Quote :

"Wow, you proved me wrong there... wait. So i guess that sentence could also mean that kids on private insurance or MEDICAID are more likely to receive the diagnosis. Thanks for the quote."

Haha, you're welcome.

You are once again using flawed logic though, the statement doesn't say that people are claiming ADD just for the money. By your logic, people on private insurance would be doing the same thing, but there is no mechanism for that. The correlation seems to be that people who can pay for the meds are the ones likely to get diagnosed for them. But as you should know, correlation doesn't prove causation.

At this point, what is clear is that you are making bullshit statements that will remain that way until you find some evidence for it.

[Edited on July 9, 2007 at 2:19 PM. Reason : ]

7/9/2007 2:16:49 PM

Quote :

"The checks they receive are from TANF. TANF divides individuals in the household by income and determine the amount of money you receive."

Oh boy, so for five years they get paid for their kid. Out of twenty. You're right, sounds like a real bargain to me.

There is also the fact that, in reality, kids do cost money.

Quote :

"Funny. So I take it you dont care to learn."

Not at all the case. I don't care to be spoken to as a simpleton with no knowledge of the flaws of American healthcare.

Quote :

"I love your mindset of just repeating false information it will somehow become true."

I provided academic sources.

You've provided, at best, nothing, and at worst, FAIR.

Quote :

"So you could use the TANF for the five years, then get your child a disablity to pay for the rest."

"Get your child a disability"? It kind of conjures an image of Mexicans breaking their kids backs so they can be in a wheelchair.

You're assuming that illegal immigrants have:

1) Widespread knowledge of the intricacies of disability payments
2) The motivation to risk greater exposure by going out and declaring, certifying, etc. the disability, and then asking for money for it, all of which attracts attention they don't want.

And it doesn't appear that having more kids gets you more TANF money, since TANF is concerned heavily with employment, etc., things that don't apply to, you know, infants and shit.

Quote :

"So, as for an incentive to have an anchor baby, Id say there are plenty."

Even if everything you've said is 100% accurate, it would mean that the thing that needs fixing is entitlement programs, because I guaran-damn-tee you our payouts to ghetto moms, white trash, and other native-born American citizens are vastly larger than whatever we pay to the wetbacks.

Quote :

"Id say around 80% of my medicaid kids are all on add meds. Why? because the parents get more money."

That might be part. I'd be willing to bet that another big part is that ADD is enormously overdiagnosed and overmedicated.

---

The JPANDS link is quite disturbing, not least for its liberal use of certain terms. I think it's a bit dishonest to apply the term "anchor baby" to any and all babies born to illegals in this country. I would wager that a minority of these children are born for reasons that have nothing to do with residency, benefits, etc. -- that they are had, in fact, for the same reasons people have been having babies since the dawn of time. As a result, the "incentives" you keep mentioning don't apply to them.

Now, to go through each section of her paper one at a time:

1) EMTALA

Bizarrely, this doctor seems to have a pretty big problem with this act, which basically says that hospitals can't turn away poor people. She says it is an unfunded federal mandate, which is true, but there are far larger problems at play here than immigration. Legal immigrants are often not much better off than legal ones. Shall we keep them out, too?

2) Anchor Babies

This section relies primarily on anecdotal evidence, which isn't much good. We could trade anecdotes all day long and not get anywhere. Then, when she does bring in statistical data, it consistently applies to all immigrants or poor people. Yes, paying out for a disability like "heroin addiction" is stupid, but for reasons entirely divorced from immigration.

3) Contagious Diseases

Nice emotional appeal at the start. Very academic of her. Then she goes on to talk about the terrible health risks associated with illegal immigrants, most of which could be eliminated at a stroke by legalizing them so we could check them at the border. Furthermore, her references once again frequently apply to all immigrants, not just illegals. She's very fond of the phrase "illegal aliens and other immigrants," which appears, with some variation, many times throughout the paper.

4) CRAG

Oh yes, her big proposal to solve all of our woes. Each part here is more preposterous than the next.

First, we are to build a gigantic armed defensive line along a border we share with an ally. That will go over well, and be cheap besides. Then we are to overturn two centuries of American citizenship policy by saying that it is no longer enough to be born here to qualify as a citizen. Then we are, apparently, to overturn the rest of the Constitution as well and treat pro-immigrant groups as criminal, because "they believe that the Constitution guarantees them civil rights that trump American administrative, civil, and criminal laws."

After that, we are supposed to fight amnesty, because amnesty equals "collectivism," and not-amnesty equals "individualism." No justification is given for either assertion, but she's basically using a classic tactic: calling her opponents Bolsheviks.

---

Every time you've mentioned a legitimate problem, or even a possibly legitimate one, it has been a problem that has little or nothing to do with immigration. Abuse of social programs was alive and well in this country long before the wetbacks started pouring over.

[Edited on July 9, 2007 at 2:31 PM. Reason : ]

7/9/2007 2:29:37 PM

Quote :

"Not at all the case. I don't care to be spoken to as a simpleton with no knowledge of the flaws of American healthcare. "

In no way did I mean to speak to you as a simpleton when I made that statement. I apologize if you took it that way.

Quote :

"Get your child a disability"?"

ADD works best here. Can increase the amount of money the goverment gives you.
You conveintely left out the other kids for 5 yrs and then getting on disability.

TANF will help these kids.

Quote :

"Even if everything you've said is 100% accurate, it would mean that the thing that needs fixing is entitlement programs, because I guaran-damn-tee you our payouts to ghetto moms, white trash, and other native-born American citizens are vastly larger than whatever we pay to the wetbacks. "

Finally, something we agree on. I couldnt agree with you more. The problem here and how it relates to immigration is immediately allowing anywhere from 10-17 million more people eligible for these flawed programs.

Typically I believe any kid is eligible for get their kid on disability with ADD. Im not sure if there is an income limit though. Like most programs there usually is away to means test someone out of it. I would think that for families that dont work, this is an easy excuse to get more money. Ive provided links for the stats earlier, might have been in another thread where someone was questioning kids being paid disability. Ill try to find them if you would like, but I dont have the time right now.

GOP, can I ask you why hospitals, esp on border states are closing at such rapid rates? Just your opinion on the matter. yes, I know its not a simple answer, but I am curious to your thoughts.

And I also wanted to thank you for reading the article. However, I knew some would be more offended by the language than the actual content.

[Edited on July 9, 2007 at 2:44 PM. Reason : .]

7/9/2007 2:42:12 PM

Quote :

"You conveintely left out the other kids for 5 yrs and then getting on disability."

That's because this is purely speculation, and because I am unsure from my knowledge of TANF whether or not it is the parents that are limited to 60 months on the program.

Quote :

"The problem here and how it relates to immigration is immediately allowing anywhere from 10-17 million more people eligible for these flawed programs. "

This is the one and only competent economic argument that can be made against amnesty. Right now illegals pay more than they take out because under the best circumstances they are eligible to take out so little. If they are given amnesty, they will be paying only slightly more (since most of them earn little enough to qualify for the EIT credit) but will be taking out substantially more.

My concern is largely rooted in the number of other issues at play in both areas. I think that current immigration, health care, and entitlement policies are all very bad for the country.

Quote :

"GOP, can I ask you why hospitals, esp on border states are closing at such rapid rates? Just your opinion on the matter."

Because the health care system in the United States is fucked. I suppose that in border states that fucked-ness manifests itself in ways relating to immigrants more often than in other places, but it's all just symptoms of the same disease.

Quote :

"I knew some would be more offended by the language than the actual content."

Well, don't minimalize the importance of language here. The whole "illegal aliens and other immigrants thing isn't a potentially offensive wording, it's descriptive of her entire research base, and the way she tried to minimalize it does nothing for her credibility.

7/9/2007 3:02:50 PM

moron, here is an article for you about the rise of children on SSI, esp in the ADD department.

Warning, its in pdf and its a bitch to read.
http://archive.gao.gov/t2pbat2/152512.pdf

The sad thing is, its only from 1994.

"This report responds to your request for information about the recent
growth in the number of children receiving disability benefits under the
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program administered by the Social
Security Administration (SSA). From 1989 to 1993, the number of children
receiving SSI disability benefits has more than doubled, growing from
almost 300,000 to more than 770,000."

"Concern has recently focused on the rapid growth in disability awards
since the Zebley Supreme Court decision, especially for children with
mental impairments. Of particular concern are children awarded benefits
because of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and other disorders that
have been broadly characterized as “behavior problems,”

Oh, and it turns out that you do get means tested out of putting your kid on disability for ADD. So, it would make sense that someone who qualifies for medicaid would also qualify for their kid to get disability.

Some more info:
Because families of children receiving SSI are by definition poor, some may become eligible for other means-tested programs unrelated to disability. The most likely possibility for cash benefits is the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program. But the amount of additional state dollars going to former child SSI recipients under this program is likely to be less than the SSI benefits lost for two reasons. First, SSI benefits have typically been much higher than AFDC benefits. Thus, the additional TANF cost to states would be lower than the total cost of SSI benefits to these families, if states continue the same pattern in their TANF programs. The current maximum monthly SSI benefit is $484 per eligible child while the maximum monthly AFDC benefit in 1996 ranged from a high of $636 for a family of three in Connecticut to a low of $120 for a family of three in Mississippi. Second, families already receiving AFDC would only be eligible for an incrementally higher benefit based on adding another child to the AFDC eligibility unit. Additional benefits for a three-person family over a two-person family in AFDC range from $123 a month in Connecticut to $24 per month in Mississippi. But, any additional TANF spending will be in part state dollars, compared to SSI expenditures, the vast majority of which were federal dollars.

Opponents of the legislated changes view the purpose of SSI for children in just this way—as a more general income support program for low-income families who have children with disabilities. And surveys have shown that most families of SSI children do spend their benefits on basic needs.

7/9/2007 3:25:50 PM

Quote :

"moron, here is an article for you about the rise of children on SSI, esp in the ADD department. Warning, its in pdf and its a bitch to read. http://archive.gao.gov/t2pbat2/152512.pdf The sad thing is, its only from 1994. "

That seems to mainly discuss an increase in coverage for behavioral issues related to a court case that forced the SSA to bring the medical standards of disability with adults and kids to the same level. The increase in coverage for kids is caused by an increase in things covered. It doesn't even speculate that it's caused by people gaming the system in large amounts.

http://www.disabilitysecrets.com/adhd-attention-deficit-social-security-disability.html :

Quote :

"How difficult is it for a child to be approved for disability benefits under the Social Security Administration's ADHD listing? In all candor, it is somewhat difficult. Part of the problem with winning disability approvals based on this impairment has to do with the subjective nature of how the Social Security Administration evaluates ADHD. ...And this bears out in nearly all instances. For whether or not a child is found eligible for disability benefits almost always depends on their academic status, i.e. how they well they are doing in school. "

The system does seem flawed, but not in any way the way you seem to think it is.

[Edited on July 9, 2007 at 4:01 PM. Reason : ]

7/9/2007 3:43:51 PM

1997: "The financial incentive to have a child labeled as having ADHD is powerful. Under the SSI program- which provides cash benefits to low-income elderly and disabled - an eligible family stands to get more than $450 a month for each child on the program. All but seven states add an average $110 a month into the pot. And once on SSI, families can get access to Medicaid and food stamps. "The result of the changes is clear. "In '89, children citing mental impairments that include ADHD, but not retardation, made up only 5% of all the disabled kids on SSI. That figure rose to nearly 25% by '95. "The new, looser rules also invite fraud, critics charge. "'We found that parents were actually coaching the children to do poorly in school and just basically act weird' to get on the SSI rolls, said Rep. Clay Shaw, R-Fla." p. A2, John Merline, "Public Schools: Pushing Drugs?" pp A1 & A2, Investor's Business Daily, Oct. 16, 1997 ADHD: Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

7/9/2007 4:00:45 PM

Quote :

"[1997 Investor's Business Daily] ''We found that parents were actually coaching the children to do poorly in school and just basically act weird'' to get on the SSI rolls, said Rep. Clay Shaw, R-Fla. The General Accounting Office - a government watchdog agency - said it couldn't determine one way or another how prevalent fraud was. But it did note that the test used to determine a child's eligibility was ''fundamentally flawed'' - often making it too easy to qualify for benefits. As part of its welfare reform bill, Congress last year [1996] tightened rules for getting on SSI. As a result, some 120,000 children were dropped from the disability rolls in recent months -many of whom had claimed ADHD."

http://www.hempworld.com/hemp-cyberfarm_com/htms/linksviews/myviews.html
The full text of the Investors Business Daily article seems to be there.


[Edited on July 9, 2007 at 4:14 PM. Reason : http://www.schoolreport.com/schoolreport/articles/ritalin_11_00.htm haha]

7/9/2007 4:02:19 PM

you found it. Although I didnt get it from hempworld.

[Edited on July 9, 2007 at 4:15 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on July 9, 2007 at 4:15 PM. Reason : .]

7/9/2007 4:14:32 PM

I know. You copy and pasted the out-of-context quote from the schoolreport link.

7/9/2007 4:17:20 PM

out of context? There is a quote describing exactly what i was suggesting. Parents coaching thier kids so they can get more money. The huge increase would suggest more than just normal increases in the "disease". Which alot of docs lovingly call the poor parenting pill.(mostly bc it is widely over prescribed, and often not needed).

I agrued with some kid over this before and had a link to a graph that actually showed an unexpected INCREASE in kids on SSI after the reform bill passed. It might be in this thread, ill try to find it later tonight.

7/9/2007 4:39:34 PM

'Illegal immigrants rarely if ever go to hospitals (or any traditional healthcare) for any reason'

I hope this is a joke because this is the most obsurd thing I've ever read. Working in ED medical records (at Wakemed; where all the ED charts go through) a huge percentage of the ED patients are illegal. At the hospital (baptist in WS) where I spend a great deal of time, illegals are always in the ED department. And its ridiculous to say these people are uneducated and don't know better, uneducated =/= stupid. I've worked w/ plenty of illegals and they know exactly what they're doing, not bad people, just exploiting the non-enforcement of laws.

And if you say that illegal use less taxpayer money on goverment provided care than LEGAL persons, then you are missing the point entirely.

And yes, entitlement systems in the US for illegals and citizens need to be reduced

7/9/2007 4:42:36 PM

^^I'm not trying to defend prescription of ADHD medications.

I just don't see why you believe that ADHD fraud is a massive problem with the SSI system. You were citing this as support for the idea that illegals are coming here and defrauding our system by having babies (which is somewhat hard to do because illegals aren't explicitly tracked), but you can't even prove that Americans are significantly defrauding the system, which should be a much easier task.

^

Quote :

"'Illegal immigrants rarely if ever go to hospitals (or any traditional healthcare) for any reason'"

This statement has no bearing on this statement:

Quote :

"I hope this is a joke because this is the most obsurd thing I've ever read. Working in ED medical records (at Wakemed; where all the ED charts go through) a huge percentage of the ED patients are illegal. At the hospital (baptist in WS) where I spend a great deal of time, illegals are always in the ED department."

Of course if an illegal needs medical help, they're not going to be going to an HMO, because legally, it would be difficult for them to get this kind of coverage (another reason giving them legal status is a good thing for US). So OF COURSE there's going to be a lot of them in emergency care facilities, where the staff ethically and in many cases legally HAVE to help them.

However, unless you show that they're going in from trivial things that the typical person with an HMO would go in for, then your statements are pointless. I would wager that on average, the severity of illness an illegal is treated for is higher than the typical legal person.

http://www.charlotte.com/112/v-print/story/166608.html

Quote :

"Pozsik, the former head of S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control TB control program, says health departments encourage people to get treatment to prevent the spread of a dangerous disease. Illegal immigrants often are reluctant to seek medical attention, however, fearing exposing themselves could lead to their deportation. "One of our problems is when they get frightened and they leave," Pozsik said. "And if they do get sick and break down we haven't had the chance to treat them with the disease." The health department will not ask patients their residency status or report illegal immigrants who seek treatment to immigration authorities, spokesman Berry said. She said infected immigrants are more likely to become active in the first two years of immigrating to the U.S. when their stress levels are high due to residency status fears, questions about health care, and the uncertainty of living in a new community. "This puts stress on their immune system," she said. "Any kind of worry and they go from infected to disease much more easily.""

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/64/22378

Quote :

" But James Platner, head of research for the Washington-area Center to Protect Workers' Rights, a construction union-backed organization, seriously doubts that. The reality, he and others suggest, is that there is a vast undercount of the injuries because Latino illegal immigrants stray far from public facilities and do not report being hurt. If they do get care, they are often reluctant to explain where their injuries took place. "

[Edited on July 9, 2007 at 5:01 PM. Reason : ]

7/9/2007 4:49:55 PM

In my personal experience, what I assume are my illegal( ie, no ID, insurance, dont speak english)patients are some of my best. Very appreciative and pay with CASH, at time of service. The best part is that they actually do what they are told, and actually buy the medicine I prescribe. Not call back and ask for something else that thier ins. covers.( God, i hate that)


Moron, how all this got brought up was I was trying to illustrate the advantages of having an anchor baby and the income that that could provide. I think it would be nearly impossible to find accurate numbers of fraud esp for something like ADHD. Its like whiplash, you cant really disprove it. I think their are kids that truely need help, but I think they are overshadowed by poor parents who choose to drug up their kids. And in some cases, provide them with more income. You have to admit there is a subculture that knows nothing other than how to work the system. I see it every day, but I work in some poor counties.

7/9/2007 5:07:08 PM

^^ actually this statement

'Illegal immigrants rarely if ever go to hospitals (or any traditional healthcare) for any reason'"


has a direct bearing on this statement:

Quote :
"I hope this is a joke because this is the most obsurd thing I've ever read. Working in ED medical records (at Wakemed; where all the ED charts go through) a huge percentage of the ED patients are illegal. At the hospital (baptist in WS) where I spend a great deal of time, illegals are always in the ED department."

and vice versa b/c ED departments are in hospitals

and yes, a large number of them come in for NON-EMERGENCY reason. The EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT has enough to worry about w/o having to diagnose rhinitis and conjunctivitis. And no, the severity is not greater unless you consider an everyday stomach ache the next great plague.

Some may be reluctant, until they talk to a friend. You do realize once one person knows how to get something all they have to do is tell others, its an exponential sharing of knowledge. These people aren't stupid. Also, why do you think many of them give different names at hospitals?

7/9/2007 5:37:50 PM

Quote :

"You have to admit there is a subculture that knows nothing other than how to work the system. I see it every day, but I work in some poor counties."

I don't know about calling it a "subculture" because people who do this exist at all levels of society, and it's at least a big a problem among business as poor people (probably worse with businesses because they can hire lawyers to find loopholes for them). I somehow remember you yourself talking about something doctors do to exploit a loophole that gets them more money from the gov. in one thread.

I'm not convinced though, that with illegals, they are having babies for the sake of getting American money. The money they get will likely be used on on things for the baby (which is American), so it's not like anyone, by any stretch, is getting rich off of this. And it seems doubtful people are going to have babies for the mere act of allowing them to stay here, because regardless, babies take a lot of money and time to raise, which in general would make their lives more difficult, compared with having no kids and staying illegal.

Plus, spanish immigrants don't seem to be having babies statistically significantly more than other immigrants:

http://www.cis.org/articles/2005/back1105.html
This would seem to indicate that "anchor baby" is a misnomer.

[Edited on July 9, 2007 at 5:59 PM. Reason : image]

7/9/2007 5:59:15 PM

^^ Forgive me if i'm not swayed by your assertions.


http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=3636:

Quote :

" Immigrants receive an average of $1,139 worth of care per year, compared with $2,564 for non-immigrants. Immigrants, both legal and illegal, consumed 8% of our nation's health care, when they make up 10% of our nation's population. That means they're underconsuming health care, not using an excess amount of it. Health care costs for poor immigrant children are 84 percent less than those for native born kids. 84%! Immigrants, on average, receive half the health care that native born Americans get, saving the system hundreds of dollars per user. If we all used like immigrants do, we wouldn't have a cost crisis. Immigrants are also 200% more likely to be uninsured than the rest of the population. They account for 18% of the costs associated with the uninsured. "

These points were garnered from the study talked about here:
Study Paints Bleak Picture Of Immigrant Health Care: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/25/AR2005072501482.html

Quote :

""If we think our high health care costs are due to immigrants flocking to our shores, we're wrong," said co-author David Himmelstein of Harvard Medical School. "

7/9/2007 6:09:30 PM

Quote :

"Plus, spanish immigrants don't seem to be having babies statistically significantly more than other immigrants:"

What? Did you even look at the chart you posted? TFR for Mexicans is dramatically higher than any other country of origin...

7/9/2007 11:25:05 PM

^ Obviously I meant more than their home country relative to other immigrants.

7/10/2007 12:21:07 AM

What? That STILL doesn't make any sense. And I read your sentence just fine, you said that spanish(read Mexican) don't have babies more than other immigrants, while that chart clearly shows that they do.

Mexican immigrants have more babies then those still in Mexico and far more than other immigrant groups.

Also, comparing those that stayed at home and those that immigrate with other countries, you still see Mexico with a huge discrepancy in fertility rates. The only other country that comes close to that sort of gap is the UK(weird). Heck, a lot of those countries had a decrease in TFR for immigrants.

7/10/2007 1:23:23 AM

Quote :

"Also, comparing those that stayed at home and those that immigrate with other countries, you still see Mexico with a huge discrepancy in fertility rates. The only other country that comes close to that sort of gap is the UK(weird). Heck, a lot of those countries had a decrease in TFR for immigrants. "

This is what i was talking about.

The only 3 of the 10 that decreased were India, Philippines, and Vietnam. The top 3 deltas were for UK, Mexico, and China. I don't know why the countries changed at the rates they changed, but there is nothing in those numbers that jumps out to say that the illegals are having these tons of anchor babies.

7/10/2007 3:49:35 AM

Let's inject some sanity into this discussion:

Quote :

" Illegal Immigration, By Walter E. Williams. 7-11-2007 President Bush and his pro-amnesty allies both in and out of Congress suffered a devastating defeat at the hands of the American people. Like any other public controversy, there are vested interests served on both sides of the amnesty issue, but I'd like to raise some ordinary non-rocket-science questions to the pro-amnesty crowd, many of whom are my libertarian friends. Do people, anywhere in the world, have a right to enter the United States irrespective of our laws pertaining to immigration? Unless one wishes to obfuscate, there's a simple "yes" or "no" answer to that question. If a "yes" answer is given, then why should there be any immigration requirements, such as visas, passports and green cards, for anyone who wishes to visit or reside in our country? Why not abolish the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services? If your answer is "no," one does not have a right to enter the U.S. irrespective of our laws, what does that make a person who does so? Most often we call a person whose behavior violates a law a criminal. If people commit criminal acts, should there be an effort to apprehend and punish them? In general, my answer is yes, with one important exception. I was summoned for jury duty some years ago, and during voir dire, the attorney asked me whether I could obey the judge's instructions. I answered, "It all depends upon what those instructions are." Irritatingly, the judge asked me to explain myself. I explained that if I were on a jury back in the 1850s, and a person was on trial for violating the Fugitive Slave Act by assisting a runaway slave, I would vote for acquittal regardless of the judge's instructions. The reason is that slavery is unjust and any law supporting it is unjust. Needless to say, I was dismissed from jury duty. While our immigration laws are overly cumbersome and in urgent need of streamlining, they do not violate human rights and should be obeyed. Many pro-amnesty supporters offer the canard that there are 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants in our country. We cannot keep every illegal immigrant out or expel the ones living here. That might be true, but it is also true that we can't prevent every rape and murder. Does that mean we shouldn't attempt to enforce the laws against rape and murder and try to prosecute the perpetrators? In addition to greater efforts to secure our borders, there are several non-rocket-science steps we can take. People who are here illegally should be denied access to any social service such as Medicaid, public education and food assistance programs. An exception might be made for temporary emergency medical treatment. In some cities, such as Los Angeles, police are prohibited from asking people they stop about their immigration status. While state and local police shouldn't be turned into federal agents, they shouldn't knowingly conceal criminal acts. The United States is a nation of immigrants from all over the world. The resulting ethnic mosaic goes a long way toward explaining our greatness as a nation. Immigration has always been a blessing for us, and it still is. But yesteryear's immigration and today's differ in several important respects. For the most part, yesteryear's immigrants came here legally. Because there was no welfare state, we were guaranteed that they'd work as opposed to living off the rest of us. Furthermore, they sought to assimilate and adopt our culture and become Americans. That's not so true today, where Hispanic activists seek to impose their language and culture on the rest of us. At some public schools, they've raised the Mexico flag atop the U.S. flag. They've announced that they seek to take back parts of the U.S. that were formerly Mexico."

7/12/2007 12:35:35 AM

Quote :

"We cannot keep every illegal immigrant out or expel the ones living here. That might be true, but it is also true that we can't prevent every rape and murder. Does that mean we shouldn't attempt to enforce the laws against rape and murder and try to prosecute the perpetrators?"

This is not really a good comparison. Illegal immigration is not comparable to rape or murder, it's more comparable to speeding or some white collar crimes. For the most part, it doesn't hurt anyone (and in many cases helps people), so no one cares, until someone is hurt. Other than that, we should attempt to enforce the laws we have generally.

But that guy doesn't even begin to address the problems of illegal immigration. If we did the things he said, i predict very little would actually change. It's not the medicaid or other social services primarily bringing the illegals here, it's the jobs and money that they can make. Nothing that guy addressed would change this, which leads me to believe he doesn't really understand why illegal immigration is a problem.

I also am strongly against, in any situation, denying educations to illegals. If he thinks the illegals don't integrate now (which is blatantly untrue, but he can have his wrong opinions), wait until their kids can't even get an education. This would create bigger problems, not solve any.

7/12/2007 12:55:56 AM

Quote :

"Illegal immigration is not comparable to rape or murder"

The specific crime isn't important for this argument. The point is just because you can't prevent every occurance of a crime..any crime...doesn't mean you give up and stop trying to prevent it anymore.

Quote :

"For the most part, it doesn't hurt anyone "

It does in fact hurt everyone. It's about the sacredness of the rule of law. The rule that prevents mankind from allowing his base nature to run rampant over the land.

It comes back to the key question:
Do people, anywhere in the world, have a right to enter the United States irrespective of our laws pertaining to immigration?

Quote :

"It's not the medicaid or other social services primarily bringing the illegals here, it's the jobs "

Actually it's both. Our welfare state is a safety net for illegals as well as citizens. If you take away the opportunity to work and sponge, they will go home. With their numbers today, you might even get armed insurrection. No other immigration wave in history came in on a surge of border jumping and the sweet bosom of our modern welfare state.

Quote :

"I also am strongly against, in any situation, denying educations to illegals."

We disagree here as well. Criminal immigrants deserve no benefits or services. Border-Jumpers do not belong here, they should go home and follow all our laws if they want to come back in.

7/12/2007 1:55:23 AM

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,290861,00.html

Quote :

"Latino Leaders Outraged by Arizona Sherriff's Illegal Immigration Tip Hotline Thursday, July 26, 2007 PHOENIX — Latino leaders and faith-based organizations in the U.S. state of Arizona want a local sheriff to disconnect the hotline he created for people to report information about illegal immigrants, saying it raises the chance of racial profiling. Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio said Wednesday, however, that he would not disconnect the hotline, and stressed that deputies would investigate people only if authorities had probable cause, according to a report in The Arizona Republic newspaper. The hotline has received about 300 calls since it was launched Friday, including tips about family and friends, employment, day laborers, drop houses and crank calls. Arpaio said officials were analyzing the tips and had not yet acted on any calls. "There's nothing unconstitutional about putting up a hotline," Arpaio said, pointing out that U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement have similar hotlines. The hotline is part of an expanded immigration enforcement plan Arpaio unveiled last week that also includes sheriff's deputies cross-trained to enforce immigration law. Some Latino advocacy groups will launch a hotline of their own to take tips from people who believe they have been unfairly reported to Arpaio's hotline, said activist Mary Rose Wilcox, a Maricopa County supervisor. Meanwhile, some faith-based organizations are circulating a letter among church leaders and members that decries Arpaio's hotline. "

7/26/2007 8:31:18 AM

in other news, criminal activists are OUTRAGED at the neighborhood watch program, and seek to have it outlawed.

7/26/2007 9:34:38 AM

Quote :

"The point is just because you can't prevent every occurance of a crime..any crime...doesn't mean you give up and stop trying to prevent it anymore."

True, but -- especially when we can prevent such a very small occurrence -- we ought to step back and rethink things, and weigh the cost of enforcement against what look to be its scant success.

Quote :

"It's about the sacredness of the rule of law."

Remember kiddies, those damn Warsaw ghetto Jews were pissing all over the rule of law when they rebelled. Martin Luther King? Rosa Parks? Loathed the rule of law. And don't get me started on those rule of law haters-in-chief, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

Quote :

"It comes back to the key question:"

It does, but you got the question wrong. The only one that needs asking is:

Do people, anywhere in the world, have to subject themselves to criminally unjust laws?

Quote :

"Actually it's both."

Based on what? I want to see some evidence for this, any at all. All I could gather from your post is that you think this because the latest wave of immigration happened after we had entitlement programs.

Quote :

"Criminal immigrants deserve no benefits or services."

Oh, well, deny a large population an education and at least you'll get a lesson in what real criminals are.

Quote :

"they should go home and follow all our laws if they want to come back in."

FOR THE LAST TIME, IF THEY GO HOME AND FOLLOW OUR LAWS, THEY CAN'T FUCKING GET IN. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE. The only way for many of them to get what they want, what we permit to some but not others arbitrarily, is to break a stupid, unjust, immoral, and criminal law.

7/26/2007 1:23:15 PM

^well thats too fucking bad. we got enough people here as it is. why don't they try improving their own country instead of herding over here.

7/26/2007 1:42:16 PM

Grumpy, you are so off base its fucking ridiculous. You think that our current immigration laws are unjust? They are immoral? You have got to be kidding me. They are in place to try and keep us safe and the economy steady.

7/26/2007 1:46:14 PM

You're full of shit. Immigration is so bureaucratic and inefficient it's not funny. And to top that off they've tripled and quadrupled most of the fees for Visa's starting at the end of this month. For me to get my finance over here legally it's costing me close to 3g's and it still takes a fucking year because the government is slow.

Current immigration laws suck and need to be reformed. I'm not saying to let everyone in but paying 450 for a fiance visa and THEN having to pay 1k for a green card within 3 months of the first visa is stupid.

7/26/2007 1:54:18 PM

I had a scottsman that has been in this country for 16 yrs. He hates the amnesty idea. And says that thier is a double standard between european immigrants and mexican. It took him over 5 yrs to be a citizen and he said over 10k dollars. They would call him on monday and tell him he had a hearing 600 miles away on wed.

7/26/2007 2:21:22 PM

Full of shit...are you kidding....it should be a simple decision for you. Take a look at your financial options. If you think paying those fees are not substantiated then don't come into the country looking for education or work. I don't understand why we should let people, even legally, come into the country without paying for the services of our government registering you and making sure it was a good decision to keep you here. Its too simple...if you don't agree with it, then look at your options and go to another country.

7/26/2007 2:23:04 PM

resorting to the "if you don't like it then get out of our country" defense is the sign of a truly strong argument.

7/26/2007 2:25:05 PM

Its a financial decision shithead. If you can't afford the fees associated with entering the country, what do you expect us to do. Have taxpayers pay for it? How about we spend some more money to figure out how to make it cheaper to come here. Wait, who would pay for that?

7/26/2007 2:36:51 PM

ok. perhaps you should use a little more appropriate word than "you" in your description, since presumably no one here is actually trying to enter the country.

7/26/2007 2:46:13 PM

Oh, anyone entering the country LEGALLY has to sign a waiver (and have a sponsor) that says they won't be on any type of welfare, which I support. But don't make it seem like people come here legally for our countries 'handouts.'

And you can't tell me that the government suddenly needs 4x the fees to process immigration apps just as slowly.

I can't imagine that coming to this country legally has ever cost this much or been this asinine. Sure, keep illegals out but let people have a non-retarded way to come here legally and participate in society.

7/26/2007 3:24:51 PM

Quote :

"I had a scottsman that has been in this country for 16 yrs. He hates the amnesty idea. And says that thier is a double standard between european immigrants and mexican. It took him over 5 yrs to be a citizen and he said over 10k dollars. They would call him on monday and tell him he had a hearing 600 miles away on wed."

Either you're lying or your friend doesn't understand the amnesty program.

The illegals won't be getting citizenship, only legal visas. They would still have to go through that same process you described to become citizens.

Quote :

"Its a financial decision shithead. If you can't afford the fees associated with entering the country, what do you expect us to do. Have taxpayers pay for it? How about we spend some more money to figure out how to make it cheaper to come here. Wait, who would pay for that?"

I would assume the same people paying for a border fence, border enforcement, deportation proceedings, and the deportation itself. There's no way to get around spending money, no matter what we do.

We'd really be better off giving the illegals a legal status, so that we can collect some money. That's the best course of action, financially.

Quote :

"Grumpy, you are so off base its fucking ridiculous. You think that our current immigration laws are unjust? They are immoral? You have got to be kidding me. They are in place to try and keep us safe and the economy steady."

Haha, is this a joke? The current laws are doing practically nothing. They allow the illegals to stay under the radar, while preventing our system from properly handling them here. The way it's set up now, we've got the worst of both worlds.

We either have to prevent them from staying under the radar (what people are calling "amnesty") or go the more xenophobic route and block all immigrants from coming with an iron fist. One of these is more expensive and makes us look bad to the rest of the world (causing even more problems) and one of these solutions helps Americans and immigrants, and would probably cost less money to implement.

There is a third solution and that is to spend the money we're burning on the Iraq war to help Central America get its act together (which we should do more regardless) so that the immigrants don't have a desire to come here. This is another issue, but I don't mean just giving them money. Something like microloans and education services would be better.

[Edited on July 26, 2007 at 4:02 PM. Reason : ]

7/26/2007 3:54:03 PM

OK, I'm gonna come in late to this, and I really don't feel like reading 8 pages of posts. Here are my thoughts on the issue...

I don't mind immigrants coming into our country, because believe it or not, all of our ancestors had to come to this country and some point in time. However, I see this as a respect issue.

1) If an person (of any ethnicity) comes into this country illegally, they have just implicitly stated that they have no respect for the laws and rules of this great country. This is just my opinion, and I know that there are extenuating circumstances, but I don't see any broad circumstances that would require a Mexican, Puerto Rican, Canadian, etc to enter this country. Obviously, if Mexico were under a dictator who was killing people left and right, there would be an argument, but this is not the case.

2) My degrees were in Criminology and Poli. Sci, and I spent quite a bit of time researching the court system, and I have even observed quite a bit of court as well. I have noticed that there is a strong majority of minorities in the courts. Another example of their disrespect for the country, not to mention that it costs tax payers money. [To those who are going to argue that there is discrimination in the arresting/charging/prosecuting statistics, I will be glad to e-mail a copy of a 10+ page paper on prosecutorial discretion] [To those who are going to argue that I, and many other American citizens break the law daily...most of Americans are law abiding citizens, and if they break the law, they show up to court, pay the fines, etc...minoritys have more failure to appears than anyone else, particularly hispanics] I can back this up with facts if you would like to see them, because I don't want this to turn into a racism argument.

3) In my home region (Foothills of the mountains) the strong majority of students on free/reduced lunch in schools are hispanic. I understand that we should do this for them, because they are only children and they can't control what their parents do. This is just another example of how they are here to free load off the government, and if this is the case, another sign of disrespect. They can drive around in cars that are "hooked up", but they can't give their children money for lunch at school. This is more or less just my observed opinion and my familys observed opinion (most of which who are educators).

4) This is my opinion and I don't have facts to back it up, but I'm sure that they are out there, because this is a common sense argument. Our country can only sustain so many people, our country can only provide but so many jobs, and lastly our government can only support so many people. Limit the number of people who come in, because if not, it will eventually get to the point that it is severely overcrowded and our government won't be able to support everyone.

My $0.02 and I will not support any Rep. that supports this bill. I will however support a Rep. that wants to bulk up the border and be more strict on illegal aliens.

7/26/2007 4:36:32 PM

Quote :

"[To those who are going to argue that I, and many other American citizens break the law daily...most of Americans are law abiding citizens, and if they break the law, they show up to court, pay the fines, etc...minoritys have more failure to appears than anyone else, particularly hispanics] I can back this up with facts if you would like to see them, because I don't want this to turn into a racism argument."

Most of the immigrants are law abiding citizens as well. And i bet the reason there are more no-shows is because those people are here illegally, and they are afraid of being deported. This is another problem that would be mitigated by an "amnesty" program. You wouldn't support punishing all Americans for something a few of us do, why punish all imimgrants for something a few of them do?

Quote :

"This is just another example of how they are here to free load off the government, and if this is the case, another sign of disrespect. They can drive around in cars that are "hooked up", but they can't give their children money for lunch at school. This is more or less just my observed opinion and my familys observed opinion (most of which who are educators)."

They aren't here to freeload off the gov., we offer those programs and they take them. If we didn't give the hispanics free lunch, the WOULD give their kids money for lunch, or pack them a lunch. And people wasting money on things is hardly exclusive to hispanics. I bet in general, hispanics are more miserly for their income range. You might see a couple of them with ridiculous rims or paint jobs, but other people, regardless of race, have things they blow money on too, and they might not be so obvious.

I think it's pathological for you to think too that hispanics are here to "disrespect" you. The fact that you are offended on this level is pretty disconcerting. The majority of them are only here because their lives back home are utter crap even compared to being in poverty here. They really are hoping for a brighter future for their kids, and will bear the prejudices against them to have this (since their kids integrate in to popular white culture better than most other non-white immigrants).

Quote :

"Limit the number of people who come in, because if not, it will eventually get to the point that it is severely overcrowded and our government won't be able to support everyone. "

This will happen regardless of immigration. Immigration will make it come sooner though. At some point in time, we'll be like China and have to enact population controls.

[Edited on July 26, 2007 at 4:56 PM. Reason : ]

7/26/2007 4:49:59 PM

Quote :

"we got enough people here as it is."

Oh yes, the US population is simply bursting at the seams. And it is also, clearly, the government's job to distribute and manage population. Since we've gotten enough people, we should probably also start mandating that people breed only at replacement rate.

The only argument against immigration of any sort worse than "we got enough people" is "we got too many coloreds"

Quote :

"They are in place to try and keep us safe and the economy steady."

Patently false statements, but even if they were true they would not be justification unto themselves. "Keeping you safe" and "protecting the economy" are things that have been used to sell some of the most abhorrent policies in human history.

I've always maintained that people entering the country should be subjected to a simple background check. You keep out the known gang members, the probable terrorists, what have you, with no less efficiency than we do now. But with the vast majority of immigrants...if you're fearing for your safety over them, well, there's only one possible reason, and it doesn't speak well for you.

Quote :

"And says that thier is a double standard between european immigrants and mexican."

This is true, and anyone who thinks we should go to amnesty and then stop at that is pretty myopic. The only reason I like it is that I see it as a step towards some sort of sane policy that doesn't screw over everybody, Mexican and Scottish alike.

Quote :

"Have taxpayers pay for it?"

Well, a lot of taxpayers pay for services that they never directly use. I don't think that most American taxpayers have kids in public schools, but they still pay for them in taxes.

Ultimately both services benefit taxpayers indirectly. We benefit from having our next generation be able to read and we benefit from having a service that screens and processes immigrants. We get all the benefit, they get the hard time. I'm not saying we should fully assume the costs, but the current expenses are a bit extreme and clearly biased. I don't think America was designed to permit the entry only of the middle class. In fact, come to think of it, our great explosion of development came after letting in a shit ton of the poor.

Quote :

"That's the best course of action, financially."

This, unfortunately, is not entirely true, and although the more accurate description of the situation would be an excellent argument for opponents of immigration to use, they never seem to bother to.

As it is, the consensus is that immigrants pay more in taxes than they get in services, because they can collect very few of the latter and pay at least some of the former (sales taxes, etc). Given legal status, it's possible that the majority of the illegals would still be poor enough to not have to pay income taxes to speak of, while simultaneously being made eligible for far more government programs. Unless some proviso were made to prevent that from happening just like that (a proviso which I totally support), the day they became legal would also be the day that they started costing us money.

Now I must say there that I'm not entirely sure which programs they would be eligible for as legal residents rather than citizens, and which ones require citizenship. If the balance is right, then the natural progression of having to go through the citizenship process would help ameliorate the changeover.

Quote :

"help Central America get its act together (which we should do more regardless) so that the immigrants don't have a desire to come here."

This is a desirable course of action, but it isn't really a solution unto itself. It would take many years to really start affecting the situation and would rub many people the wrong way in this country. Better put, it should be used, to the extent possible and reasonable, alongside a proper solution.

Quote :

"If an person (of any ethnicity) comes into this country illegally, they have just implicitly stated that they have no respect for the laws and rules of this great country."

Not true. They don't have respect for that law, and don't try to tell me that disrespecting one is disrespecting all. Americans have a proud tradition of disrespecting certain unjust laws.

Quote :

"minoritys have more failure to appears than anyone else, particularly hispanics] I can back this up with facts if you would like to see them, because I don't want this to turn into a racism argument."

Too late. Your whole second point boiled down to "brown people are criminals, Mexicans are brown, therefore Mexicans are criminals and we don't need any more of them."

Quote :

"the strong majority of students on free/reduced lunch in schools are hispanic."

And a large part of Hispanics, particularly illegals, are poor. And this anecdotal bullshit about "hooked up" cars isn't going to fly here, either.

Quote :

"my familys observed opinion (most of which who are educators)."

Most of your family is in education? And you still came out with "familys" and "most of which who are?" Good Lord, I knew the foothills were in trouble, but you'll have to briefly forgive what I know is the fallacious thinking that I don't think much of the observed opinion of anyone who couldn't even give you a better grasp of the English language than that.

Quote :

"Our country can only sustain so many people"

Both true and irrelevant. We are comfortably distant from our carrying capacity, and eventually basic functions of the market will limit population growth.

7/26/2007 5:36:17 PM

I like Scott Adam's view on all this.
http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/07/immigration.html

Quote :

"It’s hard to talk about immigration without sounding like a racist. So let me just say this and get it out of the way: I think Mexicans are superior to me. By “me,” I am referring to people who are part English, Irish, Welsh, Scottish, Dutch, German, and Native American. There are three of us that I know of. I think my brother and sister would agree that we kind of suck compared to Mexicans. Compare me to Mexicans on any dimension and I lose. For example, I like to think I’m smart, but realistically, if you pick any topic, there is at least one Mexican who knows more than me. Or is it “more than I”? I don’t know, but I guarantee there’s a Mexican somewhere who does. And don’t get me started about common sense and street smarts. If my car breaks down someplace where my Blackberry doesn’t have signal, there’s a good chance I’ll die before I figure out how to get help. Compare that to the guy I can see from my office window, working construction down the street. He walked here from Mexico and learned how to be a carpenter just by looking at a hammer. I speak exactly one language. He’s been here a month and knows 1.1 languages. Advantage: Mexican guy. Mexicans have great looking skin that resists sunburn. I have skin that looks like tapioca spilled on canvas, and I have to wear sunscreen to sit in front of my computer monitor. How about durability? I can hurt my back just eating a bowl of strawberries. I wouldn’t last long picking them. How about character? In the suburbs where I live, most people with above average incomes hire housecleaners to come once a week. It’s almost always a crew of three Mexicans. Each crew has a wad of house keys. In the 29 years I have lived in California, the total number of thefts I have heard attributed to Mexican housekeepers is zero. Now, in the interest of not incriminating yourself, compare that to your best male friend who is not a Mexican and ask yourself how many of these crimes he has committed: - Sex with an underage girl when he was 18 - Marijuana - Speeding - Fudging on taxes - Underage drinking - Illegal copying of songs - Driving with a blood alcohol level above the legal limit - Stealing office supplies There’s a good chance your best male friend is a frickin’criminal. You might argue that any Mexican in this country illegally has broken a law, and that is obviously true. He is guilty of working hard so he can send money home and lift his family from wretchedness. I automatically like that kind of guy, whereas your best friend sounds like a jerk. I can see the arguments on both sides of the immigration issue. And I’m sure I’d have a different view if I lived in some gang-infested part of Southern California. But the dirty little secret that most Californians know is that Mexican immigrants, legal or otherwise, are bringing up the national average on the “good people” meter. If that were not so obviously the case, the borders would have been shut a long time ago. I’d be down there myself with some boards and a hammer and the hope that some guy on the other side would show me how to use them."

[Edited on July 26, 2007 at 8:11 PM. Reason : ]

7/26/2007 8:10:41 PM

^ I'm a Scott Adams fan, and I could see him coming down on either side of the issue, but i'm glad he took the side he did.

7/27/2007 1:06:35 AM

Quote :

"He is guilty of working hard..."

Hey I work hard too, can I pick some laws to break?

7/27/2007 8:53:16 AM

7/27/2007 10:40:24 AM

it's hard to imagine why organized crime would flourish under the current immigration system.

7/27/2007 10:50:48 AM

criminals will be criminals, whatever country they're in

or is this another group of criminals that US policy has created

7/27/2007 10:52:32 AM

no, but they created a market for them. (ie people who are living outside the law find protection/services from other people)

[Edited on July 27, 2007 at 11:04 AM. Reason : . wow grammar.]

7/27/2007 11:04:24 AM

they created Pelican Bay so that the Mexican Mafia can run things from there? cause thats where they run things from...prison

7/27/2007 11:09:17 AM

i don't know what point your trying to make by saying that the people that we caught are now in prison. and your argument that i'm blaming america or whatever (for crime that its system is perpetuating) is weak.

[Edited on July 27, 2007 at 11:47 AM. Reason : perpetuate /= perpetrate]

7/27/2007 11:46:52 AM

none of those people were caught recently...im simply pointing out that the Mexican Mafia runs all of their operations from the Pelican Bay prison in N. California...doesnt matter to them about immigration laws...they run shit from prison either way

and its also obvious you're at least placing partial blame on US policies (specifically immigration) for organized crime simply because our lack of border security allows people to come in...don't blame the law breaking criminals when you can blame imperfect security on thousands of miles of border...done hate the player hate the game, right

7/27/2007 11:50:47 AM