Do you think it is reasonable for taxpayers to pay $113 BILLION a year for Illegals/Anchor Babies?

[Bosstone]

@Cyclone

OK, give me a link to a better term for those who became U. S. Citizens only because they came out of a womb in the United States. What would you have me call this group of individuals?

Citizens. The cite you want is the 14th Amendment:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

[Cyclone]

[quote=“askeptic, post:48, topic:589650”]

@Cyclone

The way you are pushing this constitutional aspect causes me to wonder about your credentials. Frankly, you sound like a pro-illegal propagandist who just wants to keep that $113 Billion a year flowing in your direction[\quote]

well I was born in Alabama to white parents who were born in Alabama in fact my great great great grand father fought in the civil war one of my ancestors was an officer in the revolutionary war I fought in Iraq my uncle was a deputy sheriff in Birmingham from 1961 to 1975 .Still want to compare credentials?

Fine Governor Berkeley was the Governor of Virginia before the American Revolution. That and $4 gets me coffee at Starbucks.

I graduated UCDAvis with a BS in Communications and received an MBA from Northwestern in Advertising. I work for a national advertising agency on Wilshire Blvd., and have an office with two windows, and own a home at the beach in Pacific Palisades 15 miles from Malibu and MOVIE STARS!!!. Are you impressed? I am only impressed with the hard work it took my wife and I to get here.

What can this possibly have to do with this thread?

[Dewey_Finn]

@Cyclone

OK, give me a link to a better term for those who became U. S. Citizens only because they came out of a womb in the United States. What would you have me call this group of individuals?

How about just simply citizens? “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

[Cyclone]

@Miller

The liberal agenda also goes nowhere if we abandon it to court right-wing voters.

… I thought you were arguing that we shouldn’t help people who aren’t American. This sure as fuck sounds like an argument in exactly the opposite direction. Maybe you should take some time to figure out exactly what position you’re trying to argue, here.

Try as I might, I can’t figure out any way to apply this metaphor to immigration in a way that makes any kind of sense, or adds any sort of insight into the issue.

Yes, I certainly do. In fact, I’d say that’s my chief problem with your OP.

I have no clue at all what this is supposed to mean. What “three words” are you talking about? What does the word “nigger” have to do with anything? If you’re so committed to not using insulting terms, why are you still throwing around “anchor baby” left and right?

Incidentally, on what basis do you identify as a liberal?

Well, as a lifetime member of the DNC, and a Democratic Party worker for Al Gore in 2000 my credentials as a liberal are unquestioned. I have signed photos in my home thanking me for my efforts from Gore, Kerry, and Obama.

As a liberal…hell, as an American… we take care of our citizens first. We have uninvited illegals absorbing $113 Billion a year in education, health care, and welfare, while 17,000,000 poor American children are starving.

Since your have pushed the issue on the use of the “n” word and want to hear the phrase used in the southwest for “anchor babies” I will break my own rule and offer the term, IF you will give me a** link** an acceptable term to the group of people commonly referred to as “anchor babies.”

I suspect we will hear no more about a replacement for the term “anchor babies” used by national media.

[Cyclone]

[quote=“askeptic, post:51, topic:589650”]

@Cyclone

Please provide an alternative term to “anchor babies,” this is the term mainstream media uses[\Quote]Citizen.

So, now you are throwing out bait leading to a discussion of ‘second class American citizens?’ I refuse to go there. I do not acknowledge that there is such a thing as a ‘second class American citizens.’

[Bosstone]

@Cyclone

So, now you are throwing out bait leading to a discussion of ‘second class American citizens?’ I refuse to go there. I do not acknowledge that there is such a thing as a ‘second class American citizens.’

Well, we could call them strawbabies.

[Cyclone]

@Whack-a-Mole

Not here but I have made the case in the past.

The issue is nuanced though.

They seem to be a net benefit to the federal budget. They can be a net drain to a state though (depending on the state). So, states like California see a substantial net drain due to a significant illegal immigrant population. Other states with few illegal immigrants see a net benefit.

Averaged out across the country and illegal immigrants are a net financial benefit overall. That still does not help a state like California’s budget. They have to bear that cost. The rest of the country benefits.

I would hardly call 10 Billion a year in taxes a dent in the $113 Billion American taxpayers fork out each year for the education, health care, and welfare of illegal aliens and their anchor babies. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/04/AR2006060400965.html Get real.

[JRDelirious]

Again: “American-born children of illegal immigrants” – There’s your term. Not everything has to have a cute short tag.

[DianaG]

Can we get a chant going here? When I say “anchor babies”, y’all say “ASSHOLE!!!”

[silenus]

@Cyclone

I would hardly call 10 Billion a year in taxes a dent in the $113 Billion American taxpayers fork out each year for the education, health care, and welfare of illegal aliens and their anchor babies. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/04/AR2006060400965.html Get real.

And one more time for the slow people (that’s you, Cyclone), $113 billion is a made-up number with zero support. You saying it doesn’t make it true. Quite the opposite in fact.

[Cyclone]

@BrainGlutton

So far, I do not believe you.

So, far I have not seen any credibility from the long-standing members of The Straight Dope in this thread. No fact links to substantiate statements, and basically nothing but name calling. I will be interested to see if the members posting in this thread are even real American citizens. So far I am skeptical.

Sounds like propaganda to keep the $113 Billion a year flowing to illegals. Too bad too because when I came to this thread I was thinking amnesty. Now I am leaning to the $296 Billion plan to deport all 12,000,000 illegals in five years. It would be a money saver compared to what we spend each year.

[Cyclone]

@tomndebb

Mainstream Media? Or Fox News?

= = =

You are relying for your terminology on the same “mainstream media” that changed “inheritance tax” to “death tax” and invented “death panels” and “ground zero mosque” for artificial things that did not even exist.

The (scare tactic) notion behind “anchor baby” is that a mother dropping a kid on U.S. soil immediately begins to use that child’s citizenship to bring her parents and grandparents and all her cousins and in-laws into the U.S. as “family.” In fact, this does not happen and, as already noted, an illegal immigrant who gives birth to a U.S. citizen based on location of birth is still subject to deportation.

The issue is not what the “mainstream media” calls such a child; the issue is that the whole notion is a propaganda campaign of lies that you perpetuate by continuing to refer to that false phrase.
Illegal immigration is a serious situation, but a genuine discussion regarding ways to deal with it is better engaged without relying on nonsense phrase and scare tactics.

You need to spend a few weeks living in a border State. I am sorry to say you are very much out of touch with reality.

[DianaG]

$113B doesn’t get any truer when you make it red, either.

[Cyclone]

@askeptic

He is a liberal in the randian sense in other words he is a teabagger. But then you knew that.. But others might not

That is a first for me, being called a Tea Bagger.

It appears you might have it reversed. It is Tea Baggers who do not provide fact links to verify arguments and rely on lame name-calling to make their case.

Apparently, I was mislead as The Straight Dope was a constructive liberal forum. This is a joke. :smack:

[Implicit]

@Cyclone

OK, give me a link to a better term for those who became U. S. Citizens only because they came out of a womb in the United States. What would you have me call this group of individuals?

If you think FAIR is a racist website please provide me with a** link** to a reputable source of information to pick up this information. I will not accept La Raza, The Southern Poverty Law Center or the ACLU, The Wall Street Journal, or Fox News - these are extremist propagandists. I want CBS, NBC, ABC, The New York Times, The Washington Post,* Newsweek*, Time, or* U. S. News and World Reports* or something at that level.

You make a lot of noise, but are short on substantiation with supporting facts.

You already responded to my first post (#46) in this thread yesterday with post #49. Why are you responding to it again with post #80 and ignoring my response to post #49? Do you have memory problems? My response, including a link from the Congressional Budget Office, a bipartisan report with a bibliography of all the data sources used, trumps your retarded list of what you will or won’t accept.

Here is that response, since you seem to have missed it:

@Implicit

People already have suggested alternatives.
Your link is not credible. I’m sure you can find actual facts if you want to, but since you asked so nicely, try this pdf: CBO Paper on The Impact of Unauthorized Immigrants on the Budgets of State and Local Governments from December 2007.

Since I doubt you’ll actually read it, I’ll summarize for you:

The tax revenues that unauthorized immigrants generate for state and local governments do not offset the total cost of services provided to those immigrants. Most of the estimates found that even though unauthorized immigrants pay taxes and other fees to state and local jurisdictions, the resulting revenues offset only a portion of the costs incurred by those jurisdictions for providing services related to education, health care, and law enforcement. Although it is difficult to obtain precise estimates of the net impact of the unauthorized population on state and local budgets (see Box 1), that impact is most likely modest.

Modest in this context means the revenues cover considerably more than half the expenditures (there are examples from a few states in the paper). This doesn’t include any other benefits that the economy derives from this cheap labour source, which would reduce the net cost even further.

[Ludovic]

How is anchor babby formed? How Illegals get pragnent?

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Cyclone

Now I am leaning to the $296 Billion plan to deport all 12,000,000 illegals in five years. It would be a money saver compared to what we spend each year.

Sure, if you don’t count the 12,000,000 other illegals that will take their place. Let that come out of somebody’s else’s budget.

[Cyclone]

@Rushgeekgirl

I don’t live in the SW, just the S, but I can’t imagine an even more insulting term than “anchor baby”.

And saying “the n word” is just silly if you find the need to use the word “nigger”. It’s just as insulting if it’s meant as derogatory.

Fine. In my lowest voice possible. The term is “squat and drops.”

[Cyclone]

@RickJay

Let’s just pretend that the $113 billion number is accurate. t’s not - you can shoot holes it in with almost preposterous ease - but forget whether or not it is for a moment; let’s just work with it.

The rather obvious problem with pretending that this is a fixable part of the U.S. federal deficit is that it isn’t fixable. You cannot simply decide on Monday that you’re going to stop illegal immigration and thereby save $113 billion, the way you’d save some money by cancelling cable.

Preventing illegal immigration would require a rather massive outlay of money - physical barriers, patrolling, domestic law enforcement, electronic surveillance. You’d have to vastly increase the size of DHS in terms of manpower and the extent to which they interfered with legal travel - remember that many, many illegal immigrants do NOT come in through the Mexican border, but enter by simply arriving via airplane and not leaving.

The cost to actually cut off illegal immigration, or any significant percentage of it, would be billions and billions. Completely cutting it off is totally impossible but even cutting off a significant amount would be an absolutely gigantic undertaking.

In other words, you’d have an outstanding chance of the cost of enforcement being as high as the savings.

Stop questioning the FAIR estimate of $113 Billion a year spent on education, health care, and welfare for illegal aliens and their anchor babies. It stands until a better source and information are posted. Folks this is a message board, and you have made thousands of posts, can’t you back up your remarks in this thread?

[Cyclone]

@Bosstone

Citizens. The cite you want is the 14th Amendment:

The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with this. You might want to read a thread before posting in it. The topic of this thread is;

Do you think it is reasonable for taxpayers to pay $113 BILLION a year for Illegals/Anchor Babies?