Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You have your opinion and I have mine. Until we have actual data, it is all conjecture. However, I do not have a vested interest in the legalization of illegal aliens, whereas you obviously do. Therefore, I am seeking the truth, while you are seeking justification for amnesty/open borders.
One more thing, this isn't merely a differing of opinion, you and others are making assertions with certainty that you just admitted in this post that no-one knows. That is the definition of intellectual dishonesty. It's precisely what I was pointing out in my post.
What is your problem? The immigrants of the past did not enter illegally, nor were there untold millions availing themselves of our tax-funded benefits. Again, there is NO comparison.
I thought illegal immigration was defined primarily by the person's method of entry into the United States, and/or their failure to gain appropriate status correctly after their arrival. A qualifier of "came legally" does not apply for the majority of all arrivals before the current immigration structure was implemented in 1965. Those that wanted to assume the rights of U.S. citizenship did, whether they went through the proper process or not.
I would be more comfortable with someone just saying the rules changed, rather than trying to maintain an incorrect perception of the past based on a pride of those ancestors...
No you most certainly are not. As I said previously, you are seeking opinions and news which fit nicely with your preconceived conclusion and immediately rejecting all that counters it. Anything that might force you to reconsider your stance on these people is inherently untrustworthy to you, while anything that even marginally supports your opinion is trotted out as evidence.
This thread has followed basically this path:
1. You make a factually specious assertion.
2. People challenge your assertion.
3. You ask for citations and data.
4. People provide data and citations (often from government or academic sources) to show how your assertion was incorrect.
5. You dismiss said data claiming it's erroneous, merely estimated and presented by some group with an agenda.
6(a). You change the subject to something that has little to do with the assertion you made in #1
6(b). People turn the table and ask for citations for your assertions, which you provide using random googled news articles, which provide estimated data. Using your own criteria, the very sources you're using to back up your assertions are insufficient, but of course you hold others to a standard you do not hold yourself to.
Rinse and repeat.
(Btw, at about 1:50 of the video you posted, the woman says, "...in 2007 the Florida Hospital Association estimates there was $100,000,000 in costs for illegal patient care...")
Sorry, if we're still using your standards, that's not good enough.
It would take too long, and it’s much too late to respond to this tonight. I will deal with your accusations tomorrow. In the meantime, please be prepared to explain how my assertions are factually specious, and what credible data was presented to refute them. Bear in mind, reports based on estimates of a phantom population, produced by an inept government will not suffice. But, again, there is NO actual data, only guesstimates from both sides of this debate; and in some cases, blatant fabrications to support an amnesty agenda, and allay fears.
It would take too long, and it’s much too late to respond to this tonight. I will deal with your accusations tomorrow. In the meantime, please be prepared to explain how my assertions are factually specious, and what credible data was presented to refute them. Bear in mind, reports based on estimates of a phantom population, produced by an inept government will not suffice. But, again, there is NO actual data, only guesstimates from both sides of this debate; and in some cases, blatant fabrications to support an amnesty agenda, and allay fears.
Goodnight guys.
Isn't this inept government supposed to determine with unwavering certainty how many immigrants should allowed into the country?
It would take too long, and it’s much too late to respond to this tonight. I will deal with your accusations tomorrow. In the meantime, please be prepared to explain how my assertions are factually specious, and what credible data was presented to refute them.
No need for you to write up anything, I'll rehash it again for you right now.
As just one example, you claimed the following in post #68 of this thread:
Quote:
You are completely ignoring the fact that illegal immigration depresses wages, and it ONLY benefits the illegal workers and their employers.
It was then pointed out that the decreased wages you were talking about also benefit everyone who buys products sold by people being paid lower wages. (Post #71 and others)
You then replied that this is wrong because you see prices of goods and services increasing. (Post #75, again in Post #88, Post #109 and elsewhere)
We then explained, in numerous posts and in great detail, how decreased labor costs DO benefit the consumer even if the total price of the good or service increases.
You then moved on to steps 5 [Posts #92 and #99] and 6(a) [Post #119 and thereafter]
When making your arguments you contradict yourself and make bold assertions supported only by your own bias and a few anecdotes, yet then turn around and ask for precise, detailed information from your detractors when they point out how questionable the claims you're making are. Congressional Budget Office, Social Security Administration reports are all thrown aside, deemed useless by you, yet you continue to link to things like "Taylor Inspection Services" website, the "Contractor Insurance and Risk Management Blog" and Monterey County Weekly. Do you not see the hypocrisy and result-seeking nature of this methods you're employing here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar
Bear in mind, reports based on estimates of a phantom population, produced by an inept government will not suffice. But, again, there is NO actual data, only guesstimates from both sides of this debate; and in some cases, blatant fabrications to support an amnesty agenda, and allay fears.
What will suffice, then? Surely not random newspaper articles and youtube videos. I mean, if the government is biased and inept you must obviously see that reporting from the newspaper industry, which is arguably more inept than the federal government, is just as likely to be biased and error prone?
And if you, here (in the italicized portion above), admit that there is NO actual data, how in the world do you come to the conclusion that the costs associated with illegal immigration are what you claim? If you really believe that there is no actual data, then you cannot take a position that illegal immigration costs society great sums of money, since you've just claimed it's impossible to know that with certitude.
Finally, the "blatant fabrications" aren't restricted to one side of this debate, and I'd argue appear more often in the anti-immigration supporters claims. Have you provided any evidence for that nonsensical "...but they pocket the savings!" meme? Or how about when you've slyly insinuated that using undocumented workers automatically makes an employer more likely to cut corners and produce shoddy products? And remember, if you're going to provide proof, it must be irrefutable, verifiable, and from an unbiased source - ie. held to the same level of scrutiny that you would apply to sources supporting the other side.
These are just some of the assumptions you make about groups with whom you disagree, supported by a few anecdotes found in various newspaper and industry reports. You don't apply nearly the same level of skepticism to those sources as you do the ones provided by your opponents, which is the harbinger of someone who is merely looking to verify their opinion, not come to an objective truth.
I'm not justifying any current path, just trying to define why we put irrational qualifiers into our stances. Individuals in that past not following the rules for citizenship ultimately were not treated, or restricted from participating in our society, any differently than those that did. Yet we base our perception on that society without any immigration rules (for the 93% percent originating in Europe) as being ideal in the concept of immigration and gaining the desired quality of immigrants!
In practice that "hard work" excused anyone, especially now as we lionize our ancestors as doing things the "legal" way in absence of specific laws on the issue. Naturalization had lesser requirements and waits, no penalties for violations, but they become the ideal citizens in our perceptions! Those assuming the rights of citizenship without going through the required process are individually "amnestied" with no consequences at all.
That sounds like they are being irrationally excused to me...
Again, what does what happened or how things were done in the past in regards to immigration, requirements for citizenship have to do with the rules and laws that are in place today? And most of all what does it have to do with illegal immigration today? That horse you have been beating must be dog food by now. Continue to live in the past then if it makes you feel morally superior advocating for illegal aliens today.
I thought illegal immigration was defined primarily by the person's method of entry into the United States, and/or their failure to gain appropriate status correctly after their arrival. A qualifier of "came legally" does not apply for the majority of all arrivals before the current immigration structure was implemented in 1965. Those that wanted to assume the rights of U.S. citizenship did, whether they went through the proper process or not.
I would be more comfortable with someone just saying the rules changed, rather than trying to maintain an incorrect perception of the past based on a pride of those ancestors...
Please provide a link proving that most immigrants pre-1965 came here illegally. We have told you over and over that the rules have changed from the past vs the present but that doesn't mean that most of the immigrants of the past came here illegally either. Pride of past immigrants comes from the fact that most came within our laws in place at the time and that they assimilated unlike today's illegal aliens and even many legal immigrants and citizens today.
Please provide a link proving that most immigrants pre-1965 came here illegally. We have told you over and over that the rules have changed from the past vs the present but that doesn't mean that most of the immigrants of the past came here illegally either. Pride of past immigrants comes from the fact that most came within our laws in place at the time and that they assimilated unlike today's illegal aliens and even many legal immigrants and citizens today.
I asked for proof that they "came here" legally first (in absence of a specific law). In regards to the status of U.S. citizenship, the rules have not changed over time (only expansion of whom can become a citizen). Past immigrants that came without status or improperly assumed the rights of citizens were in essence "amnestied" individually.
Doesn't that run contrary to "The Rule of Law"?...
If immigrants assimilated so well, why did Teddy Roosevelt feel the need to say that they weren't?...
I thought illegal immigration was defined primarily by the person's method of entry into the United States, and/or their failure to gain appropriate status correctly after their arrival. A qualifier of "came legally" does not apply for the majority of all arrivals before the current immigration structure was implemented in 1965. Those that wanted to assume the rights of U.S. citizenship did, whether they went through the proper process or not.
I would be more comfortable with someone just saying the rules changed, rather than trying to maintain an incorrect perception of the past based on a pride of those ancestors...
Illegal is not being in the country Legally, if its hoping the border, expired Visa's fraud etc.....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
