The state subsidized the education of my wife you halfwit. The one she’s not “using”, never “used”, and never will “use” in your workforce sense of the term. And WHY, do you suppose, could these immigrants not “use” their education? We need them here, trust me we need them - only the anti-reality crowd is pretending like we don’t - they wouldn’t come here if we didn’t need them.
And yes, for the record I DO want open borders, but I don’t want 25 anybody in my living room and I don’t even know what a freed PhD is.
Regardless over whether an immigration reform ever passes that will allow these kids to legalize, some of them will eventually legalize in other ways - they will be the beneficiaries of immediate relative petitions filed by their eventual U.S. citizen spouses, for example.
The purpose of restricting in-state tuition to residents of a particular state is that it is paid for by state tax revenues, which residents of that state pay out of their salaries and via sales and property tax, etc., regardless of their immigration status.
No, this isn’t true. Social Workers coordinate services for eligible applicants.
But have you read welfare policy? You claim children of illegal immigrants are inclined to live on welfare but don’t offer information to support the assertion.
HUD’s website states that section eight has more eligible applicants than available housing. The applicants fortunate enough to get housing receive subsidized rent, not a free place to live.
Welfare is an easy target for media pundits and shock jocks who earn a living propagating stereotypes and myths that prey on working class insecurities. It is amazingly effective at creating a false reality.
The fact is welfare is a work program with time limits on benefits. After welfare reform in the 90s, the program was renamed Temporary Aid for Needy Families (TANF) and federal funding was provided in block grants to states. Each state determines eligibility and time limits within federal guidelines. Most states have a two year life time limit for benefits. Once the two years are used consecutively or intermittently, the family is no longer eligible. Some states offer a onetime lump cash payment to families in crisis if the family agrees to forfeit future eligibility.
Welfare serves the desperately poor, people with income less than half the federal poverty line. This is destitute poor. To receive benefits, stringent work requirements must be met. No need to worry about single mothers living fat on the system. They work full time to qualify for benefits. This site offers a state by state comparison.
Big fucking deal, they were in the Southwest first. In every country in the world their were populations that preceded those that inhabit it now. And populations before them. This argument is empty.
We’ll, you owe those people a debt of gratitude for what they created. If we didn’t have them as forbearers this country would be like…well, Mexico. Which you are free to move to, of course.
They take jobs Americans don’t want t the depressed wages the illegals will salivate over. Remove that factor and wages will go up. Americans might be unwilling to do a certain job for $X, but may be thrilled with doing it for $2X. And as the U.S. unemployment rate rises, the company might not even have to pay 2X. We need to remove the depression on raises and make these jobs pay what they’re actually worth, as decided by the market. If we still need people to fill jobs, we can then either increase legal immigration or institute a guest worker program. Or both.
I don’t want them under my thumb. I want them back in their own countries.
If you think that is a legitimate cite, you’re an imbecile.
An argument is not empty just because you say it is. You don’t even give reasons to support your opinion, just your word. Who the hell are you?
And we don’t owe Mexicans a debt of gratitude? They BUILT the southwest. Literally. Anglos didn’t know anything about living or working in this environment. They didn’t know about irrigation. They didn’t know about farming this soil or mining in these hills. They learned all that from the Mexicans.
The market did decide what those jobs were worth, and Americans don’t want them.
Why? Why do you want to deny them opportunities that you did NOTHING to earn (assuming you were born here like I was)?
Again, who the hell are you and why should I trust your word? Give me a reason to doubt it. There are hundreds more that agree with it, I assure you.
No, I am referring to corporations like Halliburton et al. that hire illegal immigrants and Microsoft Corporation et al. that actively recruit guest workers from developing countries. These are the same corporations funding the conservative think tanks orchestrating immigration hysteria, in fact, one of the regular contributing pundits on Lou Dobbs is from the Heritage Foundation.
Who would know? name, accent, will work for two dollars a day…
I recall reading that some illegals do pay income tax and file returns in the hope that doing so might help them become legal residents in the future. So I’m not sure how much the tax argument really applies when arguing against illegals.
As a legal resident, I understand why people would want to bypass the legal channels into the country–it’s expensive (and fees went up a couple years ago, in some cases pretty drastically), can be difficult to navigate, takes time and the circumstances under which a person can become a legal resident are pretty narrowly defined. The US immigration system really needs an overhaul.
That said, I still do not condone the people that take the illegal route. I have every bit of sympathy for them–their circumstances aren’t their fault. However, the US and every other nation has the right to define their own immigration policies, and by breaking them illegals make it harder for those people who try to enter legally. To continue an analogy from earlier in the thread, there’s a big difference between offering someone my spare bedroom to sleep in, and someone breaking into my apartment and staying there because it’s more comfortable than their own bed.
Do Americans really not want them, or can they not get them because of illegals being willing to work for less and making bilingualism a more desirable skill among employees? I remember reading a complaint once from a teenager (possibly on this board) saying that s/he couldn’t find an after school job because the presence of Mexican immigrants made Spanish an almost necessary requirement for all the local jobs s/he could apply for.
I don’t want to get into this argument because the whole “This is America! Speak American” bullshit makes me want to vomit. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Understanding English is not something that magically happens the second you step foot in the US. It’s damn hard to learn a second language, especially as an adult. But does it really matter to people that want immigrants kept out of the country that today’s immigrants are learning English faster than the (white) immigrants of yesteryear? Of course not. They are only interested in keeping the US as white as possible. And those people who you over hear speaking Spanish – there is such a thing as bilingualism. I know it’s hard for most Americans to understand, but it’s possible to be fluent in more than one language at a time. I know, it’s totally crazy!
So, there were calls for cites about how fast the newest immigrants are learning English. I don’t have good public cites beyond Mr. Verb: Immigrants learning English.
If you have access to a university library, you can read the American Speech article they reference in that link. If you don’t have access and really want to read the paper, PM me and I’ll email you the PDF. Here’s the abstract from it:
And they conclude with:
If you want to know more about language shift among immigrants in the US, then I recommend the work of Joshua A. Fishman. Or, you know, look at the Census. According to the 2007 Community Survey, in the US as a whole, among people who speak a language other than English as a home language, 91.4% speak English “very well.” That statistic goes up to 94.2% for Spanish speakers.
So, you’ve read the scholarly, peer-reviewed paper and actually know something about how linguistic studies are done to make such a dismissal? Interesting.
Many U.S. citizens and legal residents only pay taxes because they fear jail and fines. Others don’t pay them at all, or avoid paying the full amount that they owe. Should we deny all those people government services?
I meant it’s not a valid study for our purposes. I don’t know how sweeping the claims of the study authors was.
If these authors claimed that they can prove that today’s immigrants are learning language faster than previous waves of immigrants by comparing a broad spectrum of today’s immigrants against a cherry-picked sample of isolated rural communities from a previous generation, then their study is invalid.
But it’s quite possible that the claims made by the authors is far less sweeping than that.
If you’re familiar with scholarly peer-reviewed papers, as you seem to imply, you undoubtedly know that such papers often make very limited claims and are full of qualifiers and calls for further study etc. Then the media gets hold of them and publishes the more sensational parts with misleading headlines.
In sum, for purposes of this discussion, that study shows nothing.
It was cited, numb nuts, to refute the post from** billfish678’s** belief that in the past, if you didn’t learn English immediately then you suffered. Do you expect that a study will… ahem… study everybody who immigrated in the 19th century to be valid?
Although it’s good to know you have problems with cherry-picked information. I’ll remember that for the future.