The Immigrant Health Care Bill

[HAL 9000 96]

I don't particularly care for groups you likely support such as MALDEF and LaRaza. Nor do I care for the liberal left wing agendas of SPLC or the ACLU either (which I'm sure you also support). However I prefer to use published statistics rather than employing innuendo and self serving labels to debating the issues.

Tsk Tsk. There you go a$-uming stuff again.

I don't support 'groups'. I don't have the money.

As far as what I believe - I read around. I don't read right-wing xenophobic trash and I don't read ultra liberal garbage.

There is racism on both sides of the aisle. Tanton is a hate-mongering racist on the right side. I wouldn't give you ten cents for any 'statistic' published by his organization.

If the statistics are a lie...why not refute them instead of stating that you don't and won't believe them because you disagree with the mission of the organization? That sounds more like burying your head in the sand rather than debating the issue.

I guess its the same thing as labeling an entire organization according to one of its platforms in favor of a humanist approach to immigration reform as leftist?

Maybe that's why people see through people like you.

And since you are jumping on the wagon of someone that has thrown around the labels of "right-wing racist hate mongering anti-immigrant white supremacist environmental extremist xenophobic trash Malthus a$-umer"...your transparency is there to see too.

I guess you didn't read my post that conditional logic was in right?

But yes I'll spell it out so its more than clear (transparent):

I think you have your xenophobic and even racist side, even though you deny it and try to pass it off as some kind of 'America-first' rhetoric which is more agreeable to all of us here.

Certainly homophobic as per your post history here, and all these little nuggets of fact (unless you too are some kind of 'joker') combine to be quite suggestive of your sociopolitical leanings.

What that says in its transparency of me... is that I can read your posts quite well. Not much more I dare say.

[peejay 327]

What is happening now does not even remotely resemble the immigration policies of the 18th, 19th, and early 20th century.

You got that right, peejay! It sure as the devil doesn't resemble the immigration policies of the 18th, 19th and early 20th century!

Back then all you had to do was get on a boat or walk across the border. At best they eventually started registering them at Ellis Island.

Then somebody decided they were skeered of the Chinese taking all the jobs. Then it was people from India we put quotas on. We rounded up the Japanese and put them camps to keep them 'safe'. Now it's anybody Hispanic or Middle Eastern who gets the American immigration equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition.

Here's the deal, peejay. If they come in legally, I'm all for it. Let 'em come by the boatload, planeload, boxcar load. I don't care. Give me your tired, your poor, your heavy laden. This is the US of A. They'll either swim here or sink and go home.

The problem in a modern mature 21st century politically correct welfare state that America has become is that they don't, won't, and are not made to go home in any reasonable manner that controls and regulates for the benefit the vast majority of Americans. They are not even made to stop coming even when the economy has no need for them (as is the case now). Yes...repeatedly amnestying illegal aliens and then allowing their likewise poor relatives to chain migrate no matter what the circumstances in the economy makes it all legal within your loose criteria, but it does nothing to ensure that immigration works for the good of the American people. We can see what has happened since immigration policy was liberally loosened up beginning in 1965 and subsequently loosened even further throughout the last 25 years with repeated amnesties of illegal aliens in excess of mandated quotas. It has created an endless supply of links to feed the chain without regard to any benefit to our nation. The whole process has been bastardized and the lunatics now run the asylum. The numbers are way too high and the controls and regulation are way too insignificant to represent any sane and reasonable immigration policy that works for the benefit of the American people. We should not be importing poverty and government dependency. Immigrants should not be setting the numbers allowed to enter through circumventing of the law and through outdated law that no longer fits modern reality. Our economy does not need masses of welfare dependent unskilled and uneducated immigrants in endless numbers (legal or illegal). I had to laugh at your reference to the Wall Street Journal in your earlier post criticizing immigration limits advocated by F.A.I.R. Of course they advocate an oversupply of cheap foreign labor. They could care less if the American public pays for it as long as they benefit. No surprises there. Racist groups like MALDEF and LaRaza also don't care if immigration policy is heavily weighted in Hispanics (legal or illegal) either as long as their power and influence increases too. Ditto for politicians that demagogue and exploit this issue too. None of this benefits the vast majority of Americans or America.

The system is broken and radical change from the recent past is needed. The present path is not sustainable. Unfortunately, as the O/P stated, it looks like business as usual. Unfortunately I saw absolutely no refutation of the statistics presented. Only attacks and innuendo. That is very telling and does not bode well in dealing with this critical issue.

Edited December 3, 2009 by peejay

[rika60607 215]

Peejay,

I am really not sure how you expect me to refute the statistics you cited. Statistics is a dangerous beast: you have to take into account who ran the survey, how many people were asked, did they volunteer the answer or facts were checked... was the surveyed group biased somehow? Were the children included (in this particular case)?

And to get answers to even these few questions, I'd have to take your word? Sheesh, you are way too biased for that!

The stats presented seemed unbelievable to me.

I ran my mini study, on $0 budget. The answer is, only about ~10% of legal immigrants have not finished high school.

That's a far cry from 65? 69? what was it in your quote.

The actual number is likely higher than 10%. There are reasons to it, as VJ people are likely the better educated group. But, no way the uneducated number is 60-some % high. So, either statistical study presented was skewed, or results were quoted selectively.

For the rest of it, it is so easy to kill the message you presented, that there is no fun in it.

If you think though, that you (Immigrant descendant) have the moral right to change immigration policy... don't you think your beloved aliens have that right too? Eh? It's lucky they did not say, well we are here, we might as well buy guns and stand up for our people. Drive you away into reservations like was done to Native Indians?... that would be an irony, wouldn't it. May be that's what you are afraid of, isn't it.

[rebeccajo 14]

Save American from all the aliens - as long as I can still have mine!!

[peejay 327]

It's lucky they did not say, well we are here, we might as well buy guns and stand up for our people. Drive you away into reservations like was done to Native Indians?... that would be an irony, wouldn't it.

There again is more irrelevant nonsense from the peanut gallery. As if 18th and 19th century American Indian policy is any reasonable and relevant reference point for setting 21st century immigration policy in what will soon be 2010. How about a few irrelevant references to slavery to further cement your shaky vantage point from your self appointed moral pedestal? You slay me with your intellectual grasp of modern immigration policy.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I simply can not believe an article that doesn't have citations or information regarding its methodology. If there was a methodology I'd like to see it.

That being said I don't think anyone (maybe libertarians?) want open borders. I think, left/right/centre, we all want controlled responsible immigration and I think we can all agree that the current immigration system and enforcement gets an F.

Edited December 4, 2009 by Sousuke

[peejay 327]

Save American from all the aliens - as long as I can still have mine!!

As I have stated before...there is a huge difference between the relatively few American citizens bringing their foreign spouses to live in their country and the compounding negative effect that endless masses of chain migrated foreign nationals create regardless whether they are even of benefit to or at the very least whether they are not a drain on the country.

My wife has no intention of bringing any of her relatives here to immigrate and did not marry me for that purpose. My grandparents similarly did not bring any of their relatives here to immigrate. I personally do not believe any immigrant has an inherent right to chain migrate their entire clan to the USA without regard to how it effects the USA. We can already see how such a wrong headed policy has gone. The USA appears to be the only country that bases immigration solely on chain migration. All other modern first world industrialized countries have abandoned that along with birthright citizenship for obvious reasons.

[peejay 327]

I simply can not believe an article that doesn't have citations or information regarding its methodology. If there was a methodology I'd like to see it.

That being said I don't think anyone (maybe libertarians?) want open borders. I think, left/right/centre, we all want controlled responsible immigration and I think we can all agree that the current immigration system and enforcement gets an F.

I believe this is the source quoted and the methodology use is described in the end notes. If you can find anything better...have at it.

http://www.cis.org/articles/2007/back1007.html

[rebeccajo 14]

The Center for Immigration Studies describes itself as "the nation's only think tank devoted exclusively to research and policy analysis of the economic, social, demographic, fiscal, and other impacts of immigration on the United States." Founded in 1985 as a think tank to support the more activist work of the anti-immigrant Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), CIS is dedicated "to expand the base of public knowledge and understanding of the need for an immigration policy that gives first concern to the broad national interest. The Center is animated by a pro-immigrant, low-immigration vision which seeks fewer immigrants but a warmer welcome for those admitted."

CIS describes itself as "independent" and "nonpartisan," but its studies, reports, and media releases consistently support its restrictionist agenda and works closely on Capitol Hill with Republican Party immigration restrictionists. However, CIS has achieved credibility with the media and in think tank circles because of its lack of the kind of strident anti-immigrant rhetoric associated with many restrictionist groups, its willingness to invite pro-immigrant voices to its forums, and the scholarly format of its reports.

http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile...gration_Studies

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Having read that the conclusions I get are that a majority of poverty stricken immigrants are from latin countries who entered illegally and that they make up roughly a 1/4 of the uninsured. I doubt anyone here would disagree with this.

Conclusion: The US needs stronger immigration enforcement of illegal immigrants.