Nice try. Here’s the full quote from the cite without the first sentence stripped off.
“The amount of new foreign born student admissions has nearly doubled in the last two years. This school year alone saw more than 600 new admissions. Among those students, 248 were from Guatemala. Flanagan Kennedy says of those 248 children, 126 were illegal, undocumented minors.”
If you think she’s lying it’s up to you to prove it.
As my cite clearly shows these “children”, many of whom are at least 20 years old and will be entering the school system as freshmen don’t speak English. That’s certainly an expensive issue if they are tasked with educating them all with their existing budget.
Anecdotes? I always suspected you were Deval Patrick. Now I’ve got proof.
The Lynn story alone has hundreds of anecdotes. When does that become data. If a thousand more come in by the end of the year to that school, will that count? At what point would you admit that this is a real problem?
It’s one thing to disagree about how to react to this crisis, but it’s absurd to pretend that it doesn’t exist.
You might note that the number you insist is right includes mostly legal immigrants. The thread topic is the illegal kind. Do please try harder, that’s a good lad.
I didn’t say that either.
The cite you provided but still haven’t read says there are two (2). That is not “many” by most definitions.
Considering that they aren’t being admitted, no, it doesn’t.
You really don’t know how this debate stuff works, do you?
126 is not “hundreds”. Sheesh. Nor is it flatly and completely a “problem”, the other part of your disreputable claim. The net effect of illegal immigration (yes, I know, you only speak binary) isn’t at all negative, by the actual studies that have been done on it (try this, once you’ve decided you’re interested in reading something polysyllabic).
It’s absurd to pretend that a long-standing situation, lasting as long as the country, has suddenly become a “crisis” just because it’s only a few months until a major election and one party needs to anger up its base. Well, no, maybe “absurd” isn’t quite the right word …
First, election fraud of the sort you are talking about does not exist.
Second, they won’t be given citizenship. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 did not allow any illegal immigrant to obtain citizenship, only to obtain legal permanent resident status. They were specifically prohibited from obtaining later citizenship.
So yes, there is plenty of doubt in my mind that those kids will be voting for Democrats - because they won’t be voting at all. But that’s beside the point. What makes you think they won’t be persuaded to vote for Republicans? Do the Democrats have a magical immigrant brainwashing program I’m unaware of?
We were having such a nice discussion until ElvisL1ves and Little Nemo came along. I don’t know why I haven’t learned some posts just aren’t worth responding to.
Yes, but that’s only six or so years away. That’s why I objected to your framing this as taking generations to bear fruit.
Democrats are always batting their eyelashes and claiming innocence on this topic. But it’s hard to swallow.
I know that as a conservative, if there were a huge number of conservative voters that I could add as voters in the next election that would be very attractive to me. It’s hard to believe that the zeal with which democrats embrace immigrants isn’t at least partially motivated by the fact that they will vote for them. Indeed, even conservative Texas risks going blue if enough immigrants cross the border into that state. That would change American elections profoundly.
That’s what immigration boils down to for a lot of people. I like America. I like gun rights. Free speech. Lower taxes and less regulations. Private health care. The things that make America great. The things that make it not Europe.
Most immigrants coming here want to come to America because it’s great but they don’t seem to understand why it’s great. They don’t value these things. They will vote for democrats who want to turn it into the same sort of country that they’re fleeing.
This seems to be true for all stripes, whether the immigrant in question is from Guatemala, Ireland or India.
The lessons from Europe are clear. Multiculturalism is a failure. Assimilating millions of people who don’t share your language, customs or values doesn’t work. Generous social services offered in combination with open borders leads to disaster.
I wish we’d look to Europe and learn the lessons they have. But sadly, we don’t.
So all this blather from GOP quarters about how Latinos should naturally be Republicans, being hard-working and family-oriented and all that other non-hippie stuff, means nothing? Well, yes, it certainly will as long as the party resorts to nativist instincts and vilifies them instead. What other effect could you rationally expect?
Yes, the support of much of the next generation of them, the native-born, English-speaking, but still brown people, would still be available to a responsible party that treats them with the same respect as anyone else. But until that happens, the prediction that it can’t be the Republicans will be self-fulfilling.
I don’t think you like America. You like the 1950s John Wayne image of America. You can’t accept that things change and change for the better.
You like guns. Whoop de doo. As we’ve seen from the Cliven Bundy terrorists, having guns doesn’t make you right.
I’d like to know who doesn’t like free speech.
Lower taxes and less regulations sounds nifty. But grownups know that regulations are necessary and that taxes are needed to fund the programs and government services that we all use.
We still have private health care. The ACA doesn’t change that.
Europe is in many respects better than the US.
Oh yes, a country can’t survive if everyone doesn’t speak the same language. Just ask the Swiss or the Canadians or the Indians. How does one reconcile a pretended belief in free speech and free religion with insistance that all share your customs and values?
It worked rather astonishingly well in a country known as The United States of America. Where on earth were you when they taught about Ellis Island and the waves of non-English-speaking immigrants that have characterized America for over a century?
The USA is one of the most multicultural countries in the world, a fact so plainly obvious that I find it kind of weird anyone would think it is anything but. Jesus, visit New York City sometime. Multiculturalism clearly CAN work, and the USA is one of the finest examples of it.
Some countries have the multiculturalism thing nailed down pretty good, like the USA or Canada or Australia. Some, like some countries in Europe, struggle with it. Some countries just invent cultural divisions to fight over because they just enjoy hating one another, as happened in Yugoslavia. Every country’s different.
The United States will never be Europe because, as has been pointed out, it isn’t Europe (and adding Central Americans to it will not make it more European, inasmuch as Central America is not, the last time I checked, in Europe, and isn’t like Europe.) Democrats are not European in political outlook or even close to it.
Uh… Hi, european expat here. I’ve lived in Germany for 9 years or so now, nearly half my life. I lived in Mainburg, the town with the highest concentration of Turkish residents in Bavaria (at least, this is what the people there had told me, I have no official statistics), and now live in Munich, a massive, multicultural, international city. I can say with a fair bit of certainty that while there’s a little bit of culture shock and some rough edges (in particular the turkish “gangsta” culture), it is not a “failure”. These people are assimilating. In fact, the only problems are the second generation - the first generation, the people who weren’t born here, have had almost no trouble whatsoever integrating into German society, and it’s not for nothing that you can find a kebab stand on every corner and a turkish market in every town.
The IRCA of 1986 did provide for Temporary H2-A visas for agriculture workers, but that is a lawful entry. And the act explicitly provides for benchmarks* for such workers to prove before applying for naturalization.
Debaser seems to clearly be addressing those who were illegal immigrants who received amnesty under the act. The act provided for a lawful status that could lead to lawful permanent residency. Nothing I can find in the act prohibits such such persons from obtaining citizenship after achieving LPR status.
Such agricultural worker must prove he “performed 90 man-days of seasonal agricultural services in each of 5 fiscal years” after receiving lawful entry on a temporary H2-A visa before applying for naturalization.
And was even before independence: There were English-descended Americans, Scotch-Irish, Dutch, Germans, Africans, Indians, and Jews, just to start with.
It didn’t have to. The 1965 act prohibits individuals who have previously entered illegally from subsequently obtaining citizenship (unless they were granted asylum or refugee status, I think).
No it isn’t. Europe isn’t America, and European solutions will not fix American problems, nor will American solutions fix European problems.
Continental-spanning policies are vastly more complicated than “let’s do it the way Germany does it.” Europe is in some ways more liberal, in some ways more conservative, and in many ways so different from the USA that you can’t define the difference on a left-right axis.
Heck, the USA and Canada share a continent and are much more similar than either is to any European country and even then they have political differences that defy obvious left-right comparison; Canada is simultaneously much more liberal AND much more conservative than the USA, and the two countries both have issues with no comparable issue at all in the other country.
