Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (59649)	6/7/2007 12:31:31 AM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 90947

"Oh. When was it the US became a police state? During "operation wetback" you say? Because I know I missed it and I know enough American history that if it happened before my time, I would know about it." A twenty-first century operation wetback would be NOTHING like the 1950s version, Laz, and you know it. In those days, with over 1700 INS agents and the help of state and local police in TX, CA and AZ, conducting sweeps of Hispanic neighborhoods and random stops of "Mexican-looking" people over a year, they managed to deport a whopping 80,000 illegals (the INS claimed many more left on their own, but there is little or no evidence to back up that claim). That was just a limited, 3-state police action, Laz. Can you imagine what it would take to remove some 12-20 million illegals today, spread over most of the country? "Well, I suppose the ICE officers can start off polite. But if they don't come peacefully to be deported, well, they had the chance to avoid violence." I thought you were arguing it WOULDN'T become a police state, Laz. Do you know what you are typing? "Now how should that be read EXCEPT as a criticism of a requirement to learn English?" Laz, if you REALLY need me to translate plain English for you, perhaps you should be deported. Now stop being obtuse - I was citing the typical rants of the xenophobic idiots who thought in prior centuries that immigrants refuse to assimilate and think the same thing again now as well as that this bill would eliminate the requirement of English proficiency for citizenship. Don't be a xenophobic idiot and stop asking the same stupid questions over and over again. I NEVER even remotely "[criticized the] requirement to learn English". As for your "studies" of the cost to us of having illegals here, if I was interested in playing the dueling studies game I could copy and paste just as many that say the net cost is insignificant or even negative. Playing that game with you, though, would be a waste of time because you would ignore them anyway. I will say, nevertheless, that even think tanks producing high net cost numbers (e.g. the Center for Immigration Studies) admit that the numbers are driven by the immigrant's income levels and not their immigration status. CIS even acknowledged that their estimate of the net cost to taxpayers per illegal immigrant household was roughly half that of a comparable legal resident or citizen household. Lower income people get more from government than they give. Even citizens. Imagine that. Now back to your regularly scheduled xenophobic spasm.

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (59649)	6/7/2007 2:19:05 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 90947

The true monetary cost of immigration reform Power Line The Washington Times, in an editorial, demonstrates the misleading nature of the Congressional Budget Office report on the costs of the Senate Immigration bill. The CBO estimates that during the first decade, this legislation would increase discretionary spending by $43 billion, while new workers would produce $48 billion in additional revenue to the government. But this estimate is misleading because the illegal aliens granted amenesty (or a path to citizenship) do not become eligible to benefit from most federally-funded programs until 2018 and beyond, which is eleven years after enactment. Senator Kennedy and his Republican allies drafted the bill that way knowing that the CBO only looks at budgetary impact over a ten year period. What happens after the first ten years? According to the Times, roughly 9 million adult illegal immigrants will receive amnesty and 7 to 8 million of them will live to retirement age. Given their low employment skills few will ever pay substantial taxes. But they will be eligible for Social Security and Medicare, and many will be owed benefits starting at about the time these systems are in danger of going belly-up. Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation estimates that the net cost of amnesty over the next four decades will be approximately $2.5 trillion. Keep that in mind when you hear proponents of the legislation citing the misleading CBO figures they contrived to manufacture. powerlineblog.com washingtontimes.com