California grants drivers licenses for illegal immigrants (1 Viewer)

[Wilfredo Ledezma]

Yes it is terrible to get these people in the system and get them to at least get insurance for a short time.

Auto Insurance and illegal immigrants?

One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn't belong,
Can you tell which thing is not like the others
By the time I finish my song?

illegal immigrants want to have insurance/licensees because its for those little thingslike speeding tix and fender benders that they get arrested And deported.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Let's look at crimes with illegals in Florida and California, not Pennsylvania.

 

[Sarnoff]

Every time I begin to think about the logic in this, my head hurts...and I live in CA. WTF is wrong with this state? Totally unreal.

The logic is that these people are here already and are presumably using their vehicles to go to work. If you're not going to deport them then they should be able to function like regular members of society.

They're ILLEGALS. Why should they be able to function like regular members of society? They aren't supposed to be here.

If I told you a high percentage of crimes committed in southern California are by illegal immigrants, which they are, you might not see a connection, but I do: if they are already illegal, then they’re bound not to respect our laws, so they’re much more likely to become criminal.

This is terrible logic, and in fact it's empirically false. Study after study shows that the undocumented commit LESS serious crimes on a percentage basis of their overall population than do regular citizens. Two simple reasons for this: first because most of them work an incredible amount of hours, and second because they fear deportation. Your argument that "they're bound not to respect our laws" is contradicted by all available evidence.

In general, crime is always more likely among the poor and destitute- when has that been any different? But illegals practice less of it.

They’re swarming our prisons. We don’t have enough space for them, and the cost is horrendous. The cost to our hospitals may be even worse. The illegals swarm the emergency rooms, with no money, so who ends up paying? The taxpayer, of course, and we can’t afford it. But the biggest problem is in the schools. Most of these kids don’t speak English, so we’re saddled with bilingual education, which is no good for anybody.

I love how you immediately switch subjects. The higher rate of crime not working for you? Well let's move onto government costs then.

Anyhow, for each of your standard complaints there is of course a standard answer: the way to reduce prison costs is not to deport illegals but to decriminalize certain "crimes". Failing to treat illegals in emergency rooms would lead to serious public health problems that would cost us tons more in the long run. Not having them in schools would lead to alienation from society and increased gang activity. And so forth. Finally, yes these things cost money. Sometimes, in border states, it costs more money than the amount of money that illegal immigrants save us (which is considerable, and which overall is a net gain.) But even in those cases it would be wise to look at these people as an investment for our future. They are well worth the money. The ones who stay are the best kind of Americans= they risked their lives to come here.

Are you proposing then, that we do nothing about this problem?

 

[Wilfredo Ledezma]

Every time I begin to think about the logic in this, my head hurts...and I live in CA. WTF is wrong with this state? Totally unreal.

The logic is that these people are here already and are presumably using their vehicles to go to work. If you're not going to deport them then they should be able to function like regular members of society.

They're ILLEGALS. Why should they be able to function like regular members of society? They aren't supposed to be here.

If I told you a high percentage of crimes committed in southern California are by illegal immigrants, which they are, you might not see a connection, but I do: if they are already illegal, then they’re bound not to respect our laws, so they’re much more likely to become criminal.

This is terrible logic, and in fact it's empirically false. Study after study shows that the undocumented commit LESS serious crimes on a percentage basis of their overall population than do regular citizens. Two simple reasons for this: first because most of them work an incredible amount of hours, and second because they fear deportation. Your argument that "they're bound not to respect our laws" is contradicted by all available evidence.

In general, crime is always more likely among the poor and destitute- when has that been any different? But illegals practice less of it.

They’re swarming our prisons. We don’t have enough space for them, and the cost is horrendous. The cost to our hospitals may be even worse. The illegals swarm the emergency rooms, with no money, so who ends up paying? The taxpayer, of course, and we can’t afford it. But the biggest problem is in the schools. Most of these kids don’t speak English, so we’re saddled with bilingual education, which is no good for anybody.

This is giving them licensee and insurance for the benefit of the public at large. In fact if you let them have licenses/insurance a LOT less of them would be 'clogging the jails".It is not giving them amnesty which is a federal issue anyway.

It makes sense just for the fees they will pay to the DMV alone.

 

[FlapJacks]

Every time I begin to think about the logic in this, my head hurts...and I live in CA. WTF is wrong with this state? Totally unreal.

The logic is that these people are here already and are presumably using their vehicles to go to work. If you're not going to deport them then they should be able to function like regular members of society.

They're ILLEGALS. Why should they be able to function like regular members of society? They aren't supposed to be here.

If I told you a high percentage of crimes committed in southern California are by illegal immigrants, which they are, you might not see a connection, but I do: if they are already illegal, then they’re bound not to respect our laws, so they’re much more likely to become criminal.

As lawmakers in Washington continue to negotiate over immigration policies, they'll have to grapple with a fundamental disagreement about the link between immigrants and crime.

Elected officials from Pennsylvania to Arizona have argued that undocumented immigrants contribute to higher crime rates, but some social scientists tell a different story. They argue that first-generation immigrants actually make their communities safer — and they point to some of the nation's biggest cities as proof.

Two decades ago, Brooklyn's Sunset Park neighborhood was nicknamed "Gunset Park" because of its high crime rates. Today, the commercial avenues are bustling, and once-empty storefronts are now full of businesses catering to immigrants from Latin America and Asia and their young families.

"When a lot of immigrants come to communities, crime tends to drop," says Philip Kasinitz, who teaches sociology at the City University of New York Graduate Center. "And, of course, it's quite the opposite of what many people think."

Police statistics show that Sunset Park is much safer than it was 20 years ago. Homicides are down more than 90 percent. Crime rates have dropped all over New York City since 1990 — but especially in neighborhoods that have high immigration.

Researchers say communities with large immigrant populations create features that depress crime, like busy street life and lots of young families.

Researchers say communities with large immigrant populations create features that depress crime, like busy street life and lots of young families.

Joel Rose/NPR

To be fair, Kasinitz says, "it's absolutely not something you can attribute to any one cause." He points to a variety of potential factors, including changes in policing and the end of the crack epidemic.

"But I would say, among the things that are on the positive side of the ledger, has been this dramatic increase in immigration," Kasinitz says. "The fact that you've got more people, that you don't have empty storefronts, that it's not deserted, sort of decreases the conditions that can create crime."

And it's not just happening in New York City. Across the country, cities with high rates of immigration, like Los Angeles, Houston and San Diego, also have much lower crime rates than they did 20 years ago.

Some social scientists say that's not a coincidence. Robert Sampson of Harvard University argues that first-generation immigrants make their communities safer by working hard and raising families.

"You don't migrate to the United States from countries around the world on a whim. It takes planning," Sampson says. "And for the most part, it is driven by economic motivations. People want a better life. They're seeking to get ahead. And those are the very factors that tend to be associated with lower crime."

Sampson says this seems to be true whether or not the immigrants have entered the country legally. But some say there is a difference when it comes to crime.

"You cannot intermingle immigrants with those that are in the country illegally," says Lou Barletta, former mayor of Hazleton, a small city in northeastern Pennsylvania that experienced an influx of Latino immigration in the early 2000s. In 2006, one of Barletta's constituents was murdered by a man who was in the country illegally.

"The shooter was arrested eight times before he came to Hazleton," says Barletta, now a member of Congress. "Should not have even been in the country, let alone in our city, taking the life of an innocent man. That was the final straw."

Hazleton passed tough laws — still tied up in court — that made it a crime to hire or rent to undocumented immigrants.

Pennsylvania isn't the only state where lawmakers have tried to curb immigration in the name of public safety. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has also said her state's tough anti-immigration law is necessary for the safety of Arizona residents.

Day laborers wait on at a street corner in Tucson, Ariz., hoping for an employer to drive up and put them to work. The photograph was taken in 2008.

"I feel as governor I have a responsibility to protect the citizens, in 2010. "We've been inundated with criminal activity. It's just — it's been outrageous."

But Brewer's critics say there's simply no evidence that illegal immigrants are driving up crime rates. And even the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, which opposes increased immigration, came to the same conclusion.

"There's no evidence that immigrants — or even illegal immigrants — are necessarily any more or less likely to be committing crimes than the population at large, says Jessica Vaughan, the center's director of policy studies. "It's just that they tend to be associated with certain types of crimes — drug trafficking, for example."

There is evidence that immigrants are overrepresented in local prison systems in Arizona and elsewhere. But overall, violent crime is actually lower than you would expect along the U.S. border with Mexico, says Ramiro Martinez, who teaches criminology at Northeastern University.

"In Texas, homicides are actually a little bit lower in border counties than they are in the rest of the state," Martinez says. "Not only in Texas, but also in New Mexico and Arizona, in California — more immigrants means less crime."

That finding may run counter to the public perception that immigrants contribute to higher crime rates. But if lawmakers in Washington look to the research of Martinez and others, they'll find a growing body of evidence to the contrary.

I don't hava dog in this fight, but that's an extremely weak argument.

 

[RCon]

Every time I begin to think about the logic in this, my head hurts...and I live in CA. WTF is wrong with this state? Totally unreal.

The logic is that these people are here already and are presumably using their vehicles to go to work. If you're not going to deport them then they should be able to function like regular members of society.

They're ILLEGALS. Why should they be able to function like regular members of society? They aren't supposed to be here.

If I told you a high percentage of crimes committed in southern California are by illegal immigrants, which they are, you might not see a connection, but I do: if they are already illegal, then they’re bound not to respect our laws, so they’re much more likely to become criminal.

This is terrible logic, and in fact it's empirically false. Study after study shows that the undocumented commit LESS serious crimes on a percentage basis of their overall population than do regular citizens. Two simple reasons for this: first because most of them work an incredible amount of hours, and second because they fear deportation. Your argument that "they're bound not to respect our laws" is contradicted by all available evidence.

In general, crime is always more likely among the poor and destitute- when has that been any different? But illegals practice less of it.

They’re swarming our prisons. We don’t have enough space for them, and the cost is horrendous. The cost to our hospitals may be even worse. The illegals swarm the emergency rooms, with no money, so who ends up paying? The taxpayer, of course, and we can’t afford it. But the biggest problem is in the schools. Most of these kids don’t speak English, so we’re saddled with bilingual education, which is no good for anybody.

I love how you immediately switch subjects. The higher rate of crime not working for you? Well let's move onto government costs then.

Anyhow, for each of your standard complaints there is of course a standard answer: the way to reduce prison costs is not to deport illegals but to decriminalize certain "crimes". Failing to treat illegals in emergency rooms would lead to serious public health problems that would cost us tons more in the long run. Not having them in schools would lead to alienation from society and increased gang activity. And so forth. Finally, yes these things cost money. Sometimes, in border states, it costs more money than the amount of money that illegal immigrants save us (which is considerable, and which overall is a net gain.) But even in those cases it would be wise to look at these people as an investment for our future. They are well worth the money. The ones who stay are the best kind of Americans= they risked their lives to come here.

Are you proposing then, that we do nothing about this problem?

He's arguing there is no problem. Why would he want to do something about a non-problem?

 

[timschochet]

Every time I begin to think about the logic in this, my head hurts...and I live in CA. WTF is wrong with this state? Totally unreal.

The logic is that these people are here already and are presumably using their vehicles to go to work. If you're not going to deport them then they should be able to function like regular members of society.

They're ILLEGALS. Why should they be able to function like regular members of society? They aren't supposed to be here.

If I told you a high percentage of crimes committed in southern California are by illegal immigrants, which they are, you might not see a connection, but I do: if they are already illegal, then they’re bound not to respect our laws, so they’re much more likely to become criminal.

This is terrible logic, and in fact it's empirically false. Study after study shows that the undocumented commit LESS serious crimes on a percentage basis of their overall population than do regular citizens. Two simple reasons for this: first because most of them work an incredible amount of hours, and second because they fear deportation. Your argument that "they're bound not to respect our laws" is contradicted by all available evidence.

In general, crime is always more likely among the poor and destitute- when has that been any different? But illegals practice less of it.

They’re swarming our prisons. We don’t have enough space for them, and the cost is horrendous. The cost to our hospitals may be even worse. The illegals swarm the emergency rooms, with no money, so who ends up paying? The taxpayer, of course, and we can’t afford it. But the biggest problem is in the schools. Most of these kids don’t speak English, so we’re saddled with bilingual education, which is no good for anybody.

I love how you immediately switch subjects. The higher rate of crime not working for you? Well let's move onto government costs then.

Anyhow, for each of your standard complaints there is of course a standard answer: the way to reduce prison costs is not to deport illegals but to decriminalize certain "crimes". Failing to treat illegals in emergency rooms would lead to serious public health problems that would cost us tons more in the long run. Not having them in schools would lead to alienation from society and increased gang activity. And so forth. Finally, yes these things cost money. Sometimes, in border states, it costs more money than the amount of money that illegal immigrants save us (which is considerable, and which overall is a net gain.) But even in those cases it would be wise to look at these people as an investment for our future. They are well worth the money. The ones who stay are the best kind of Americans= they risked their lives to come here.

Are you proposing then, that we do nothing about this problem?

No.

Obviously I believe in a path to citizenship. But beyond that, all 50 states benefit from the presence of these people. But the border states have to endure a greater cost than everyone else. Therefore, IMO, a redistribution of funds is in order. All of the states that border Mexico should receive funds from other states to help pay for the added cost.

 

[timschochet]

Let's look at crimes with illegals in Florida and California, not Pennsylvania.

OK.

http://www.creators.com/opinion/steve-chapman/illegal-immigrants-not-so-scary-2013-10-03.html

A 2007 report by the Immigration Policy Center noted that "for every ethnic group, without exception, incarceration rates among young men are lowest for immigrants, even those who are the least educated.

This holds true especially for the Mexicans, Salvadorans and Guatemalans who make up the bulk of the undocumented population."

Harvard sociologist Robert Sampson, who has focused his research on Chicago neighborhoods, documents that felonious behavior is less common among Mexican-Americans, who constitute the biggest share of Latinos, than among whites. Second and third generation Latinos, contrary to what you might expect, fall into more crime than immigrants. But Sampson says that overall, "Mexican-American rates of violence are very similar to whites."

The phenomenon is so evident that it was even recognized in a recent article in The American Conservative — a magazine founded by the lusty nativist ("we're gonna lose our country") Patrick Buchanan. It was written by Ron Unz, who made some enemies among Latinos by pushing a California ballot initiative to sharply limit bilingual education in public schools, but who knows better than to regard Latinos as the enemy.

Unz points out that in the five most heavily Hispanic cities in the country, violent crime is "10 percent below the national urban average and the homicide rate 40 percent lower." In Los Angeles, which is half Hispanic and easily accessible to those sneaking over the southern border, the murder rate has plummeted to levels unseen since the tranquil years of the early 1960s.

This is not really hard to understand. Today, as ever, most foreigners who make the sacrifice of leaving home and starting over in a strange land do so not to mug grandmothers or molest children, but to find work that will give them a better life. Coming here illegally does not alter that basic motivation.

In other words, they want to become full-fledged Americans, and they're succeeding. Is there something scary about that?

 

[drummer]

Yeah, it's not like the US spends enough on countries that can't fix their own problems, so why not bring those over who come from those countries and spend it here?

 

[RCon]

Let's look at crimes with illegals in Florida and California, not Pennsylvania.

OK.

http://www.creators.com/opinion/steve-chapman/illegal-immigrants-not-so-scary-2013-10-03.html

A 2007 report by the Immigration Policy Center noted that "for every ethnic group, without exception, incarceration rates among young men are lowest for immigrants, even those who are the least educated.

I'm not arguing that you're wrong in your point, but it should be noted that "crime rates" <> "incarceration rates". These could be vastly different, for a variety of reasons. Also, your link refers to "immigrants" without differentiating between illegal and legal.

 

[timschochet]

Let's look at crimes with illegals in Florida and California, not Pennsylvania.

OK.

http://www.creators.com/opinion/steve-chapman/illegal-immigrants-not-so-scary-2013-10-03.html

A 2007 report by the Immigration Policy Center noted that "for every ethnic group, without exception, incarceration rates among young men are lowest for immigrants, even those who are the least educated.

I'm not arguing that you're wrong in your point, but it should be noted that "crime rates" <> "incarceration rates". These could be vastly different, for a variety of reasons. Also, your link refers to "immigrants" without differentiating between illegal and legal.

This holds true especially for the Mexicans, Salvadorans and Guatemalans who make up the bulk of the undocumented population

 

[Sarnoff]

If I told you a high percentage of crimes committed in southern California are by illegal immigrants, which they are, you might not see a connection, but I do: if they are already illegal, then they’re bound not to respect our laws, so they’re much more likely to become criminal.

This is terrible logic, and in fact it's empirically false. Study after study shows that the undocumented commit LESS serious crimes on a percentage basis of their overall population than do regular citizens. Two simple reasons for this: first because most of them work an incredible amount of hours, and second because they fear deportation. Your argument that "they're bound not to respect our laws" is contradicted by all available evidence.

In general, crime is always more likely among the poor and destitute- when has that been any different? But illegals practice less of it.

They’re swarming our prisons. We don’t have enough space for them, and the cost is horrendous. The cost to our hospitals may be even worse. The illegals swarm the emergency rooms, with no money, so who ends up paying? The taxpayer, of course, and we can’t afford it. But the biggest problem is in the schools. Most of these kids don’t speak English, so we’re saddled with bilingual education, which is no good for anybody.

I love how you immediately switch subjects. The higher rate of crime not working for you? Well let's move onto government costs then.

Anyhow, for each of your standard complaints there is of course a standard answer: the way to reduce prison costs is not to deport illegals but to decriminalize certain "crimes". Failing to treat illegals in emergency rooms would lead to serious public health problems that would cost us tons more in the long run. Not having them in schools would lead to alienation from society and increased gang activity. And so forth. Finally, yes these things cost money. Sometimes, in border states, it costs more money than the amount of money that illegal immigrants save us (which is considerable, and which overall is a net gain.) But even in those cases it would be wise to look at these people as an investment for our future. They are well worth the money. The ones who stay are the best kind of Americans= they risked their lives to come here.

Are you proposing then, that we do nothing about this problem?

No.

Obviously I believe in a path to citizenship. But beyond that, all 50 states benefit from the presence of these people. But the border states have to endure a greater cost than everyone else. Therefore, IMO, a redistribution of funds is in order. All of the states that border Mexico should receive funds from other states to help pay for the added cost.

But our resources are at their breaking point, and I hold that illegals present a much higher cost to us than any benefit they represent, even if you ignore the fact of their illegality, which I can’t.

 

[drummer]

Let's look at crimes with illegals in Florida and California, not Pennsylvania.

OK.

http://www.creators.com/opinion/steve-chapman/illegal-immigrants-not-so-scary-2013-10-03.html

A 2007 report by the Immigration Policy Center noted that "for every ethnic group, without exception, incarceration rates among young men are lowest for immigrants, even those who are the least educated.

I'm not arguing that you're wrong in your point, but it should be noted that "crime rates" <> "incarceration rates". These could be vastly different, for a variety of reasons. Also, your link refers to "immigrants" without differentiating between illegal and legal.

This holds true especially for the Mexicans, Salvadorans and Guatemalans who make up the bulk of the undocumented population

What he maybe pointing out is:

Hispanic communities may report less crime than actually happens, such as domestic violence. That's kinda of an issue with the AZ LE.

Maybe you should get a job in LE or the court system. Sure beats the hell outta you trying to save the country one FFA post at a time.

 

[RCon]

Let's look at crimes with illegals in Florida and California, not Pennsylvania.

OK.

http://www.creators.com/opinion/steve-chapman/illegal-immigrants-not-so-scary-2013-10-03.html

A 2007 report by the Immigration Policy Center noted that "for every ethnic group, without exception, incarceration rates among young men are lowest for immigrants, even those who are the least educated.

I'm not arguing that you're wrong in your point, but it should be noted that "crime rates" <> "incarceration rates". These could be vastly different, for a variety of reasons. Also, your link refers to "immigrants" without differentiating between illegal and legal.

This holds true especially for the Mexicans, Salvadorans and Guatemalans who make up the bulk of the undocumented population

I saw that part, but it doesn't offer any statistics. I just get annoyed when statistics don't show what they are purported to show. Again, the actual stats may be even more in your favor, but unless the stats themselves differentiate between legal and illegal, and are based on "crime rates" rather than incarceration rates, then they don't necessarily show what you say.

 

[drummer]

If I told you a high percentage of crimes committed in southern California are by illegal immigrants, which they are, you might not see a connection, but I do: if they are already illegal, then they’re bound not to respect our laws, so they’re much more likely to become criminal.

This is terrible logic, and in fact it's empirically false. Study after study shows that the undocumented commit LESS serious crimes on a percentage basis of their overall population than do regular citizens. Two simple reasons for this: first because most of them work an incredible amount of hours, and second because they fear deportation. Your argument that "they're bound not to respect our laws" is contradicted by all available evidence.

In general, crime is always more likely among the poor and destitute- when has that been any different? But illegals practice less of it.

They’re swarming our prisons. We don’t have enough space for them, and the cost is horrendous. The cost to our hospitals may be even worse. The illegals swarm the emergency rooms, with no money, so who ends up paying? The taxpayer, of course, and we can’t afford it. But the biggest problem is in the schools. Most of these kids don’t speak English, so we’re saddled with bilingual education, which is no good for anybody.

I love how you immediately switch subjects. The higher rate of crime not working for you? Well let's move onto government costs then.

Anyhow, for each of your standard complaints there is of course a standard answer: the way to reduce prison costs is not to deport illegals but to decriminalize certain "crimes". Failing to treat illegals in emergency rooms would lead to serious public health problems that would cost us tons more in the long run. Not having them in schools would lead to alienation from society and increased gang activity. And so forth. Finally, yes these things cost money. Sometimes, in border states, it costs more money than the amount of money that illegal immigrants save us (which is considerable, and which overall is a net gain.) But even in those cases it would be wise to look at these people as an investment for our future. They are well worth the money. The ones who stay are the best kind of Americans= they risked their lives to come here.

Are you proposing then, that we do nothing about this problem?

No.

Obviously I believe in a path to citizenship. But beyond that, all 50 states benefit from the presence of these people. But the border states have to endure a greater cost than everyone else. Therefore, IMO, a redistribution of funds is in order. All of the states that border Mexico should receive funds from other states to help pay for the added cost.

But our resources are at their breaking point, and I hold that illegals present a much higher cost to us than any benefit they represent, even if you ignore the fact of their illegality, which I can’t.

That's already been pointed out in this thread, but not in favor or your argument, which BTW is more made up in your dome than any tangible evidence to support said dome.

 

[drummer]

Let's look at crimes with illegals in Florida and California, not Pennsylvania.

OK.

http://www.creators.com/opinion/steve-chapman/illegal-immigrants-not-so-scary-2013-10-03.html

A 2007 report by the Immigration Policy Center noted that "for every ethnic group, without exception, incarceration rates among young men are lowest for immigrants, even those who are the least educated.

I'm not arguing that you're wrong in your point, but it should be noted that "crime rates" <> "incarceration rates". These could be vastly different, for a variety of reasons. Also, your link refers to "immigrants" without differentiating between illegal and legal.

This holds true especially for the Mexicans, Salvadorans and Guatemalans who make up the bulk of the undocumented population

I saw that part, but it doesn't offer any statistics. I just get annoyed when statistics don't show what they are purported to show. Again, the actual stats may be even more in your favor, but unless the stats themselves differentiate between legal and illegal, and are based on "crime rates" rather than incarceration rates, then they don't necessarily show what you say.

Well, he is searching around the internet for Mexicans, Salvadorans, and Guatemalans, instead of actually, like going to those communities. So bear in mind his crusade.

 

[timschochet]

If I told you a high percentage of crimes committed in southern California are by illegal immigrants, which they are, you might not see a connection, but I do: if they are already illegal, then they’re bound not to respect our laws, so they’re much more likely to become criminal.

This is terrible logic, and in fact it's empirically false. Study after study shows that the undocumented commit LESS serious crimes on a percentage basis of their overall population than do regular citizens. Two simple reasons for this: first because most of them work an incredible amount of hours, and second because they fear deportation. Your argument that "they're bound not to respect our laws" is contradicted by all available evidence.

In general, crime is always more likely among the poor and destitute- when has that been any different? But illegals practice less of it.

They’re swarming our prisons. We don’t have enough space for them, and the cost is horrendous. The cost to our hospitals may be even worse. The illegals swarm the emergency rooms, with no money, so who ends up paying? The taxpayer, of course, and we can’t afford it. But the biggest problem is in the schools. Most of these kids don’t speak English, so we’re saddled with bilingual education, which is no good for anybody.

I love how you immediately switch subjects. The higher rate of crime not working for you? Well let's move onto government costs then.

Anyhow, for each of your standard complaints there is of course a standard answer: the way to reduce prison costs is not to deport illegals but to decriminalize certain "crimes". Failing to treat illegals in emergency rooms would lead to serious public health problems that would cost us tons more in the long run. Not having them in schools would lead to alienation from society and increased gang activity. And so forth. Finally, yes these things cost money. Sometimes, in border states, it costs more money than the amount of money that illegal immigrants save us (which is considerable, and which overall is a net gain.) But even in those cases it would be wise to look at these people as an investment for our future. They are well worth the money. The ones who stay are the best kind of Americans= they risked their lives to come here.

Are you proposing then, that we do nothing about this problem?

No.

Obviously I believe in a path to citizenship. But beyond that, all 50 states benefit from the presence of these people. But the border states have to endure a greater cost than everyone else. Therefore, IMO, a redistribution of funds is in order. All of the states that border Mexico should receive funds from other states to help pay for the added cost.

But our resources are at their breaking point, and I hold that illegals present a much higher cost to us than any benefit they represent, even if you ignore the fact of their illegality, which I can’t.

1, Prove it. I can provide you evidence to the contrary. I can show you study after study in which economists have determined they are an economic benefit. The latest was from UCLA, earlier this year.

2. I agree with you. I can't ignore the fact of their illegality either. Coming into the USA illegally is a misdemeanor. So fine them a reasonable amount, and then give them a path to citizenship. It's the only rational solution to this issue.

 

[Sarnoff]

Perhaps you can convince enough people to change the laws and allow open borders between us and Mexico. But until you can get the law changed, it is what it is, and people have no right to break it. I say that if they do, they’re making a mockery of all of our laws.

 

[drummer]

Perhaps you can convince enough people to change the laws and allow open borders between us and Mexico. But until you can get the law changed, it is what it is, and people have no right to break it. I say that if they do, they’re making a mockery of all of our laws.

Who isn't making a mockery of the laws?

 

[timschochet]

Let's look at crimes with illegals in Florida and California, not Pennsylvania.

OK.

http://www.creators.com/opinion/steve-chapman/illegal-immigrants-not-so-scary-2013-10-03.html

A 2007 report by the Immigration Policy Center noted that "for every ethnic group, without exception, incarceration rates among young men are lowest for immigrants, even those who are the least educated.

I'm not arguing that you're wrong in your point, but it should be noted that "crime rates" <> "incarceration rates". These could be vastly different, for a variety of reasons. Also, your link refers to "immigrants" without differentiating between illegal and legal.

This holds true especially for the Mexicans, Salvadorans and Guatemalans who make up the bulk of the undocumented population

I saw that part, but it doesn't offer any statistics. I just get annoyed when statistics don't show what they are purported to show. Again, the actual stats may be even more in your favor, but unless the stats themselves differentiate between legal and illegal, and are based on "crime rates" rather than incarceration rates, then they don't necessarily show what you say.

Well, he is searching around the internet for Mexicans, Salvadorans, and Guatemalans, instead of actually, like going to those communities. So bear in mind his crusade.

No I'm not. All of the evidence on this stuff is out there for anyone who wants to look. People don't want to look. They want to believe that illegal immigrants cause all the crime. I'm not going to change anyone's mind. It's frustrating. I argue because I can't help myself, but after a while I just get sick of it.

The anti-illegal crowd is visceral and emotional and there's probably no way to reason with them.

 

[drummer]

Let's look at crimes with illegals in Florida and California, not Pennsylvania.

OK.

http://www.creators.com/opinion/steve-chapman/illegal-immigrants-not-so-scary-2013-10-03.html

A 2007 report by the Immigration Policy Center noted that "for every ethnic group, without exception, incarceration rates among young men are lowest for immigrants, even those who are the least educated.

I'm not arguing that you're wrong in your point, but it should be noted that "crime rates" <> "incarceration rates". These could be vastly different, for a variety of reasons. Also, your link refers to "immigrants" without differentiating between illegal and legal.

This holds true especially for the Mexicans, Salvadorans and Guatemalans who make up the bulk of the undocumented population

I saw that part, but it doesn't offer any statistics. I just get annoyed when statistics don't show what they are purported to show. Again, the actual stats may be even more in your favor, but unless the stats themselves differentiate between legal and illegal, and are based on "crime rates" rather than incarceration rates, then they don't necessarily show what you say.

Well, he is searching around the internet for Mexicans, Salvadorans, and Guatemalans, instead of actually, like going to those communities. So bear in mind his crusade.

No I'm not. All of the evidence on this stuff is out there for anyone who wants to look. People don't want to look. They want to believe that illegal immigrants cause all the crime. I'm not going to change anyone's mind. It's frustrating. I argue because I can't help myself, but after a while I just get sick of it.

The anti-illegal crowd is visceral and emotional and there's probably no way to reason with them.

Yes you are. Believe me, I've done more with this issue personally to know you're just fapping yourself into oblivion. Immigration is a big deal where I come from, and who I work and worked with, and not with just Hispanic communities either.

You're really a hack at this, but keep trying. It again only suits your own purpose.

 

[Sarnoff]

Failing to treat illegals in emergency rooms would lead to serious public health problems that would cost us tons more in the long run. Not having them in schools would lead to alienation from society and increased gang activity. And so forth.

You say stopping free hospital care would spread public health concerns; but it is the very presence of the illegals that spread these concerns. If we found a way to stop them from coming and to get the ones already here to leave, we wouldn’t be saddled with this problem. Nor would we be saddled with their presence either in our schools or as roving gang members. All of my ideas are preventative by nature; I’m trying to keep this problem which is already huge and out of control from becoming even worse.

 

[timschochet]

Drummer, you can believe I'm a hack (I'm not) and you can believe I post for some self-serving interests (I don't; I post about this issue because I'm more passionate about it than probably any other, for personal reasons which I'd rather not discuss.)

But it doesn't matter. I get that you are involved somehow, and that you're doing good. I admire you for that.

 

[drummer]

Failing to treat illegals in emergency rooms would lead to serious public health problems that would cost us tons more in the long run. Not having them in schools would lead to alienation from society and increased gang activity. And so forth.

You say stopping free hospital care would spread public health concerns; but it is the very presence of the illegals that spread these concerns. If we found a way to stop them from coming and to get the ones already here to leave, we wouldn’t be saddled with this problem. Nor would we be saddled with their presence either in our schools or as roving gang members. All of my ideas are preventative by nature; I’m trying to keep this problem which is already huge and out of control from becoming even worse.

Again, you're lumping an issue with a certain population due to your bias, and bias alone. Just go ahead and say it - you hate Hispanic illegal immigrants. Then you can stop the charade.

 

[drummer]

Drummer, you can believe I'm a hack (I'm not) and you can believe I post for some self-serving interests (I don't; I post about this issue because I'm more passionate about it than probably any other, for personal reasons which I'd rather not discuss.)

But it doesn't matter. I get that you are involved somehow, and that you're doing good. I admire you for that.

Whatever. Having a cultural background with the community growing up in a state that has had immigration for decades only means that I have been immersed in it my entire life. But you can't solve the World's problems by importing refugees from them. Those countries have an obligation to their own people. You're better served trying to argue how those countries should help their own, rather than import them here with your latest meme of "American Exceptionalism".

 

[timschochet]

Drummer, you can believe I'm a hack (I'm not) and you can believe I post for some self-serving interests (I don't; I post about this issue because I'm more passionate about it than probably any other, for personal reasons which I'd rather not discuss.)

But it doesn't matter. I get that you are involved somehow, and that you're doing good. I admire you for that.

Whatever. Having a cultural background with the community growing up in a state that has had immigration for decades only means that I have been immersed in it my entire life. But you can't solve the World's problems by importing refugees from them. Those countries have an obligation to their own people. You're better served trying to argue how those countries should help their own, rather than import them here with your latest meme of "American Exceptionalism".

This part I agree with. I have never argued that it was our responsibility to solve the world's problems. I'm in favor of immigration, both legal and illegal, because I believe it's good for us.

 

[drummer]

Drummer, you can believe I'm a hack (I'm not) and you can believe I post for some self-serving interests (I don't; I post about this issue because I'm more passionate about it than probably any other, for personal reasons which I'd rather not discuss.)

But it doesn't matter. I get that you are involved somehow, and that you're doing good. I admire you for that.

Whatever. Having a cultural background with the community growing up in a state that has had immigration for decades only means that I have been immersed in it my entire life. But you can't solve the World's problems by importing refugees from them. Those countries have an obligation to their own people. You're better served trying to argue how those countries should help their own, rather than import them here with your latest meme of "American Exceptionalism".

This part I agree with. I have never argued that it was our responsibility to solve the world's problems. I'm in favor of immigration, both legal and illegal, because I believe it's good for us.

Well, it's good for somebody. Just not us or illegals.

People coming from impoverished countries may still live well below our own poverty line, as I pointed out in earlier posts. So how does that bridge the gap between the rich and the poor domestically?

 

[Sarnoff]

I'm in favor of immigration, both legal and illegal, because I believe it's good for us.

To Tim as a liberal everything is subjective. I would not want to live in a society where everything is subjective. The sort of moral relativism that Tim proposes led in the 20th Century to some of the worst regimes in history.

Even if, somehow in a fantasy world, you could make the argument that illegals were good for our society, that they didn’t harm us in any way but actually benefited us, that they didn’t have any cost to our prisons, our schools, our hospitals; even if all this were true, I would still be against them, because they’re illegal. They broke the law by coming here. And if you allow the law to be broken by their presence, then what’s the point of any of our laws? Why not just live in a lawless society?

 

[drummer]

I'm in favor of immigration, both legal and illegal, because I believe it's good for us.

To Tim as a liberal everything is subjective. I would not want to live in a society where everything is subjective. The sort of moral relativism that Tim proposes led in the 20th Century to some of the worst regimes in history.

Even if, somehow in a fantasy world, you could make the argument that illegals were good for our society, that they didn’t harm us in any way but actually benefited us, that they didn’t have any cost to our prisons, our schools, our hospitals; even if all this were true, I would still be against them, because they’re illegal. They broke the law by coming here. And if you allow the law to be broken by their presence, then what’s the point of any of our laws? Why not just live in a lawless society?

Yeah, we don't celebrate outlaws in this country.

 

[timschochet]

I'm in favor of immigration, both legal and illegal, because I believe it's good for us.

To Tim as a liberal everything is subjective. I would not want to live in a society where everything is subjective. The sort of moral relativism that Tim proposes led in the 20th Century to some of the worst regimes in history.

Even if, somehow in a fantasy world, you could make the argument that illegals were good for our society, that they didnt harm us in any way but actually benefited us, that they didnt have any cost to our prisons, our schools, our hospitals; even if all this were true, I would still be against them, because theyre illegal. They broke the law by coming here. And if you allow the law to be broken by their presence, then whats the point of any of our laws? Why not just live in a lawless society?

Tell Sarnoff, if you lived in the 1840s would you be an abolitionist? If a runaway slave knocked at your door would you turn him in to the slave catchers? How about if you lived in Nazi Germany; would you hide Jews or turn them over to the Gestapo?

 

[Sarnoff]

Failing to treat illegals in emergency rooms would lead to serious public health problems that would cost us tons more in the long run. Not having them in schools would lead to alienation from society and increased gang activity. And so forth.

You say stopping free hospital care would spread public health concerns; but it is the very presence of the illegals that spread these concerns. If we found a way to stop them from coming and to get the ones already here to leave, we wouldn’t be saddled with this problem. Nor would we be saddled with their presence either in our schools or as roving gang members. All of my ideas are preventative by nature; I’m trying to keep this problem which is already huge and out of control from becoming even worse.

Again, you're lumping an issue with a certain population due to your bias, and bias alone. Just go ahead and say it - you hate Hispanic illegal immigrants. Then you can stop the charade.

It’s a typical liberal thing to label your opponents’ arguments as nativist or racist, which I know is coming. The fact is, I’m not anti-immigrant. I believe that immigrants form the strength of our nation. And I’m not racist, either. I have several Latino friends, and I consider them to be my equals. Most of them are as concerned over this issue as I am. But what you don’t get is there is a difference between legal immigrants and those that come here illegally. If you’re an illegal alien, you’ve broken the law by your very presence. That’s wrong. And before we go any farther discussing this issue, we need to all realize how wrong it is. And this is at the very heart of my objection.

 

[drummer]

Failing to treat illegals in emergency rooms would lead to serious public health problems that would cost us tons more in the long run. Not having them in schools would lead to alienation from society and increased gang activity. And so forth.

You say stopping free hospital care would spread public health concerns; but it is the very presence of the illegals that spread these concerns. If we found a way to stop them from coming and to get the ones already here to leave, we wouldn’t be saddled with this problem. Nor would we be saddled with their presence either in our schools or as roving gang members. All of my ideas are preventative by nature; I’m trying to keep this problem which is already huge and out of control from becoming even worse.

Again, you're lumping an issue with a certain population due to your bias, and bias alone. Just go ahead and say it - you hate Hispanic illegal immigrants. Then you can stop the charade.

It’s a typical liberal thing to label your opponents’ arguments as nativist or racist, which I know is coming. The fact is, I’m not anti-immigrant. I believe that immigrants form the strength of our nation. And I’m not racist, either. I have several Latino friends, and I consider them to be my equals. Most of them are as concerned over this issue as I am. But what you don’t get is there is a difference between legal immigrants and those that come here illegally. If you’re an illegal alien, you’ve broken the law by your very presence. That’s wrong. And before we go any farther discussing this issue, we need to all realize how wrong it is. And this is at the very heart of my objection.

Ok gotcha. Part of the rhetoric you were posting is something that has been sort of a meme since I dunno when it comes to the immigration debate. I apologize if I deemed you 'racist' because of it.

The enforcement of law begins at the border. Of course, there is money involved with that. By not enforcing the border, it benefits the flow of money between it. What other border countries does the US dollar have more value than Mexico and Central America? The divide between the rich and the poor is even more vast there than the divide domestically. It's almost criminal. Hell, with all the corruption and violence towards the poor (as well as racism) along with the lack of civil liberties, it is criminal. So the demand to bring more US dollar across the southern border could lie in part by exporting more labor north. There is a lot of foreign interest in Mexico as well as the US's, so immigration could be chalked up as the cost of doing business.

The US has spent billions on foreign aid to Mexico, so there might lie an answer. Even with that, Mexico's middle class has grown more than America's. So tim's idea of bringing in their poverty won't solve our own middle class issue. Mexico's middle class may be due to immigration to the north.

Border enforcement is gonna be huge. Some contractors over in Iraq are already putting in bids to enforce the Mexican border. So immigration reform is in play. The Ag business is fed up with the politics of it, and they are lobbying hard for it. A guest worker program is the best solution, with strict policy and regulation, but hey, the more votes they can get into districts, the better they become citizens.

It still may not mean a real middle class in America.

 

[Sarnoff]

I'm in favor of immigration, both legal and illegal, because I believe it's good for us.

To Tim as a liberal everything is subjective. I would not want to live in a society where everything is subjective. The sort of moral relativism that Tim proposes led in the 20th Century to some of the worst regimes in history.

Even if, somehow in a fantasy world, you could make the argument that illegals were good for our society, that they didnt harm us in any way but actually benefited us, that they didnt have any cost to our prisons, our schools, our hospitals; even if all this were true, I would still be against them, because theyre illegal. They broke the law by coming here. And if you allow the law to be broken by their presence, then whats the point of any of our laws? Why not just live in a lawless society?

Tell Sarnoff, if you lived in the 1840s would you be an abolitionist? If a runaway slave knocked at your door would you turn him in to the slave catchers? How about if you lived in Nazi Germany; would you hide Jews or turn them over to the Gestapo?

You completely gloss over the high cost of illegal aliens to our schools, hospitals, and prisons. You don't really want to discuss these issues, because they don’t fit in with your romantic ideal of hard workers who heroically cross the border in pursuit of the American dream.

You compare them to the immigrants of an earlier generation, but of course there are tremendous differences besides the illegal issue. The Jews, Polish, Italians, Irish, etc., yes they huddled in the big cities and caused crime and spoke their own languages, all that is true, but what is also true is that they all aspired to be assimilated. They encouraged their children to speak English, to achieve within the structure of our capitalistic society. Do the illegal aliens from south of the border encourage their kids to speak English? No, they demand bilingual education. They seek to be separate from our culture, they don’t contribute to the old idea of the melting pot, and they retain an antagonism towards American values.

 

[drummer]

I'm in favor of immigration, both legal and illegal, because I believe it's good for us.

To Tim as a liberal everything is subjective. I would not want to live in a society where everything is subjective. The sort of moral relativism that Tim proposes led in the 20th Century to some of the worst regimes in history.

Even if, somehow in a fantasy world, you could make the argument that illegals were good for our society, that they didnt harm us in any way but actually benefited us, that they didnt have any cost to our prisons, our schools, our hospitals; even if all this were true, I would still be against them, because theyre illegal. They broke the law by coming here. And if you allow the law to be broken by their presence, then whats the point of any of our laws? Why not just live in a lawless society?

Tell Sarnoff, if you lived in the 1840s would you be an abolitionist? If a runaway slave knocked at your door would you turn him in to the slave catchers? How about if you lived in Nazi Germany; would you hide Jews or turn them over to the Gestapo?

LET'S SPIN THIS BECAUSE I CAN'T KEEP UP WITH THE TOPIC.

 

[drummer]

I'm in favor of immigration, both legal and illegal, because I believe it's good for us.

To Tim as a liberal everything is subjective. I would not want to live in a society where everything is subjective. The sort of moral relativism that Tim proposes led in the 20th Century to some of the worst regimes in history.

Even if, somehow in a fantasy world, you could make the argument that illegals were good for our society, that they didnt harm us in any way but actually benefited us, that they didnt have any cost to our prisons, our schools, our hospitals; even if all this were true, I would still be against them, because theyre illegal. They broke the law by coming here. And if you allow the law to be broken by their presence, then whats the point of any of our laws? Why not just live in a lawless society?

Tell Sarnoff, if you lived in the 1840s would you be an abolitionist? If a runaway slave knocked at your door would you turn him in to the slave catchers? How about if you lived in Nazi Germany; would you hide Jews or turn them over to the Gestapo?

You completely gloss over the high cost of illegal aliens to our schools, hospitals, and prisons. You don't really want to discuss these issues, because they don’t fit in with your romantic ideal of hard workers who heroically cross the border in pursuit of the American dream.

You compare them to the immigrants of an earlier generation, but of course there are tremendous differences besides the illegal issue. The Jews, Polish, Italians, Irish, etc., yes they huddled in the big cities and caused crime and spoke their own languages, all that is true, but what is also true is that they all aspired to be assimilated. They encouraged their children to speak English, to achieve within the structure of our capitalistic society. Do the illegal aliens from south of the border encourage their kids to speak English? No, they demand bilingual education. They seek to be separate from our culture, they don’t contribute to the old idea of the melting pot, and they retain an antagonism towards American values.

That's not true. A lot of immigrants from abroad still don't assimilate into American culture. In fact, quite a few legal immigrants still despise American culture. I told an English guy to go back to his country after he bad mouthing ours. Many guys like him that I have met.

Americans celebrate other cultures here in parades and holidays. I dunno if there is an MLK day over in the UK. I may be wrong though.

 

[timschochet]

I'm in favor of immigration, both legal and illegal, because I believe it's good for us.

To Tim as a liberal everything is subjective. I would not want to live in a society where everything is subjective. The sort of moral relativism that Tim proposes led in the 20th Century to some of the worst regimes in history.

Even if, somehow in a fantasy world, you could make the argument that illegals were good for our society, that they didnt harm us in any way but actually benefited us, that they didnt have any cost to our prisons, our schools, our hospitals; even if all this were true, I would still be against them, because theyre illegal. They broke the law by coming here. And if you allow the law to be broken by their presence, then whats the point of any of our laws? Why not just live in a lawless society?

Tell Sarnoff, if you lived in the 1840s would you be an abolitionist? If a runaway slave knocked at your door would you turn him in to the slave catchers? How about if you lived in Nazi Germany; would you hide Jews or turn them over to the Gestapo?

LET'S SPIN THIS BECAUSE I CAN'T KEEP UP WITH THE TOPIC.

It wasn't spin. Sarnoff says that the law is the law, otherwise we have a lawless society. I just wanted to find out if there are any laws he woulfd refuse to obey.

 

[timschochet]

I'm in favor of immigration, both legal and illegal, because I believe it's good for us.

To Tim as a liberal everything is subjective. I would not want to live in a society where everything is subjective. The sort of moral relativism that Tim proposes led in the 20th Century to some of the worst regimes in history.

Even if, somehow in a fantasy world, you could make the argument that illegals were good for our society, that they didnt harm us in any way but actually benefited us, that they didnt have any cost to our prisons, our schools, our hospitals; even if all this were true, I would still be against them, because theyre illegal. They broke the law by coming here. And if you allow the law to be broken by their presence, then whats the point of any of our laws? Why not just live in a lawless society?

Tell Sarnoff, if you lived in the 1840s would you be an abolitionist? If a runaway slave knocked at your door would you turn him in to the slave catchers? How about if you lived in Nazi Germany; would you hide Jews or turn them over to the Gestapo?

You completely gloss over the high cost of illegal aliens to our schools, hospitals, and prisons. You don't really want to discuss these issues, because they dont fit in with your romantic ideal of hard workers who heroically cross the border in pursuit of the American dream.

You compare them to the immigrants of an earlier generation, but of course there are tremendous differences besides the illegal issue. The Jews, Polish, Italians, Irish, etc., yes they huddled in the big cities and caused crime and spoke their own languages, all that is true, but what is also true is that they all aspired to be assimilated. They encouraged their children to speak English, to achieve within the structure of our capitalistic society. Do the illegal aliens from south of the border encourage their kids to speak English? No, they demand bilingual education. They seek to be separate from our culture, they dont contribute to the old idea of the melting pot, and they retain an antagonism towards American values.

Wait a minute. You just wrote that this was all about the law for you. Now apparently it's about whether or not these immigrants are willing to assimilate? Earlier it was whether or not they cost more than they gain? You have offered every possible stereotypical argument to support your anti- illegal position, and whenever you are challenged on one, you move glibly onto the next one.

 

[drummer]

I'm in favor of immigration, both legal and illegal, because I believe it's good for us.

To Tim as a liberal everything is subjective. I would not want to live in a society where everything is subjective. The sort of moral relativism that Tim proposes led in the 20th Century to some of the worst regimes in history.

Even if, somehow in a fantasy world, you could make the argument that illegals were good for our society, that they didnt harm us in any way but actually benefited us, that they didnt have any cost to our prisons, our schools, our hospitals; even if all this were true, I would still be against them, because theyre illegal. They broke the law by coming here. And if you allow the law to be broken by their presence, then whats the point of any of our laws? Why not just live in a lawless society?

Tell Sarnoff, if you lived in the 1840s would you be an abolitionist? If a runaway slave knocked at your door would you turn him in to the slave catchers? How about if you lived in Nazi Germany; would you hide Jews or turn them over to the Gestapo?

LET'S SPIN THIS BECAUSE I CAN'T KEEP UP WITH THE TOPIC.

It wasn't spin. Sarnoff says that the law is the law, otherwise we have a lawless society. I just wanted to find out if there are any laws he woulfd refuse to obey.

Nazi Germany and slavery has nothing to do with the free will of people crossing a border. So stop baiting.

 

[Sarnoff]

I'm in favor of immigration, both legal and illegal, because I believe it's good for us.

To Tim as a liberal everything is subjective. I would not want to live in a society where everything is subjective. The sort of moral relativism that Tim proposes led in the 20th Century to some of the worst regimes in history.

Even if, somehow in a fantasy world, you could make the argument that illegals were good for our society, that they didnt harm us in any way but actually benefited us, that they didnt have any cost to our prisons, our schools, our hospitals; even if all this were true, I would still be against them, because theyre illegal. They broke the law by coming here. And if you allow the law to be broken by their presence, then whats the point of any of our laws? Why not just live in a lawless society?

Tell Sarnoff, if you lived in the 1840s would you be an abolitionist? If a runaway slave knocked at your door would you turn him in to the slave catchers? How about if you lived in Nazi Germany; would you hide Jews or turn them over to the Gestapo?

You completely gloss over the high cost of illegal aliens to our schools, hospitals, and prisons. You don't really want to discuss these issues, because they dont fit in with your romantic ideal of hard workers who heroically cross the border in pursuit of the American dream.

You compare them to the immigrants of an earlier generation, but of course there are tremendous differences besides the illegal issue. The Jews, Polish, Italians, Irish, etc., yes they huddled in the big cities and caused crime and spoke their own languages, all that is true, but what is also true is that they all aspired to be assimilated. They encouraged their children to speak English, to achieve within the structure of our capitalistic society. Do the illegal aliens from south of the border encourage their kids to speak English? No, they demand bilingual education. They seek to be separate from our culture, they dont contribute to the old idea of the melting pot, and they retain an antagonism towards American values.

Wait a minute. You just wrote that this was all about the law for you. Now apparently it's about whether or not these immigrants are willing to assimilate? Earlier it was whether or not they cost more than they gain?You have offered every possible stereotypical argument to support your anti- illegal position, and whenever you are challenged on one, you move glibly onto the next one.

There are many reasons. But what really irritates me, is that the government won’t do a darn thing about this issue, despite all of the polls favoring a strong solution. What am I in favor of? I want a strong fence on the border, throughout the entire border, and you can’t tell me this won’t solve the problem for the most part. It could be done easily and cheaply, too, compared to the cost of border patrols and to our law enforcement, in general. The American people want this fence; its eventually going to happen, wait and see.

 

[Sarnoff]

Failing to treat illegals in emergency rooms would lead to serious public health problems that would cost us tons more in the long run. Not having them in schools would lead to alienation from society and increased gang activity. And so forth.

You say stopping free hospital care would spread public health concerns; but it is the very presence of the illegals that spread these concerns. If we found a way to stop them from coming and to get the ones already here to leave, we wouldn’t be saddled with this problem. Nor would we be saddled with their presence either in our schools or as roving gang members. All of my ideas are preventative by nature; I’m trying to keep this problem which is already huge and out of control from becoming even worse.

Again, you're lumping an issue with a certain population due to your bias, and bias alone. Just go ahead and say it - you hate Hispanic illegal immigrants. Then you can stop the charade.

It’s a typical liberal thing to label your opponents’ arguments as nativist or racist, which I know is coming. The fact is, I’m not anti-immigrant. I believe that immigrants form the strength of our nation. And I’m not racist, either. I have several Latino friends, and I consider them to be my equals. Most of them are as concerned over this issue as I am. But what you don’t get is there is a difference between legal immigrants and those that come here illegally. If you’re an illegal alien, you’ve broken the law by your very presence. That’s wrong. And before we go any farther discussing this issue, we need to all realize how wrong it is. And this is at the very heart of my objection.

Ok gotcha. Part of the rhetoric you were posting is something that has been sort of a meme since I dunno when it comes to the immigration debate. I apologize if I deemed you 'racist' because of it.

The enforcement of law begins at the border. Of course, there is money involved with that. By not enforcing the border, it benefits the flow of money between it. What other border countries does the US dollar have more value than Mexico and Central America? The divide between the rich and the poor is even more vast there than the divide domestically. It's almost criminal. Hell, with all the corruption and violence towards the poor (as well as racism) along with the lack of civil liberties, it is criminal. So the demand to bring more US dollar across the southern border could lie in part by exporting more labor north. There is a lot of foreign interest in Mexico as well as the US's, so immigration could be chalked up as the cost of doing business.

The US has spent billions on foreign aid to Mexico, so there might lie an answer. Even with that, Mexico's middle class has grown more than America's. So tim's idea of bringing in their poverty won't solve our own middle class issue. Mexico's middle class may be due to immigration to the north.

Border enforcement is gonna be huge. Some contractors over in Iraq are already putting in bids to enforce the Mexican border. So immigration reform is in play. The Ag business is fed up with the politics of it, and they are lobbying hard for it. A guest worker program is the best solution, with strict policy and regulation, but hey, the more votes they can get into districts, the better they become citizens.

It still may not mean a real middle class in America.

Both parties are afraid to antagonize the Mexicans. See, they take it for granted that all Mexican-Americans vote as one block, and if one party is seen as particularly anti-illegal, then this block will go one hundred percent to the other party. The Republicans are especially afraid of this. But it just isn’t true. As I said, I know plenty of Mexicans who agree with me on this subject. And even if they didn’t, you shouldn’t make political decisions out of cowardice. We all know it’s wrong and these people shouldn’t be here; they’re breaking the law, how many more ways can I say it?

 

[drummer]

Failing to treat illegals in emergency rooms would lead to serious public health problems that would cost us tons more in the long run. Not having them in schools would lead to alienation from society and increased gang activity. And so forth.

You say stopping free hospital care would spread public health concerns; but it is the very presence of the illegals that spread these concerns. If we found a way to stop them from coming and to get the ones already here to leave, we wouldn’t be saddled with this problem. Nor would we be saddled with their presence either in our schools or as roving gang members. All of my ideas are preventative by nature; I’m trying to keep this problem which is already huge and out of control from becoming even worse.

Again, you're lumping an issue with a certain population due to your bias, and bias alone. Just go ahead and say it - you hate Hispanic illegal immigrants. Then you can stop the charade.

It’s a typical liberal thing to label your opponents’ arguments as nativist or racist, which I know is coming. The fact is, I’m not anti-immigrant. I believe that immigrants form the strength of our nation. And I’m not racist, either. I have several Latino friends, and I consider them to be my equals. Most of them are as concerned over this issue as I am. But what you don’t get is there is a difference between legal immigrants and those that come here illegally. If you’re an illegal alien, you’ve broken the law by your very presence. That’s wrong. And before we go any farther discussing this issue, we need to all realize how wrong it is. And this is at the very heart of my objection.

Ok gotcha. Part of the rhetoric you were posting is something that has been sort of a meme since I dunno when it comes to the immigration debate. I apologize if I deemed you 'racist' because of it.

The enforcement of law begins at the border. Of course, there is money involved with that. By not enforcing the border, it benefits the flow of money between it. What other border countries does the US dollar have more value than Mexico and Central America? The divide between the rich and the poor is even more vast there than the divide domestically. It's almost criminal. Hell, with all the corruption and violence towards the poor (as well as racism) along with the lack of civil liberties, it is criminal. So the demand to bring more US dollar across the southern border could lie in part by exporting more labor north. There is a lot of foreign interest in Mexico as well as the US's, so immigration could be chalked up as the cost of doing business.

The US has spent billions on foreign aid to Mexico, so there might lie an answer. Even with that, Mexico's middle class has grown more than America's. So tim's idea of bringing in their poverty won't solve our own middle class issue. Mexico's middle class may be due to immigration to the north.

Border enforcement is gonna be huge. Some contractors over in Iraq are already putting in bids to enforce the Mexican border. So immigration reform is in play. The Ag business is fed up with the politics of it, and they are lobbying hard for it. A guest worker program is the best solution, with strict policy and regulation, but hey, the more votes they can get into districts, the better they become citizens.

It still may not mean a real middle class in America.

Both parties are afraid to antagonize the Mexicans. See, they take it for granted that all Mexican-Americans vote as one block, and if one party is seen as particularly anti-illegal, then this block will go one hundred percent to the other party. The Republicans are especially afraid of this. But it just isn’t true. As I said, I know plenty of Mexicans who agree with me on this subject. And even if they didn’t, you shouldn’t make political decisions out of cowardice. We all know it’s wrong and these people shouldn’t be here; they’re breaking the law, how many more ways can I say it?

But Hispanics aren't the only ones skirting immigration laws. It may be that there is a mutual benefit between the border countries that there isn't much enforcement. But there are all kinds of cultures who are here without documentation and arrived without doing it legally. The issue of whether they got here legally or not is old hat. It's been going on for years.

Immigrants, especially the one who comes here illegally are mostly about the money. I know all kinds of Irish and Euro guys here who came over because there was nothing over there for them, or once they got here on a Visa, hey, why not stick around? They wound up getting a job, or finding work in construction and moving furniture, get paid and date American women. They're still Irish, not American in culture. They don't want to be American as much as they don't want to go back to Ireland. Maybe because there are plenty of ways to keep within the Irish culture in America.

Same goes for almost every other culture. I've found most stick within their own if they don't speak the English language too. For obvious reasons.

I guy I knew who is from Scotland knows how to get in and out of Canada with ease. He is here illegally too.

It is what it is. The best thing to do is reform it, and find ways to regulate it. But the law really doesn't mean anything anymore. If it isn't enforced federally after all back and forth rhetoric, then it's left up to the states. Which AZ uses more for political reasons than practical and fiscal.

 

[Jewell]

Timothy, California is in the news again regarding laws pertaining to immigrants. Your feelings...

Brown vetoes bill to allow non-citizens on juries

http://www.sfgate.com/news/us/article/Brown-vetoes-bill-to-allow-non-citizens-on-juries-4876162.php

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) Gov. Jerry Brown has vetoed a bill that would have allowed non-citizens who are legal residents to serve as jurors in California.

"Jury service, like voting, is quintessentially a prerogative and responsibility of citizenship," Brown said in an announcement Monday accompanying his veto of AB1401. "This bill would permit lawful permanent residents who are not citizens to serve on a jury. I don't think that's right."

 

[drummer]

Timothy, California is in the news again regarding laws pertaining to immigrants. Your feelings...

Brown vetoes bill to allow non-citizens on juries

http://www.sfgate.com/news/us/article/Brown-vetoes-bill-to-allow-non-citizens-on-juries-4876162.php

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) Gov. Jerry Brown has vetoed a bill that would have allowed non-citizens who are legal residents to serve as jurors in California.

"Jury service, like voting, is quintessentially a prerogative and responsibility of citizenship," Brown said in an announcement Monday accompanying his veto of AB1401. "This bill would permit lawful permanent residents who are not citizens to serve on a jury. I don't think that's right."

WAT

Gonna change my name to Jose

 

[timschochet]

Timothy, California is in the news again regarding laws pertaining to immigrants. Your feelings...

Brown vetoes bill to allow non-citizens on juries

http://www.sfgate.com/news/us/article/Brown-vetoes-bill-to-allow-non-citizens-on-juries-4876162.php

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) Gov. Jerry Brown has vetoed a bill that would have allowed non-citizens who are legal residents to serve as jurors in California.

"Jury service, like voting, is quintessentially a prerogative and responsibility of citizenship," Brown said in an announcement Monday accompanying his veto of AB1401. "This bill would permit lawful permanent residents who are not citizens to serve on a jury. I don't think that's right."

I agree with this.

 

[Sarnoff]

Timothy, California is in the news again regarding laws pertaining to immigrants. Your feelings...

Brown vetoes bill to allow non-citizens on juries

http://www.sfgate.com/news/us/article/Brown-vetoes-bill-to-allow-non-citizens-on-juries-4876162.php

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) Gov. Jerry Brown has vetoed a bill that would have allowed non-citizens who are legal residents to serve as jurors in California.

"Jury service, like voting, is quintessentially a prerogative and responsibility of citizenship," Brown said in an announcement Monday accompanying his veto of AB1401. "This bill would permit lawful permanent residents who are not citizens to serve on a jury. I don't think that's right."

I agree with this.

I have a concern over the failure of these people to assimilate and the assault on our culture.

 

[Jewell]

We should tolerate the good immigrants and dismiss the others?

We should certainly emphasize immigration of good immigrants (read: skilled immigrants) over immigration from those less qualified to positively contribute to America's success. After all, that's what most nations do because that's what's in most nations' best interests.

From CNN:

"The problem, the companies say, is a mismatch between the kind of skilled workers needed and the ranks of the unemployed.

"During the recession, domestic manufacturers appear to have accelerated the long-term move toward greater automation, laying off more of their lowest-skilled workers and replacing them with cheaper labor abroad.

"Now they are looking to hire people who can operate sophisticated computerized machinery, follow complex blueprints and demonstrate higher math proficiency than was previously required of the typical assembly line worker." {snip}

Immigrants to Canada and Australia typically arrive with very high skills, including English-language competence. But the United States has taken a different course. Since 2000, the United States has received some 10 million migrants, approximately half of them illegal.

Migrants to the United States arrive with much less formal schooling than migrants to Canada and Australia and very poor English-language skills. More than 80 percent of Hispanic adult migrants to the United States score below what ETS deems a minimum level of literacy necessary for success in the U.S. labor market. {snip}

Just as we made bad decisions about physical capital in the 2000s -- overinvesting in houses, underinvesting in airports, roads, trains, and bridges -- so we also made fateful decisions about our human capital: accepting too many unskilled workers from Latin America, too few highly skilled workers from China and India.

We have been operating a human capital policy for the world of 1910, not 2010.

Skilled immigrant Sahil Mahtani was not granted U.S. citizenship despite receiving graduate degrees from American universities. Writing for The New Republic he too believes that the U.S. should prioritize "good immigrants" over others:

As a result, the preferences that were unveiled in 1965 were diametrically opposed to what the Kennedy administration had imagined, with family reunification at 74 percent, professionals and skilled workers at 20 percent, and refugees at 6 percent. Today, these basic proportions hold, with two-thirds of immigrants arriving because they are related to American citizens, 13 percent from employment (of which a maximum of 10 percent are skilled), 5 percent via the Green Card lottery, and the remainder as refugees.

The history of America's accidental immigration system points to the absence of any kind of long-term strategic planning on the issue. This is not to suggest that America should design its system to only accept skilled migrants. There is a historical obligation to the tired, the poor, and the huddled masses that makes America different from more practical settler countries like Australia or Canada, in which immigration is used foremost as a tool of economic policy and where, at least in Canada, nearly 66 percent of all immigrants are skilled.

But the United States does need to decide what it wants its immigration system to accomplish. As long as it proves incapable of considering its long-term goals, Washington will blunder from one policy event to another in a process of bureaucratic improvisation that fails to serve the country’s interests.

What obligation does the U.S. have to accept all immigrants, anyway? And do all nations have this obligation or does just the United States?

The obligation is to ourselves, if we want to retain what has made us exceptional for over 2 centuries.

As for the rest of what you wrote, it's complete and utter crap.

A couple articles from today regarding unskilled workers in today's job market becoming increasingly left behind and potentially stagnating the economy on the whole...

WSJ:

"We have a substantial percentage of the work force that does not have the basic aptitude to continue to learn and to make the most out of new technologies," Mr. Fuller said. "That manifests itself in lower rates of productivity growth, and it's productivity growth that drives real wage growth."

Though America is still home to the greatest number of globally ranked universities, even college graduates didn't fare well against their international peers in the assessment. Americans with college and graduate degrees tested behind the global average of their counterparts when it came to numeracy and solving problems using a computer.

Americans with the most cerebral jobs—those that demanded high levels of literacy, numeracy and problem-solving skills—fared the best against the rest of the world. The potential problem lies in the growing complexity of traditional middle-class jobs in fields like manufacturing and health care. Workers unable to grow into those jobs will lose their positions or be stranded with stagnant wages. The result: an economy that continues to bifurcate.

Those left behind will ultimately drag everyone down, said Deborah L. Wince-Smith, president and CEO of the Council on Competitiveness, a coalition of CEOs, university presidents and labor union leaders. If we continue down this road "we will see more and more people that are not employed and they will be a huge drain on the economy in terms of entitlements," she said.

NYT:

“These kinds of differences in skill sets matter a lot more than they used to, at every level of the economy,” Dr. Carnevale said. “Americans were always willing to accept a much higher level of inequality than other developed countries because there was upward mobility, but we’ve lost a lot of ground to other countries on mobility because people don’t have these skills.”

Among 55- to 65-year-olds, the United States fared better, on the whole, than its counterparts. But in the 45-to-54 age group, American performance was average, and among younger people, it was behind.

American educators often note that the nation’s polyglot nature can inhibit performance, though there is sharp debate over whether that is a short-run or long-run effect.

The new study shows that foreign-born adults in the United States have much poorer-than-average skills, but even the native-born scored a bit below the international norms.

I've taken the liberty to provide you with the contact information for The Council on Competitiveness and Dr. Carnevale of the Center on Education and Workforce so that you can contact them and tell them that their findings are full of crap:

Council on Competitiveness

T 202 682 4292

communications@compete.org

Anthony Carnevale

Georgetown University Center on Education and Workforce

Tel (202) 687-4971

cewgeorgetown@georgetown.edu

 

[drummer]

Timothy, California is in the news again regarding laws pertaining to immigrants. Your feelings...

Brown vetoes bill to allow non-citizens on juries

http://www.sfgate.com/news/us/article/Brown-vetoes-bill-to-allow-non-citizens-on-juries-4876162.php

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) Gov. Jerry Brown has vetoed a bill that would have allowed non-citizens who are legal residents to serve as jurors in California.

"Jury service, like voting, is quintessentially a prerogative and responsibility of citizenship," Brown said in an announcement Monday accompanying his veto of AB1401. "This bill would permit lawful permanent residents who are not citizens to serve on a jury. I don't think that's right."

I agree with this.

I have a concern over the failure of these people to assimilate and the assault on our culture.

Now you're just being ridiculous and scared. Xenophobia is worse than immigrants to society as a whole. Lot's of immigrants are here legally. Seems with your attitude you have a problem with them also.

 

[Fritz Funk]

The law was signed by Jerry Brown today. It goes into effect on January 1. Over 1.5 million illegals are expected to sign up immediately.

This is ####### awesome. It's a great victory for reason over irrational discrimination! I admit I was totally wrong about Brown. Hopefully other states will follow CalIfornia's example.

What are you nuckin' futz?!?!?

 

[Sarnoff]

Timothy, California is in the news again regarding laws pertaining to immigrants. Your feelings...

Brown vetoes bill to allow non-citizens on juries

http://www.sfgate.com/news/us/article/Brown-vetoes-bill-to-allow-non-citizens-on-juries-4876162.php

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) Gov. Jerry Brown has vetoed a bill that would have allowed non-citizens who are legal residents to serve as jurors in California.

"Jury service, like voting, is quintessentially a prerogative and responsibility of citizenship," Brown said in an announcement Monday accompanying his veto of AB1401. "This bill would permit lawful permanent residents who are not citizens to serve on a jury. I don't think that's right."

I agree with this.

I have a concern over the failure of these people to assimilate and the assault on our culture.

Now you're just being ridiculous and scared. Xenophobia is worse than immigrants to society as a whole. Lot's of immigrants are here legally. Seems with your attitude you have a problem with them also.

You should see certain parts of Los Angeles like Huntington Park, where you can drive for miles and not see a sign in English.

 

[timschochet]

Timothy, California is in the news again regarding laws pertaining to immigrants. Your feelings...

Brown vetoes bill to allow non-citizens on juries

http://www.sfgate.com/news/us/article/Brown-vetoes-bill-to-allow-non-citizens-on-juries-4876162.php

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) Gov. Jerry Brown has vetoed a bill that would have allowed non-citizens who are legal residents to serve as jurors in California.

"Jury service, like voting, is quintessentially a prerogative and responsibility of citizenship," Brown said in an announcement Monday accompanying his veto of AB1401. "This bill would permit lawful permanent residents who are not citizens to serve on a jury. I don't think that's right."

I agree with this.

I have a concern over the failure of these people to assimilate and the assault on our culture.

Now you're just being ridiculous and scared. Xenophobia is worse than immigrants to society as a whole. Lot's of immigrants are here legally. Seems with your attitude you have a problem with them also.

You should see certain parts of Los Angeles like Huntington Park, where you can drive for miles and not see a sign in English.

Why is this a problem? I love Huntington Park. For a commercial real estate agent like myself, it's exciting to drive down Pacific Avenue and see no vacancies, with store after store crammed together, and hundreds of people (mostly Latinos) walking up and down the street at all hours. It's one of the most alive, most vibrant, most capitalist areas in Los Angeles county. And you're complaining because there are no signs in English? You're missing out.