Illegal aliens leave hospital near bankruptcy
Illegal aliens cost California billions
Growing crisis in health care caused by illegals
New Mexico residents pay disproportionate costs of illegal immigration
It’s easy to be compassionate and generous when it’s someone else’s resources you’re giving away.
"A. Son mexicanos por nacimiento:
I. Los que nazcan en territorio de la República, sea cual fuere la nacionalidad de sus padres;"
You’re Mexican by birth if you’re born in Mexico regardless of what the nationality of your folks is.
Is Mexico as lax about enforcing its immigration laws as we are?
You’d would rather that these people remain untreated, which would be contrary to US law I believe (what part of illegal don’t you understand 
)?
I think that any article that uses FAIR as a source is pretty much irrelevant. The NMSU study counts people legally in the US that ambulance services pick up.
The Tuscon article doesn’t back a thing up. And also appears to count people legally in the US. Like the people that have passed through ports of entry legally.
I think that there is an increased cost. A substantial one. But the cites prove nothing.
I don’t know. But it appears that there Constitution is similar in the citizenship regard.
Whoops! Didn’t read the 2 year old story from the New Mexican. NPR has an interesting bit about it currently though.
It appears that as the Federal program to compensate hospitals for illegal alien care came into place, that increased enforcement has brought down the number of illegal aliens.
First, I never said YOU were dishonest. I post something that proves something you cite to is bullshit and you immediately start your personal attacks.
Possibly incorrect??? Thanks for the laugh!!! I didn’t have to try very hard. As a Mexican national I know the law here.
Oh no, you want to make me an STMB illegal language alien!! Don’t get your pampers in knot. Unregistered Bull did a fine job of translating the key part of the Constitution.
How about the thousands upon thousands of legal border crossers? Maybe I’m mistaken but it appears to me you’ve never spent any time along the Texas border and have no idea of the border dynamics. Every single day thousands of people cross the border legally in both directions. And as you yourself quoted:
“No mosquito that bites a person infected with malaria (in this case dengue) checks identification papers before biting another person to transmit debilitating fever.”
But you put the blame of a “recent virulent outbreak”(like a spike in dengue cases that occured 7-8 years ago is recent?) on illegals?
Actually, I think there is an English only rule here, because it makes it harder for the mods to do their job if they don’t know what you’re saying. Makes sense.
You completely missed the point.
Birthright is not an affair of immigration. It is a constitutional right.
The constitutionality of “anchor” babies was discussed to death in “that other” thread, as was the “patriotism” of the Minutemen, Border Guard, etc. I noticed now that there is some dire “threat to our culture”. WFT is that? Everything about the “American culture” came from somewhere else. That hot dog or burger we eat at the baseball game came from Germany. Pizza and spaghetti came from Italy. The basis for our laws came from England.
Let’s put it exactly the way it is. This is no defending of our culture, it is a thinly veiled racism. Their culture is no good, so that means they themselves are no good. They are different. Different sucks.
Something else I thought of…
the “My people did it legally and came through Ellis Island and blah blah blah” argument. Well, MY family came that way too, in the early 1900’s. BUT they had it easier. About the only requirements were that you not be a criminal and not be carrying some dread disease. There was also NOT a 10 plus year wait. You merely had to have someone already in the States vouch for you. You didn’t need a gang of laywers to navigate the immigration laws. It was EASIER.
TWEEEEET!!!
I do not want to see any more accusations of dishonesty unless very narrowly addressed to a specific off-board author of a specific text with citations to prove that the dishonesty was deliberate.
If we cannot discuss hot topics in Great Debates without getting personal, we’ll simply move the threads to the Pit. Personally, I think that even on an emotionally charged issue, the usual denizens of this Forum should be capable of conducting a debate without trying to simply tear down their opponents. (I have, unfortunately, been proven wrong in the past, but I am ever the optimist that we can pull it off.)
Leave the personal observations for the Pit. Stick to discussing facts or the logical conclusions drawn from those facts without worrying about whether your opponent is “honest” enough or “bright” enough to handle the information.
[ /Moderator Mode ]
I just want to point out that in an area with heavy immigration, finding bilingual resources isn’t difficult. And adding more people that speak that language in to the mix doesn’t bump up costs. Most areas with heavy illegal immigration would still need those resources to teach thier legal immigrants (and before you say they should learn English only no matter what- don’t you think schools and communities ought to be able to choose how they best educate their children?).
In many cities there also exists a large *native[/] Spanish speaking populations that have been here since well before any English speakers arrived. Speaking Spanish does not go against American culture, because it is a part of American culture.
I have a friend that was born in Africa. She spent her teens and young adult years in London. Then she moved to America where she has lived for twenty years. If you ask her “What are you?”, she will say, with no hesitation, “Indian”. This is pretty standard in the Indian community.
Should we kick them out, too? Or should we recognize that being “Indian” or “Mexican” and “American” isn’t a contridiction.
There is almost not country on this earth that speaks a single language and despite what they tell us in school, America is not particularly unique for being a conglomeration of people from diverse places (did you know there are 300 ethnic groups in Cameroon alone?). Indeed, in countries with an official language, that language is usually the language of government but not at all the language that people speak at home. The only fairly monolingual countries I can think of are maybe a few parts of northern/western Europe and Japan- oddly enough these are also the few countries that are largly monocultural.
This is a mischaracterization of what that was about. Muslims were hoping for recognition of their family law, regarding things like divorce, inheretence, etc. For example, if you were undergoing a divorce you could both choose to have custody, etc. decided according to Islamic law and have the state recognize those decisions. Recognizing the family law of different populations is an ancient and common practice in much of the world.
blah. blah. blah blah. It all boils down to the same thing.
As for dengue…well, when we bring our troops back from Iraq, they will have been exposed to a lot of foreign diseases, right? We can’t just bring a mass of potentially disease ridden people right in to the heart of our cities all at once, can we?
About the “all they have to do is follow the law” argument. Below are some quotes about it. If the judges and lawyers are having fits in understanding the law, what chance would Jose, Hans, or Mario have???
http://www.wolfsdorf.com/The_Complexity_of_Immigration_Law.htm
“With only a small degree of hyperbole, the immigration laws have been termed ‘second only to the Internal Revenue Code in complexity.’ A lawyer is often the only person who could thread the labyrinth.”. E. Hull, Without Justice For All 107 (1985).
"Immigration laws bear a “striking resemblance …[to] King Minos’s labyrinth in ancient Crete. The Tax Laws and the Immigration and Nationality Acts are examples we have cited of Congress’s ingenuity in passing statutes certain to accelerate the aging process of judges.” Lok v. INS, 546 F.2d 37, 38 (2d Cir. 1977)
“This case vividly illustrates the labyrinthine character of modern immigration law-a maze of hyper-technical statutes and regulations that engender waste, delay, and confusion for the Government and petitioners alike. The inscrutability of the current immigration law system, and the interplay of the numerous amendments and alterations to that system by Congress during the pendency of this case, have spawned years of litigation, generated two separate opinions by the District Court, and consumed significant resources of this Court. With regret and astonishment, we determine, as explained more fully below, that this case still cannot be decided definitively but must be remanded to the District Court, and then to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), for further proceedings.” Drax v. Reno, 338 F.3d 98, 99-100 (2d Cir. 2003)
Not welfare - social welfare. Illegal immigrants get free public education from age 5 to 18. The uninsured get hospital care in emergencies, etc. Remember the original quote:
My point is that we do not owe these things to foreign nationals but rather to our own citizen or legal immigrants.
This is not accurate. Schools are financed through real estate and income taxes. Everyone pays real estate taxes, either directly as owners of property or indirectly through rent (unless someone wants to claim that landlords typically deduct their property taxes from the rent due them). To the extent that illegal workers can neither claim refunds from withheld income taxes nor take property tax deductions of the inciome taxes (for which they cannot file), illegal immigrants appear to be paying more than their share for education.
I am curious as to why you are advancing this argument, since you were corrected on the misunderstanding of the facts of the issue reported in the U.S. press (and anti-immigration blogs), already.
Sprechen sie deutsch?
At the price of letting it be known that I can be baited by absolutely anybody, I’m back. You know, one good test of honesty is the sheer number of times a person’s words can be repeated without ellipsis, deletion, addition or substitution, with the result that he claims he’s being misquoted. At any rate, belatedly deciding to google the words “illegal immigration - anti” and provide some links does not rehabilitate an argument or deodorize the motivation of its source(s). Let’s take a look at the old and new issues as laid out in magellan01’s post #58 and thereafter. There’s a lot of stuff here, so in this post I’ll address only part of it.
It ain’t legal to be illegal. He spends five paragraphs waxing wroth about mischaracterizing his argument but not a word denying that the argument is circular and useless or restating it so it isn’t. A law is not validated by the mere fact that it gets broken. Are we done with this now?
He devotes the next seven or eight chunks of his manifesto to what he calls the “loss of national identity” and the “dilution of citizenship.” I can’t even type that without hearing Sterling Hayden talk about the plot to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids. He (magellan01, not Hayden) keeps things moving by not boring us with any facts (he asserts, for example, that there are U.S. cities where all the street signs - actually, he says “signs for blocks” and leaves us to guess his meaning - are in Spanish, which is a description that doesn’t even fit Madrid or Mexico City, for pity’s sake). By reading the minds of people he will never meet, magellan01 has discovered that people who sacrifice all of their possessions, undergo extreme hardship and run a very considerable risk of dying in the attempt to get here, really don’t want to be Americans very much. The proof is that Mexico is close enough for them to visit if they want to (that dash north through the desert in an unventilated shipping container was so much fun, they’ll want to do it again and again). The big danger, apparently, is that Mexican Catholics will attempt to impose Sharia law here, but we can relax: it’s not even actually happening in Ontario http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia.
Unlike Mexican-Americans, magellan01 assures us, past immigrants did not cluster in communities that shared a foreign culture and language. This will come as a shock to all the Chinatowns, Little Italys, Little Havanas and Koreatowns in the country, not to mention the Polish-American community in Chicago. These are real communities, magellan01, not theme parks. In any event, the idea that twelve million people could “Balkanize” a nation of nearly four hundred million, even if they wanted to, even if they tried really hard, is absurd. So is the notion that, if we extended citizenship to these people who have risked more than most of us can imagine to be here, our citizenship would or could somehow be worth less. My national identity, my citizenship, is enriched whenever the freedoms and privileges I enjoy are extended to others, and it is cheapened by shameful and craven attempts to broker fear of the world into a denial of our own history as a nation of immigrants.
Costs of Immigration. magellan01’s first link is the same one I provided earlier. His next three don’t work for me, but that’s okay because we can assume that FAIR will say absolutely anything in the service of restricting immigration, legal or not (for a look at the sensibility that shapes FAIR, the Minutemen, and a lot of other people in the anti-immigration camp, see this article: http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=10485). The best estimates are that illegal immigrants cost about $22 billion/year. That’s the bill for education, health care, welfare payments, everything. Two tenths of a percent of the GDP, about what we give away every year in corn subsidies. We can talk about how best to allocate this money, but to me, giving twelve million people a chance at a better life as Americans seems like a pretty good way to spend it.
Jobs/Wages. magellan01 links to vdare.com, the people who dare to ask the question “Do Whites Have Rights?” The cited study, which covers all immigration, not just the illegal kind, says that it takes 303 billion away from native workers and gives 324 billion to native employers. Better to be an owner than a worker, but I had some suspicions on that score already. But there are a lot of things that affect wages and what’s missing is any reason to believe that changing one variable - undocumented workers - would lead to any sustained benefit that’s worth the cost. There’s no reason to assume, in fact, that a five percent increase in wages, even if it happened, would be an altogether good thing – it would come concomitant with an increase in the price of goods and services. One thing that struck me about the study (maybe because I could understand it) was the table showing that recent immigrants, even though earning 31% less than non-immigrants, are only slightly more likely to be receiving public assistance (8.3% to 7.4% in 1990). magellan01 ends with a scary story from the Pat Buchanan collection.
National Security. The evidence presented doesn’t demonstrate a threat of terrorism, only two of the 9/11 hijackers were out of lawful immigration status http://www.nilc.org/immlawpolicy/cdev/congrssdev018.htm, none of them came over the southwestern border, and if there is a threat perhaps we should not spend our resources chasing Mexican families around the desert. If their arrival were made safe, orderly and legal, potential terrorists would not be able to hide among them so easily.
Gold. PURE GOLD. Keep em coming.
Don’t you realize that your last sentence here proves that your first one is wrong? The concept of anchor babies is real, even thought they may need to wait 21 years. Also, I think there is some provision for children over seven to petition the state in some way. But I’m not sure about that.
You keep refuting your own points in your own posts. You seem to agree that:
Now, since both legal and illegal immigrants carry dengue and some percent, that we can safely assume to be greater than that of the U.S. population, it seems pretty obvious that if you reduce the numbers in either group, you’re helping fight dengue in the U.S. Let’s say that the same number of illegal and legal immigrants—3,000 each—come into a place in a given time period. And let’s say that the incidence of dengue among those groups is 5 per 1,000 (arbitrary). Then if you were able to stop the illegal group, you’d cut your influx of those carrying dengue into the community half. Cutting your increased exposure due to immigration in half.
Free health care, turning our emergency rooms into health clinics. Free education for their kids. In-state tuition at colleges. This study (done sometime after 2000) states:
Findings in percents from Figure 16:
Estimated Use of Means-tested Programs by Households Headed by Legal and Illegal Mexican Immigrants
Social Security Income
Natives: 3.9
Legal Mexicans: 5.6
Illegal Mexicans: 0.7
Public Housing/Rent Subsidy
Natives: 4.2
Legal Mexicans: 6.3
Illegal Mexicans: 1.9
TANF/General Assistance
Natives: 2.1
Legal Mexicans: 7.3
Illegal Mexicans: 1.2
Food Stamps
Natives: 5.3
Legal Mexicans: 11.1
Illegal Mexicans: 8.0
Medicaid
Natives: 12.1
Legal Mexicans: 29.3
Illegal Mexicans: 22.4
Use of Any Welfare Program
Natives: 14.8
Legal Mexicans: 33.9
Illegal Mexicans: 24.9
Unemployment Compensation
Natives: 4.7
Legal Mexicans: 8.5
Illegal Mexicans: 7.2
Subsidized School Lunch
Natives: 5.8
Legal Mexicans: 31.8
Illegal Mexicans: 37.4
Earned Income Tax Credit Eligibility
Natives: 13.1
Legal Mexicans: 55.8
Illegal Mexicans: 39.4