Not that big government, big business, big religion, or those shit dipped bottom feeder democrats should give a rat’s ass about this report. I mean, after all, it’s done at the expense of the tax payers who bust their asses to make ends meet. They couldn’t give two shits about what’s happening in the real world! They don’t need to pay for healthcare insurance, social security, Medicare or medicate, or all those other bullshit taxes that consume almost 52% of our yearly income!
(Can you tell I’m doing my taxes?)
Heh! Best of luck with that!
The actual study was conducted of low-skilled households, yet the Times headline deceptively uses the word "aliens". Illegal aliens are not eligible for many of the items in the article such as social security, medicare, EITC, food stamps, and section 8.
Nevertheless there will be many who will think this study can be applied to illegal aliens.
^^^
The anchor babies serve as conduits to the big honking government teat.
See what I mean?
NO Jackson I don't. With all due respect you've made a jumbo assertion and like a good moderator I'll ask you to back it up now.
The actual study was conducted of low-skilled households: see the title of the study and read every word in the report
Illegal aliens are not eligible for many of the items in the article: see the ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION REFORM AND IMMIGRANT RESPONSIBILITY ACT 1996
There will be many who will think this study can be applied to illegal aliens: see Katie's Dad's comment
And you still haven't dealt with his point that the ridiculous abuse of the 14th amendment to allow citizenship to anyone who can waddle over the border provides benefits to those households because tucked in amongst all the illegal aliens is a little teeny weeny citizen whose teeny tiny little hand picks the lock of our retarded welfare system.
Or are you really this foolish?
You do understand that most local governments, like mine here in Chicago completely ignore that law and hand out the welfare treats to illegals? You do know that, right?
In fact every 'sanctuary' city (NY, LA, etc.) does this. You are either very naive or have some "dealing with reality issues."
And before you insist that some study sez: A friend of mine works in a local welfare office here, care to guess what's taped to her desk?
Howzabout a fake SS#! Gosh, whatever could that be for? I wonder?
Look, we're so glad you have the crazy love for illegal aliens, really, we are!
Some people are going to believe whatever they want to believe whether there is any evidence to support it or not.
Three hundred thousand anchor babies each year open the door to pretty close to 300,000 illegal alien families getting on the public dole, or getting more from it. Of course, there are those families that have twins and two deliveries in a year, but the 300,000 is just a rough government count anyway. We can safely assume the number is substantially higher.
It's disingenuous to carp about what the study may or may not have covered when it is so briefly summarized by the Times. If there is no basis for the study's authors to make a direct tie to illegal aliens, then it seems more than a bit odd that the quotes and paraphrasing state that the study did indeed find that illegal aliens are representative of the net costs to society as outlined in the study.
Further, it appears the study didn't even cover the cost of education and the the harder-to-quantify lost opportunity costs related to teaching American children. It's unconscionable that we have American kids being shortchanged by schools beset by the challenges imposed upon them by increasing numbers of illegal aliens. Perhaps the most lamentable travesties occur every time an American child is denied the opportunity to achieve the best results that his or her abilities might allow because the children of alien criminals forced costs shifts or social discordance in a public school.
How many American children must have their lives permanently altered for the worse before their plight starts to matter to those who misplace their compassion only with interlopers while ignoring the needs and futures of our native sons and daughters? I say that one is too many. Folks who, like Jackson, display defective value systems when they insist that all families of the earth are so equal that we must pay for their needs if they merely show up here, regardless of what it means to our own.
Sometimes I catch myself hoping there's an especially hot corner of hell for people like that. I shouldn't wish it. But I do wish that if they continue to insist we shortchange our children that they offer their children up as sacrifices to the hell that besets our most diverse and multicultural government schools. If there are to be children made less than their very best because of our immigration policy and practice, I ask for those who make the loudest cries about the need for cheap labor or chain migration to submit their own flesh and blood to the experiment, not mine.
My bet is that I won't find any takers.
"It's disingenuous to carp about what the study may or may not have covered
when it is so briefly summarized by the Times."
Jake provided a link to the actually report of the study. I'm not surprised
that you didn't read it before you entered the discussion. I'm not
surprised at all.
"Further, it appears the study didn't even cover the cost of education "
Had you read the report, you would know that the report does in fact cover
the cost of education. It covers just about every cost the author could
think of including the cost of parks.
"Folks who, like Jackson, display defective value systems when they insist
that all families of the earth are so equal that we must pay for their needs
if they merely show up here, regardless of what it means to our own."
This is also what I expected. An ad hominem attack without basis. Nowhere
did I insist that we must pay for the needs of all the families of the earth
if they merely show up here.
This is becoming just so common these days. An ignorant person who doesn't
read a report enters a discussion on the report and includes personal
insults in his comments. The level of debate in some of these blogs is just
pitiful.
I'll admit I missed the link to the study initially; however, reading it was just another confirmation that the presence of illegal aliens already costs and hurts this nation and those costs will be exacerbated tremendously if there is an amnesty. This study rings especially true to those of us who fight mass & illegal migration solely for the benefit of our children and children's children. It's incredibly absurd for Jackson to criticize me for not having read the study before commenting: Jackson didn't read it either before depositing his initial drivel in this thread - he falsely contended that the study did not find the families of low-skilled illegal aliens are a component of the costs we all bear for their breaking our laws. According to this study's executive summary, the foundation "plans to release a separate analysis focused solely on low-skilled immigrant households in the next few weeks." This will, by definition, include families with illegal alien members.
For 17 years I've been debating all sorts of illegal alien and mass immigration promoters and apologists. I have a pretty good handle on the various points of view they have and the tactics they will use. It's not hard to ascertain Jackson's true position on illegal aliens. He gave himself away when he came out swinging at anything that looked like it might place a quantifiable net cost to society upon any immigrant. Such overblown taking of offense coupled with constant racial posturing is nothing but amateur race hustling. Al Sharpton does it better, but the pretenders are legion.
Lower-level race hustlers like Jackson and Hispandertized cry racism at their first inking that someone who isn't a member of a blessed minority (or their own blessed minority) might actually have an affinity and preference for the people in his family and for those who share his heritage. Never mind that all other races and ethnicities are expected, thanks to the dogma of diversity, to strut out their pride for their own heritage as often as possible; the race-hustlers' double-speak establishes a double standard by which too many people who share my heritage are constrained by political correctness. The real inquisition begins when a member of a non-minority, like me, has the audacity to not show the "appropriate" level of guilt for some bad things all past Americans who even resembled my ancestors might have done 150 to 400 years ago.
I'm not one for drinking the multicult's Kool Aid just to pacify loons, moonbats and other assorted sorts of spiteful idiots who know so little about human nature that they cannot recognize that, contrary to popular misconception, prejudice is a vital tool for human survival that they themselves depend upon ever single day. God forbid these poor saps ever understand that the reason they see racism wherever they look is because humans tend to recognize first the things that they harbor within themselves.
"Jackson . falsely contended that the study did not find the families of low-skilled illegal aliens are a component of the costs we all bear for their breaking our laws."
I did contend that illegal aliens are not eligible for many of the items in the article. I also contend that therefore it is incorrect to assume that illegal alien households use public services at the same rate as Americans. In addition, many illegal aliens are single male workers who have no family here and pose very little fiscal cost to governments.
"According to this study's executive summary, the foundation 'plans to release a separate analysis focused solely on low-skilled immigrant households in the next few weeks.'"
The executive summary doesn't say this. But I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to estimate the costs of low-skilled immigrant households. Even though the data to conduct such an estimate is not available, it's probably to their political advantage to publish something that supports their rhetoric.
"Lower-level race hustlers like Jackson..."
Another ad hominem attack.
What you actually wrote (and repeated) was a claim that many would assume that the study applies to illegal aliens. A careful parsing of your wording reveals a subtle contention that because the study, the executive summary and the article fail to quantify the exact cost component attributable to illegal aliens, then the study can apply to no illegal aliens. Really.
For many of us who have been zeroed-in on this issue for a long time, the article simply confirms what we already know to be the case. I have first hand experience in dealing with illegal aliens accessing government services and registering to vote.
Your contentions come across to this writer as indicative of a heels-dug-in posture that refuses to consider that illegal aliens actually do apply for and receive services for which they are not eligible. Your tenor sends my handy "race-bait-o-meter" off the scale. This might be hard for you to get your head around, jackson, but it's really laughable that you take umbrage that I take away from the article and study additional confirmation that illegal aliens do stuff after they get here that...um...is illegal!
On to other matters: My labeling of your modus operandi is not an ad hominem fallacy. I wrote my opinion that your posturing and overblown taking of offense smacks of race hustling. Then I explained that I consider your expository tactics to be similar to the tactics used by Al Sharpton. From what I see so far, you like to stand on a soapbox of your own making then spout absolutes about shades of grey until someone is browbeaten into conceding.
So, my remark about your being a "lower level race hustler" is simply carrying forth my opinion informed by the manner in which you present yourself in this forum. An ad hominem is a personal attack used in place of facts or reasoned criticism to prove someone else wrong. You may consider the reasoning in my criticism to be unreasonable from your point of view, but it still does not make my opinion of your posture, style and goals here to be ad hominem in nature.
Interestingly, your insistence that my criticism of your style is ad hominem does lend additional creedence to my belief that "taking overblown offense" is one way in which you operate.
Way to go. You've managed to change the entire conversation from the subject at hand to me thereby avoiding getting embarrassed by the exposure of your ignorance. Good tactic. First you didn't even read the report before you entered the debate. You didn't even read Jake's brief comment closely enough to notice the link to the report. Then you lied about the content of the executive summary. You probably didn't even read that. Pitiful. But you can insult people extremely well.
But the use of this report by anti-immigration fanatics has taken a turn beyond what I predicted. It is well known that most immigrants are not eligible for most programs like social security, Medicaid, food stamps, section 8, and most other programs so therefore the study cannot be applied to immigrants especially illegal immigrants (the fact that less than a percent of immigrants have been accused of fraud to obtain said benefits does not negate this fact). Also, immigrant households are not identical to native households. Many immigrants are young, single men although some bring their families and others start families here, but many immigrants are young and single, rent a room and pose a negligible cost to society. Most people who grew up in the US have already cost the government thousands due to their 12 years of education so when an adult immigrant arrives, he's already $50 - $100,000 ahead because we didn't have to pay for an education. Also immigrants are naturally selected. Healthy people of working age are more likely to come to the US. Raised on rice and beans and hard work (not HoHos, Popeyes chicken and Oprah), these people are on average healthier and use less health care. Another difference is that immigrants that are low-skilled are low-skilled because their countries did not provide them a no-cost-to-them K-12 education. Meanwhile most high school drop outs in the US are people who were unable to drag themselves out of bed in the morning to attend class at the local high school and therefore are not the prime candidates for employment. People like that also have trouble keeping a steady job and are therefore more likely to use welfare programs.
In fact it has been reported that the Heritage Foundation plans to release a separate analysis focused solely on low-skilled immigrant households in the next few weeks.
http://wpherald.com/articles/
409...tributions.html
Even the Heritage Foundation knows that the study is not applicable to immigrants.
The Heritage Foundation estimated that each low-skilled household results in a lifetime cost of $1.1 million (assuming a 50 year adult lifespan for heads of household). I predicted that anti-immigrant fanatics would cite this figure despit the above. I was right.
What I did NOT predict was that the anti-immigration fanatics would twist even that. Stein Report is claiming that each illegal alien (not each
What I did NOT predict was that the anti-immigration fanatics would twist even that. Stein Report is claiming that each illegal alien (not each household) results in a lifetime cost of $1.1 million thereby overstating the already overstated cost by as much as 500%.
http://www.steinreport.com/
archi...9.html#comments
Commenting by HaloScan
