all children of illegal immigrants were born here....and if the illegals weren't here, their kids wouldn't be born here.

And I note in passing that NZ..

Get a life.

rkzenrage wrote:

[CENTER]Illegal is illegal... period.

from the article....

"What I want to make clear is the children we aid are legally eligible to be aided,"

So....kids who are entitled to aid are getting it.Hardly a story, but in the current frenzy against anyone vaguely Mexican, if you put a dollar value next to the words 'Illegal Immigrants', the lowest common denominator is onto it like flies round a trailer park.

Hmm.... Let me understand this. The article that began this thread reports some official whining about spending $276 million to feed and clothe children in a country than can afford to borrow $350 billion per year to fund tax cuts for its wealthiest citizens. If I were one of those citizens, this is certainly the issue I would want at the forefront of national attention.

Actually, I am curious. This thread is nothing more than a cut/paste of a news article.The thread starter offers no comment or debate. The thread starter has only three posts to his credit, all new threads, and all pushing the same barrow. Outside of this issue, spiker does not exist at the cellar.

Who is spiker and what does he want?

mjohncoady wrote:

Hmm.... Let me understand this. The article that began this thread reports some official whining about spending $276 million to feed and clothe children in a country than can afford to borrow $350 billion per year to fund tax cuts for its wealthiest citizens. If I were one of those citizens, this is certainly the issue I would want at the forefront of national attention.

That's $276m just in L.A. County. Believe me, that tax cut is in the forefront of the people it benefits, being an election year. ;)

billybob wrote:

Who is spiker and what does he want?

Aren't you on record as being against noob bashing? Or is that only when it's you?

xoxoxoBruce wrote:

That's $276m just in L.A. County. Believe me, that tax cut is in the forefront of the people it benefits, being an election year. ;)

You are certainly correct and I suspect that a large chunk of those billions in tax cuts ends up in the hands of the citizens of L.A. County. Send all of those horrible undocumented workers back home and save the $276 million. Our grandchildren's grandchildren will still be paying off the remaining billions of debt long after we have gone. The phrase is, I believe, penny-wise, pound foolish. It is, however, much easier to take candy from a baby than a BMW from a realtor or a stockbroker.

billybob wrote:

Get a life.

Look it up, Scooter. Children of non-citizens won't be citizens in NZ, no matter where they're born. Didn't want to repeat that part, eh?

MaggieL wrote:

Aren't you on record as being against noob bashing? Or is that only when it's you?

Will you stop distorting my posts you stupid little bigot?

I asked who he is and what he wants,that is NOT noob bashing. Noob bashing is when the site bitch decides that she doesn't like being questioned on her continuous slagging of anyone who disagrees with her and launches into a prolonged and pointless attack on someone who has done nothing more than ask her a few simple queestions that she's too scared or stupid to answer honestly.

Get a fucking life, woman. You are boring as all hell.

billybob wrote:

.. launches into a prolonged and pointless attack on someone who has done nothing more than ask her a few simple queestions

A simple review of the immigration threads makes it abundantly clear who specializes in personal attacks and who does and doesn't answer simple questions. It must be incredibly frustrating for you that your seemigly endless calumny hasn't provoked me into responding in kind.

No illegals here, no...

http://www.zwire.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=14620282 wrote:

Births at [Mercy Suburban] hospital have nearly doubled in the past two years to a total of 822 in 2004. About 26 percent of mothers are undocumented immigrants from Mexico who are uninsured, Barabas said.

http://www.zwire.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=14529659 wrote:

Ketterlinus estimates that uncompensated care costs [Montgomery Hospital Medical Center] between $10 million and $14 million each year, a sizeable chunk of its $100 million operating budget.
Bad debt at MHMC has risen steadily over the past few years, according to an analysis by Ketterlinus and Edward Ladely, Montgomery Hospital's chief financial officer, from $4 million in 2002 to an estimated $7 million loss this year.
The trend is partly attributed to the growing number of undocumented immigrants who live in Norristown, she said.

http://www.zwire.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=16600929 wrote:

The women targeted for the program primarily are undocumented Hispanic women in Norristown and undocumented Asian women in the Abington area.
Pregnant women who are citizens of the United States can obtain medical assistance and qualify for other prenatal programs offered through the health department.

MaggieL wrote:

A simple review of the immigration threads makes it abundantly clear who specializes in personal attacks and who does and doesn't answer simple questions. It must be incredibly frustrating for you that your seemigly endless calumny hasn't provoked me into responding in kind.

What is incredibly frustrating for me is that one loud-mouthed bitch is determined to be as obnoxious as possible because someone dared to ask her to back up her prejudices.

If you could just come up with a bit more substance instead of wittering about New Zealand, and answer the straight questions when put to you, you might be interesting., You seem to be capable of expressing your thoughts in an articulate manner in between the trolling and the racism.
Such a shame that you are determined to bring this debate down to a mud slinging match.

MaggieL wrote:

No illegals here, no...

Yet another MaggieL distortion. I point out that her state has a quarter of the average latino population, she repeatedly accuses me of claiming that there are no illegals in Pa.

If youi can't support your position with facts, please don't tell lies. I'll call you on them every time.

As to the quotes that you added, I urge all readers to read the articles in full.MaggieL would rather you only read the bits that she thinks support her story, but the articles have far more balance.

billybob wrote:

What is incredibly frustrating for me is that one loud-mouthed bitch is determined to be as obnoxious as possible because someone dared to ask her to back up her prejudices.

If you could just come up with a bit more substance instead of wittering about New Zealand, and answer the straight questions when put to you, you might be interesting., You seem to be capable of expressing your thoughts in an articulate manner in between the trolling and the racism.
Such a shame that you are determined to bring this debate down to a mud slinging match.

LOL, your last line is so funny when you read the first sentence!
You have no credibility just based on this one post.

billybob wrote:

I point out that her state has a quarter of the average latino population, she repeatedly accuses me of claiming that there are no illegals in Pa.

I didn't say you said that; I was being sarcastic about what you actually did claim. Everybody here can go back and see exactly what you did say (in this thread and the other immigration thread), in an attempt to impeach my opinion and impugn my motives. And most of the folks here are familiar with the use of the "innocent question" as a means of making a statement or tool of misdirection.

In fact we do not have as many Hispanic illegals here as they do in California (as a percentage of the population statewide), but that does not mean the problem of illegal immigration is, to use your own words, "a continent away"; it's right here in my backyard. Statistics by state usually mean very little; US states vary too much in size and situation to be useful as statistical categories in most situations.

You ask for exact costs of largely unquantifiable things not to make the argument more factual but rather in an attempt to move the argument to one about price; the next move is likely to point out how impoverished the illegals are and how ungenerous we are not to succor the poor. Maybe you can find somebody else to go down that road with you.

MaggieL wrote:

You ask for exact costs of largely unquantifiable things not to make the argument more factual but rather in an attempt to move the argument to one about price; the next move is likely to point out how impoverished the illegals are and how ungenerous we are not to succor the poor.

Not only do you ignore the hard questions,and distort my answers, you are now trying to distort what I could say next!

I'm impressed! I've never come across it before, but you appear to be a complete, total and unspoiled idiot! we should have you stuffed and put on display at the Smithsonian!

...I'm surely not the only one who noticed that billybob completely avoided anything relating to the issue at all in that last post, instead purely going for the personal attacks he seems to look down on so much. I guess personal attacks are only unintellectual and pointless when they're directed against him?

Ibram wrote:

I guess personal attacks are only unintellectual and pointless when they're directed against him?

Possibly. We'll have to wait until somebody tries one.

This is the that site bills itself as "a friendly little coffee shop..?"

billybob wrote:

...you are now trying to distort what I could say next!

No, I'm reacting to an attempt to change the subject. Obviously I can't distort something you haven't yet said.

But I can certainly resist your introduction of yet another straw man.

What personal direct cash costs I might be able to prove as a result of burdens placed on government services here by illegal immigrants are irrelevant to my standing to insist that the principles of our law be observed.

It's not that your "what does it cost you personally" question is "hard"; it's that it's pointless and misdirecting. I refer you to my earlier analogy to calculating the personal dollar cost of park vandalism. Just as onerous to calculate, and just irrelevant to the principles involved.

But if you like numbers, refer back: Twenty-six percent of deliveries at Mercy Suburban (about two or three miles from here) are to illegal immigrant mothers, and will end up being be paid for by the other patients at the hospital. No wonder MHMC (the other hospital in town; there used to be three) is relocating; Mercy will end up picking up their ER and maternity load too. What will happen when Mercy throws in the towel?

NZ has the right idea with that new law declaring that children born in New Zealand aren't automatically citizens unless at least one parent is, and I think it's time we passed legislation clarifying the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment; obviously children born to illegals can't be "under the jurisdiction" of the US since they haven't submitted to it.

mjohncoady wrote:

This is the that site bills itself as "a friendly little coffee shop..?"

It used to be...then it got connected to the Internet. :-) See the history page.

mjohncoady wrote:

This is the that site bills itself as "a friendly little coffee shop..?"

That's what I thought when I signed up, too,mjohncoady.

I'm sure there are many of us that read the threads but do not respond.

I expected that one person makes an intelligent comment, another adds their 2 cents, and the banter goes back and forth in a civilized manner.

I guess I didn't read MaggieL's responses closely enough to notice that she starts off the mud-slinging and 'the rest' just let her go until she gets in over her head and starts yelling about personal attacks. As far as I can see, billybob just responded in kind, but now, he's the bad guy....go figure.:neutral:

It's so nice to have a sock puppet. :-)

MaggieL wrote:

No, I'm reacting to an attempt to change the subject. Obviously I can't distort something you haven't yet said.

.

Helllo....earth to planet MaggieL..........You just did.

The truth and your good self appear to be total strangers.

Nobody is trying to change the subject here except MaggieL. Every time I ask the forum for an answer, she dives in and diverts attention.

I ask again, MaggieL . How many illegals did the INS remove from your town last year?

I ask again how much has it cost you personally to accomodate the illegal immigrants in your state?

I ask again, how does employing illegals on the black market differ from employing Americans on the black market?

And while I'm asking questions for you to duck, why is it not okay to ask you to put a dollar value on the issues, when that is exactly what the author of the artuicle at the top of this thread has done?

I'll repeat my position on the article at the top of this thread, just so that you can have another try at debating it instead of shit-slinging.

The article refers to the costs associated with the care of Americian citizens whose parents are illegal immigrants.American citizens. MaggieL would doubtless like a law similar to that which exists in the country that I currently live in, but at the moment, it doesn't exist, and as the article states,

"What I want to make clear is the children we aid are legally eligible to be aided," Christensen said. "They are the children of undocumented parents, but they themselves are not undocumented. They were born in this country."

This thread is based on a distorted set of facts. These people are entitled to be in the US, and the story is dead in the water.Right alongside MaggieL's rather desperate claim that 26% of the American citiizens born in her local hospital are somehow inferior to the other 74%.

charlene wrote:

That's what I thought when I signed up, too,mjohncoady.

I'm sure there are many of us that read the threads but do not respond.

I expected that one person makes an intelligent comment, another adds their 2 cents, and the banter goes back and forth in a civilized manner.

I guess I didn't read MaggieL's responses closely enough to notice that she starts off the mud-slinging and 'the rest' just let her go until she gets in over her head and starts yelling about personal attacks. As far as I can see, billybob just responded in kind, but now, he's the bad guy....go figure.:neutral:

Your opinion doesn't count,charlene, you're not an American.

Wait a minute, yes you are.

Nevermind, I'm sure that if MAggieL doesn't like it, she'll find a different way of discounting it.

It's a little difficult to put my fingers on 'current' statistics without revealing information about myself I'm not willing to share, however, this information is available on the web, and it provides concrete numbers of the situation of illegal immigration in Pennsylvania. (Statewide, not just in MaggieL's neighborhood, but mine as well). I can generate the same sort of information for a southern state as well, which has a much higher population and struggles even more because of lower tax income. However, for me, this is enough justification that the illegal alien population is draining my wallet.

ETA: And before you call me racist, I work with a number of people from all over the world, date someone who wasn't born in this country, and could care less what color your skin is. If you break the laws in my country, you should be punished. Period. No matter where you were born.

I will keep looking for more updated information to prove that it's only getting worse, it's not getting better.

[SIZE=1]Source http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=research_research652f[/SIZE]




[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Sans-serif][SIZE=-1][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]INS ESTIMATE[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Sans-serif][SIZE=-1][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]The INS estimated in February 2003 that the illegal alien population in Pennsylvania was 49,000 as of January 2000. That represented an increase of 12,000 illegal aliens from the previous INS estimate that as of October 1996 there were 37,000 illegal residents. The latter estimate was a 37 percent increase above the INS estimate for 1992 (27,000). [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Sans-serif][SIZE=-1][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Only 19 states have larger numbers of illegal resident aliens than Pennsylvania, according to the current INS estimate. [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Sans-serif][SIZE=-1][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Pennsylvania has received partial compensation under the federal State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) that was established in 1994 to compensate the states and local jurisdictions for incarceration of "undocumented," aliens who are serving time for a felony conviction or at least two misdemeanors. [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Sans-serif][SIZE=-1][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]ENFORCEMENT OPERATIONS[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Sans-serif][SIZE=-1][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]The INS cited deportations of 1,259 criminal aliens in Pennsylvania during FY'2000 as their primary focus for enforcement operations. They also removed 590 illegal aliens and were holding 1,560 aliens on Dec. 1, including 1,098 convicted of crimes. (Source: AP, Dec. 4, 2000) [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Sans-serif][SIZE=-1][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]INCARCERATION COSTS[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Sans-serif][SIZE=-1][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]The recent SCAAP amounts that Pennsylvania has received were:
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Sans-serif][SIZE=-1][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]FY’99—$5,151,511
FY’00—$4,306,272
FY’01—$2,273,565
FY’02—$2,683,207
FY’03—$1,266,741
FY’04—$1,693,912[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Sans-serif][SIZE=-1][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]The amount of SCAAP awards has been declining in both total distributions and even more as a share of the state’s expenses. In FY’99 the state received 38.6% of its costs for 539 prisoner years of detention. By FY’02, the state’s reported illegal alien detention rose by 19 percent to 640 prisoner years, while compensation fell by 48 percent and since has decreased sharply. [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Sans-serif][SIZE=-1][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]MEDICAL COSTS OF ILLEGAL ALIENS[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Sans-serif][SIZE=-1][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, hospitals with emergency rooms are required to treat and stabilize patients with emergency medical needs regardless whether or not they are in the country legally or whether they are able to pay for the treatment. Congress in 2003 enacted an appropriation of $250 million per year (for 4 years) to help offset some of the costs due to use of this service by illegal aliens. This amount has been allocated among the states based upon estimates of the illegal alien population and data on the apprehension of illegal aliens in each state. This amount compensates only a fraction of the medical outlays. For Pennsylvania, the proposed payment in fiscal year 2004 is $1,168,499.

An additional link on Financial impact of Immigration (Not deliniated between Legal/Illegal, but still telling)
http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=research_researche251#msa

INS Statistics as of 2004 (Not broken down by states)
http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/yearbook/Yearbook2004.pdf
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]

Comical.
Your sockpuppet act is so busted, Billy.

Like I said on the other thread, have a nice day

mjohncoady wrote:

You are certainly correct and I suspect that a large chunk of those billions in tax cuts ends up in the hands of the citizens of L.A. County. Send all of those horrible undocumented workers back home and save the $276 million. Our grandchildren's grandchildren will still be paying off the remaining billions of debt long after we have gone. The phrase is, I believe, penny-wise, pound foolish. It is, however, much easier to take candy from a baby than a BMW from a realtor or a stockbroker.

But it's our penny and pound, isn't it? And if we don't want to spend it on illegal aliens that's our right isn't it?
We take in more immigrants than the rest of the world combined and nobody can tell me we're bad for not accepting these criminals as well.:eyebrow:

Dagney wrote:

It's a little difficult to put my fingers on 'current' statistics without revealing information about myself I'm not willing to share, however, this information is available on the web, and it provides concrete numbers of the situation of illegal immigration in Pennsylvania.

Awesome, thanks Dagney. At last, someone who can provide figures rather than just blind prejudice. A debater.

So, do you think the US would be better off evicting these people en masse, or legalising those who are supporting themselves and benefitting from their labor and taxation?

xoxoxoBruce wrote:

But it's our penny and pound, isn't it? And if we don't want to spend it on illegal aliens that's our right isn't it?
We take in more immigrants than the rest of the world combined ...........

It's your country's penny and your country's pound. If the US as a whole don't want to spend money on it, why did you re-elect a President who came in with an agenda to legalise and relax immigration?


http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041110-123424-5467r.htm

Could it be that your views are not in harmony with the majority?

MaggieL wrote:

Comical.
Your sockpuppet act is so busted, Billy.

Like I said on the other thread, have a nice day

Post 29, MaggieL.....you have been offered the chance again to answer questions, are you running out on me now?

We now have an official strategy for dealing with illegals.Whine about mexicans in general, and run away when asked for details. Dagney has provided more facts in one post than you have offered in the entire thread.
Maybe you can learn from him, but I doubt it.

billybob wrote:

Awesome, thanks Dagney. At last, someone who can provide figures rather than just blind prejudice. A debater.

So, do you think the US would be better off evicting these people en masse, or legalising those who are supporting themselves and benefitting from their labor and taxation?

In regards to the topic at hand. It's theoretically impossible to evict 11 million illegals. However, I believe that a 'dent' can be made in the population by evicting them when they're located, not ignored. Traffic tickets, misdemeanors, arrests, any time an illegal is identified, they're on a plane and sent home, at their own cost. If they can't pay outright, we bill their country of origin.

Amnesty will not make the problem better - only worse. It's not an option to consider.

billybob wrote:

It's your country's penny and your country's pound. If the US as a whole don't want to spend money on it, why did you re-elect a President who came in with an agenda to legalise and relax immigration?

Could it be that your views are not in harmony with the majority?

1- I didn't relect him, neither did a majority of the citizens.
2- I speak for nobody but me, harmony is the least of my concerns.

Here's another "not in harmony" citizen; :D

Dear Senator Frist:
There is a huge amount of propaganda and myths circulating about illegal aliens, particularly illegal Mexican, Salvadorian, Guatemalan and Honduran aliens.

1. Illegal aliens generally do NOT want U.S. citizenship. Americans are very vain thinking that everybody in the world wants to be a U.S. citizen. Mexicans, and other nationalities want to remain citizens of their home countries while obtaining the benefits offered by the United States such as employment, medical care, in-state tuition, government subsidized housing and free education for their offspring. Their main attraction is employment and their loyalty usually remains at home. They want benefits earned and subsidized by middle class Americans. What illegal aliens want are benefits of American residence without paying the price.

2. There are no jobs that Americans won't do. Illegal aliens are doing jobs that Americans can't take and still support their families. Illegal aliens take low wage jobs, live dozens in a single residence home, share expenses and send money to their home country. There are no jobs that Americans won't do for a decent wage.

3. Every person who illegally entered this nation left a home. They are NOT homeless and they are NOT Americans. Some left jobs in their home countries. They come to send money to their real home as evidenced by the more than 20 billion dollars sent out of the country each year by illegal aliens. These illegal aliens knowingly and willfully entered this nation in violation of the law and therefore assumed the risk of detection and deportation. Those who brought their alien children assumed the responsibility and risk on behalf of their children.

4. Illegal aliens are NOT critical to the economy. Illegal aliens constitute less than 5% of the workforce. However, they reduce wages and benefits for lawful U.S. residents.

5. This is NOT an immigrant nation. There are 280 million native born Americans. While it is true that this nation was settled and founded by immigrants (legal immigrants), it is also true that there is not a nation on this planet that was not settled by immigrants at one time or another.

6. The United States is welcoming to legal immigrants. Illegal aliens are not immigrants by definition. The U.S. accepts more lawful immigrants every year than the rest of the world combined.

7. There is no such thing as the "Hispanic vote". Hispanics are white, brown, black and every shade in between. Hispanics are Republicans, Democrats, Anarchists, Communists, Marxists and Independents. The so-called "Hispanic vote" is a myth. Pandering to illegal aliens to get the Hispanic vote is a dead end.

8. Mexico is NOT a friend of the United States. Since 1848 Mexicans have resented the United States. During World War I Mexico allowed German Spies to operate freely in Mexico to spy on the U.S. During World War II Mexico allowed the Axis powers to spy on the U.S. from Mexico. During the Cold War Mexico allowed spies hostile to the U.S. to operate freely. The attack on the Twin Towers in 2001 was cheered and applauded all across Mexico. Today Mexican school children are taught that the U.S. stole California, Arizona, new Mexico and Texas. (I KNOW THIS IS TRUE.) If you don't believe it, check out some Mexican textbooks written for their schoolchildren.

9. Although some illegal aliens enter this country for a better life, there are 6 billion people on this planet. At least 1 billion of those live on less than one dollar a day. If wanting a better life is a valid excuse to break the law and sneak into America, then let's allow those one billion to come to America and we'll turn the USA into a Third World nation overnight. Besides, there are 280 million native born Americans who want a better life. I'll bet Bill Gates and Donald Trump want a better life. When will the USA lifeboat be full? Since when is wanting a better life a good reason to trash another nation?

10. There is a labor shortage in this country. This is a lie. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of American housewives, senior citizens, students, unemployed and underemployed who would gladly take jobs at a decent wage.

11. Is it racist to want secure borders. What is racist about wanting secure borders and a secure America? What is racist about not wanting people to sneak into America and steal benefits we have set aside for legal aliens, senior citizens, children and other legal residents? What is it about race that entitles people to violate our laws, steal identities, and take the American Dream without paying the price?

For about four decades American politicians have refused to secure our borders and look after the welfare of middle class Americans. These politicians have been of both parties. A huge debt to American society has resulted. This debt will be satisfied and the interest will be high. There has already been riots in the streets by illegal aliens and their supporters. There will be more. You, as a politician, have a choice to offend the illegal aliens who have stolen into this country and demanded the rights afforded to U.S. citizens or to offend those of us who are stakeholders in this country. The interest will be steep either way. There will be civil unrest. There will be a reckoning. Do you have the courage to do what is right for America? Or, will you bow to the wants and needs of those who don't even have the right to remain here?

There will be a reckoning. It will come in November of this year, again in 2008 and yet again in 2010.

We will not allow America to be stolen by third world agitators and thieves.

David J. Stoddard
U.S. Border Patrol (RET)

I'll let Snopes explain who he is. :cool:

Another good post, thanks Bruce. An interesting read. Y'know, that's all I was looking for, some information..... It'll take me a while to sift through it all and verify the claims made, but the expert testimony of a former border guard with 27 years experience certainly counts for more than the simplistic rantings of a rude and angry housewife from one of the whitest states.....

The essence of good debate is information. We take the information, verify it , and distill out the facts from the bias. From there, we move to informed opinion.Once we have an informed opinion, we can counter anything that we consider to be a misconception by presenting the facts.

I have no patience with people who consider that their opinion is the only one that matters and that everyone else,especially the foreigner, is an idiot. Bring me good facts and present them as information, rather than as proof that you have won, and you will retain my interest and respect.
The internet clowns who move the first pawn on the chessboard and then do an in-your-face-asshole victory dance are tedious.

billybob wrote:

and you will retain my interest and respect.

And of course this is what we're all striving for. :rolleyes:
Did I miss the post where you provided any relavant information on the topic?

billybob wrote:

one of the whitest states.....

I happen to live in the same state - which as I stated above has the 19th HIGHEST number of illegals in the population.

Just doing some quick math, that means there's approximately 31 states with fewer illegals in the population.

Hm...

I believe that's a blanket statement that was made in errror bob.

Dagney wrote:

I happen to live in the same state - which as I stated above has the 19th HIGHEST number of illegals in the population.

That one sounds interesting......particularly in view of the official stats that put the state at around a quarter the average hispanic population. What measure do you use to obtain these figures? Aren't illegals, by definitition, notoriously difficult to put an accurate figure on?

We all make blanket statements. Some of us don't mind when asked to back them up with facts, others get crabby. I'll go back and do some research on the ethnic mix state by state, but of course, even that data gets skewed on some sites for political purposes.

jinx wrote:

Did I miss the post where you provided any relavant information on the topic?

Which topic? there have been several in this thread.

My first post gave relevant information as to the legal status of children born in the US. I backed it up with the information that the hospital had confirmed that all of these children were legally eligible to be aided.

Now, in a good debating forum, 'legal entitlement' would be accepted as an argument by those who use 'it's the law' as a justification. Unfortunately, one individual chose it as the cue to attack the messenger [again:rolleyes: ] on the basis of his country of residence, rather than debate the issue. The option to shut up and walk away was not taken until the thread had morphed into a broad-ranging discussion with multiple sideshows.

Having proved my argument to the initial post early on in the thread, I invite jinx to specify which of the sideshows he/she would like me to provide relevant information on.

billybob wrote:

My first post gave relevant information as to the legal status of children born in the US. I backed it up with the information that the hospital had confirmed that all of these children were legally eligible to be aided.

Oh horseshit, you gave nothing. All you did was parrot what was clearly stated in the article, then attack Troy Anderson for being wrong which he clearly was not.:rolleyes:

xoxoxoBruce wrote:

Oh horseshit, you gave nothing.

Correction, I pointed out that ALL children born in US hospitals are deemed US citizens, a legal point that Troy seems to conveniently overlook. the 'wrong' that you refer to is a matter of ethics, not of fact. Rabble rousing articles like the one under discussion serve no valid purpose. They exist only to sell Newspapers.


Now, about that horseshit,bruce.You may wish to retract it, or you may wish to eat it. Much as you would like it to, you can't make it stick.

billybob wrote:

Correction, I pointed out that ALL children born in US hospitals are deemed US citizens, a legal point that Troy seems to conveniently overlook. the 'wrong' that you refer to is a matter of ethics, not of fact. Rabble rousing articles like the one under discussion serve no valid purpose. They exist only to sell Newspapers.


Now, about that horseshit,bruce.You may wish to retract it, or you may wish to eat it. Much as you would like it to, you can't make it stick.

You still don't get it. ALL THE FACTS IN THE ARTICLE ARE CORRECT.

billybob wrote:

TROY ANDERSON Should not be a journalist if he can't get his facts right.What a dick.

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.

xoxoxoBruce wrote:

billybob and charlene are really Dave and Jeni(sp). :lol:

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

billybob wrote:

...but the expert testimony of a former border guard with 27 years experience certainly counts for more than the simplistic rantings of a rude and angry housewife from one of the whitest states......

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:

...A defense mechanism in which the individual attributes to other people impulses and traits that he himself has but cannot accept. It is especially likely to occur when the person lacks insight into his own impulses and traits...

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.

wolf wrote:

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...

Those present in New Zealand as permanent residents before 21 April 2005, or those who applied successfully for permanent residence before that date, may be able to apply for New Zealand citizenship after 3 years' "ordinary residence" (this provision expires on 1 January 2010).

Those that have been in New Zealand without a permit during their ordinary residence period do not meet the requirements because "unlawful residence" is precluded in the Citizenship Act 1977. Ordinary residence is assessed by backdating three years before an application is lodged. Time spent in New Zealand before the three year period is not relevant.

One must also intend to continue to reside in New Zealand, be of good character, have sufficient knowledge of the English language, and demonstrate an understanding of the responsibilities and privileges of being a New Zealand Citizen.

...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.

MaggieL wrote:

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?

MaggieL wrote:

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

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

bluecuracao wrote:

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.

Does anyone who has posted in this BS think that what they say, think want, will have any inpact of what the powers that be sell out for? If so someone is living in a fools world!

busterb wrote:

Does anyone who has posted in this BS think that what they say, think want, will have any inpact of what the powers that be sell out for? If so someone is living in a fools world!

In aggregate, what the people want is already having an impact. But having elected representatives is a lot like herding cats...they don't always go the way you want.

We'll see what happens.

You can't herd cats. just kill 'em and get a new one that's where you want it to be. Same for politicians. ;)

MaggieL wrote:

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

Its most important of all to ask "Who benefits?" Someone is benefiting from leaving all that food out for the flies. Check your premises, Maggie. Who is leaving the food out and why?

The businessmen who hire the illegals are the ones who benefit from this entire mess. The people who work for "la migra" also benefit, although to a far lesser degree. Let's say I have a 1,000 acre grape farm or, better yet, a chain of hotels/motels that uses illegal labor at a far lesser cost than what it would be to hire bona fide US citizens.

When's the last time you heard of of a group of Hilton executives (or whatever big hotel chain) being arrested for using illegals as employees? I go into the Walmart in Montrose, Colorado. You'd think I was in Mexico City. Those folks are buying stuff to support the Chinese economy just like good American citizens do. They pay sales tax on their purchases which goes to help underpin the staggering toward collapse any second now, Montrose County, Colorado economy.

Who contributes to the war chests of congress-persons in states where their is a high number of illegals? Don't all raise your hands at once. HINT: It is the AMERICAN (ie US) businessman.

US law currently states that any child born within this country's borders is automatically a citizen. Now, you can lobby DC to change this law or else you can make the decision to turn your "flies" into "bees." Give those kids the medical care, food, and education to make them productive citizens of this country.

We are willing to spend trillions on killing people in the Far East, yet dig in our heels at making an investment of millions here at home. The US needs to let go of its xenophobic attitude toward the world. We either kill foreigners outright or exploit them as a source of cheap labor. Check your premises. Who benefits from this stance?

Over to you, Ms. Rand.

marichiko wrote:

Its most important of all to ask "Who benefits?" Someone is benefiting from leaving all that food out for the flies. Check your premises, Maggie. Who is leaving the food out and why?
Over to you, Ms. Rand.

You're kinda late to this party. Go back and read all of this thread and the other immigration ones. I think punishing the criminals who are exploiting the illegals is [B][I]more important than any futile attempt to seal the border[/I][/B]...and I've said so several times.

That's the "cover the food"...no point in trying to deport millions of illegals who will just turn around and head back across the border. Remove their motivation for being here by making it unprofitable to exploit them; it's easier.

Also read what I've written about the 14th amendment...as far as I'm concerened, illegals aren't "under the jurisdiction of the United States" until they're apprehended.

You'll have to excuse me. Between being banned for a while and moving 400 miles across the state of brain death, I haven't been able to keep up with the recent doings of the board.

I am honestly curious as to how a follower of Ms. Rand's philosophy would view the current "illegal situation" in the US. Ms. Rand herself was an immigrant - a fortunate one in that she was a Russian opposed to the then current soviet regime and had the benefit of an education.

She viewed most government as an impediment - "Get the hell out of my way!" It seems to me that the group that would fall into her definition of "parasites" in this instance is the US businessman who hires the migrants illegally and pays no social security, workman's comp, etc that he would he have to pay for a US worker. The illegals don't just walk across the border and immediantly apply for welfare. They WORK at substandard wages, doing jobs that US workers refuse to do.

So why all the ill will toward them?

But she also thought that hands-off (I can't spell the french word) capitalism was the only viable government, and the illegal immigrant worker situation is about economics more than anything else, and so she would support the use of illegal immigrant workers as a perfectly fine way to compete in business.

marichiko wrote:

You'll have to excuse me. Between being banned for a while and moving 400 miles across the state of brain death, I haven't been able to keep up with the recent doings of the board.

Yes, you were so anxious to dash in here and pick a fight that it wasn't necessary to find out what I'd actually said first. :-) And you've already forgotten what I've actually said about Rand, too.

marichiko wrote:

They WORK at substandard wages, doing jobs that US workers refuse to do.

Because legal workers believe the jobs are worth more. "Jobs legal workers won't do" is a slogan that conveniently bundles low-skill or physical jobs with the wages that those exploitive employers--remeber them? feel like paying. The fact that conditions are so much worse in Mexico doesn't make the illegals heros for sneaking in here and exporting as much cash as possible. I guess I'm just not a pure enough Randite to beleive that the borders should be opened while we're still running as Socialist a state as we do.

Ibram wrote:

... and so she would support the use of illegal immigrant workers as a perfectly fine way to compete in business.

There's nobody more anxious to put words in Rand's mouth now that she's dead than a liberal...and Mari does it more than anybody else; you're competing with a pro now, Ibram. :-) I can hardly wait to see the Tom Cruise/Angelina Jolie version of "Atlas Shrugged"; that should be a real hoot too.

A dead author makes such a great factory for straw men; you can make them say anything you want. Myself, I don't think "a perfectly fine way to compete in business" includes competing in a labor market with someone who doesn't have to follow the same laws you do.

Hey, I'm not TRYING to put words in her mouth, if thats what I was doing, I was just hypothesising. I'm not a big fan of her philosophy anyway, though shes a damn good writer. Anthem kicks ass, and not just because it's the foundation for 2112. But I digress. I was merely stating what I figured would be her view on the issue, though I know no better than anyone else. If I failed to clarify that as a hypothesis, my apologies.

MaggieL wrote:

There's nobody more anxious to put words in Rand's mouth now that she's dead than a liberal...and Mari does it more than anybody else; you're competing with a pro now, Ibram. :-) I can hardly wait to see the Tom Cruise/Angelina Jolie version of "Atlas Shrugged"; that should be a real hoot too.

Did you ever see that old version of The Fountainhead with Gary Cooper ? Gawd, that was awful! ;)

wrote:

A dead author makes such a great factory for straw men; you can make them say anything you want. Myself, I don't think "a perfectly fine way to compete in business" includes competing in a labor market with someone who doesn't have to follow the same laws you do.

Oh, you're just PO'ed that a liberal has made an intense study of Ms. Rand. I agree with you that we all need to follow the same laws. The businessmen who knowingly hire illegals should face the legal consequences of their actions. This seldom seems to happen.

marichiko wrote:

The businessmen who knowingly hire illegals should face the legal consequences of their actions. This seldom seems to happen.

Totally agree. But that is going to require making it easy for an employer to positively identify who is elegible to work in the US and who isn't...and right now that's a joke. How you do that without a national identity document I don't know. I'm not opposed to that, since I'm already identity-documented up the wazoo, but I know a lot of other people are for reasons they're seldom able to articulate; they just begin FUDding around about Big Brother without explaining what freedom of anonymity it is they have now that they're going to lose if the big scary goverment can actually figure out who they are.

Well, I don't like the idea of national idenity papers, myself, but in effect, we already have them. They're our social security cards and driver's licences. Documents can always be forged, anyway. What ticks me off is the outfits who knowingly hire illegals who don't even have a FORGED green card. If employers would start saying "no tickee, no job", the problem would begin to resolve itself right there.

marichiko wrote:

Documents can always be forged, anyway.

True...but a good document system would be extremely difficult to forge.

Make green cards really hard to forge. Post big signs at the border in Spanish, "Don't leave home without it," then crack down hard on employers who hire workers who did.

Actually, I don't see what good idenity papers are, anyhow, with the current disregard for who has valid ones or not.

I had a boyfriend once who took his driver's licence and inserted a picture of an otter where his face should have been because he wanted to "look like I ottah" (I know, I sure can pick 'em). Anyway I was with him once when he got pulled over by a cop to be issued a warning for not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign. My boyfriend handed his licence to the cop and the guy didn't even blink. Just said "Make sure you come to a complete stop next time," and handed him his licence back.

Come to think of it, he DID sort of look like the otter on his licence - big brown eyes and blond whiskers.

marichiko wrote:

Make green cards really hard to forge...

Make an identity document that's hard to forge; green cards don't cut it.

Notional pre-hire conversation:

"Where's your green card?"
"I don't need one, I'm a citizen. Here's my driver's licence."
"But you 'look hispanic'."
"Racist!"

---------------------------

Better pre-hire converstion, just as notional:

"May I see your ID so I can fill out the I-9 form?"
"Certainly, here you go."
"Thank you...it will just be a miniute while I call it in....OK, it checks as valid."

The magic is in the "checks as valid" part. A Java-based smart card could do it.

If you guys want ID cards, get ready for pork.

WASHINGTON, May 13 — The Department of Homeland Security has invested tens of millions of dollars and countless hours of labor over the last four years on a seemingly simple task: creating a tamperproof identification card for airport, rail and maritime workers.

Yet nearly two years past a planned deadline, production of the card, known as the Transportation Worker Identification Credential, has yet to begin.

Instead, the road to delivering this critical antiterrorism tool has taken detours to locations, companies and groups often linked to Representative Harold Rogers, a Kentucky Republican who is the powerful chairman of the House subcommittee that controls the Homeland Security budget.

richlevy wrote:

If you guys want ID cards, get ready for pork.

And what exactly has the government ever done that wasn't? :-)

That's an interesting point though...which exceutive department would be tasked with such a thing? DHS/TSA wouldn't be my first choice. State maybe.

No, no, it would be the Department of Identity Cards. Too big to fit in another group, because they'll build a bureaucracy that would put the IRS to shame. Every politician's, brother's, nephew's, baby-sitter's, Aunt will have a job. :(

Would that be US D.I.Cs?

Yanno, just so I know where to send my resume and all.