Arlington County Illegals - What in the world is going on? (Vienna: renters, crimes)

[saganista]

Originally Posted by Fern435

Our poor uninsured citizens are our first obligation. The illegal immigrants should return to their country and work to improve conditions in their own countries. Take responsibility.

Speaking of responsibility, maybe some should take that by learning a little more about things before carrying on over them. You haven't managed to put up an argument here that you can actually defend, for instance. You have just flitted from one hollow, stereotypical claim to another. All of us both cost and contribute to society. Illegal immigrants cost and contribute to society in ways that are indistinguishable from those that obtain with respect to others who are similarly situated. You can't tell -- and therefore don't know -- who any of these illegal immigrants actually are, but you want to single them out, whoever they may be, for special scorn and derision on the basis of nothing more concrete than your uninformed personal bias. That's not a helpful, sensible, or responsible approach.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by coolio69

If you want to really solve the problem, here's what to do: jail time for anyone who hires immigrants.

Here is a better plan. Scrap outdated laws and an inefficient system that serves as a Catch-22 to take "becoming legal" off the table as an option for millions. Replace those with laws and a system that actually take into account the economic and cultural facts of life that are the drivers of the situation to begin with. There isn't any question at all as to what will happen with immigration going forward. It will continue and it will grow. The only question is whether we prefer to deal with those facts rationally or irrationally. The status quo is benefitting no one. Draconian additions to the status quo will benefit no one. We need a system that operates so that the workers and families who will be coming to this country in any case over the coming decades can integrate fully and confidently into society, where employers can utilize, but not unfairly exploit, with certainty the skills those workers have to offer, and where society as a whole knows who these people are and can count on them as full and equal participants in and contributors to our common endeavors. Is that really such an unreasonable thing to ask?

[JD984]

Originally Posted by saganista

Illegal immigrants cost and contribute to society in ways that are indistinguishable from those that obtain with respect to others who are similarly situated.

What does that mean? You previously said that illegal immigrants are distinguished by their efforts to avoid contact with "official" society, so who exactly is "similarly situated" to whom? And I suppose that many would take the position that, by definition, those who are in the country legally and illegally are not "similarly situated".

[CarolVa1977]

I am hispanic and live close by (I am of colombian descent) but kind of look brown. Hopefully we won't meet riding our bikes otherwise you would say

"Ihre papiren bitte" or " May I see your papers" LOL

[katyusha25]

Originally Posted by saganista

Here in Arlington County, free lunches are based on income, not immigration status. Interpreters and translators are based on language facility, not immigration status.


I don't think the LA Times knows very much about Arlington, VA, but including elder care and that for those under 18 or not, what was their estimate of health care costs for the poor and uninsured who were not illegal immigrants?

Your arguments aren't even valid. You're answering their question, with other questions that don't even address what they asked. That's a common tactic when you don't know the answer (or maybe, they make a good point).

1)You can easily divert an issue about how illegals can pay taxes when they rent (they can't and don't), by bringing up how the landlord pays the utilities when we rent. WTH?? One has nothing to do with the other.

2) The LA Times may not know a thing about Arlington, but do you think that illegals who use tax payer money only congregate in LA? Really?

[Fern435]

Originally Posted by saganista

Speaking of responsibility, maybe some should take that by learning a little more about things before carrying on over them. You haven't managed to put up an argument here that you can actually defend, for instance. You have just flitted from one hollow, stereotypical claim to another. All of us both cost and contribute to society. Illegal immigrants cost and contribute to society in ways that are indistinguishable from those that obtain with respect to others who are similarly situated. You can't tell -- and therefore don't know -- who any of these illegal immigrants actually are, but you want to single them out, whoever they may be, for special scorn and derision on the basis of nothing more concrete than your uninformed personal bias. That's not a helpful, sensible, or responsible approach.

Your convoluted diatribe is what cannot be defended. It is spin.

Your sentence which states: "Illegal immigrants cost and contribute to society in ways that are indistinguishable from those that obtain with respect to others who are similarly situated" does not even make sense. Is it missing a word after "obtain" ?

How's the real estate market these days?

[Fern435]

Saganista attempts to conjure up an illusion that anyone wanting immigration laws enforced subjects illegal immigrants to "scorn and derision."

That is a lie.

Any other country seems to be permitted to uphold their laws regarding immigration. Unfortunately, the United States gets pummeled by feeble-minded citizens who think it is mean and wrong to want these people to work to improve living conditions in their own country.

Keep them here in Fairfax and Arlington Counties if you wish.

[katyusha25]

Originally Posted by Fern435

Saganista attempts to conjure up an illusion that anyone wanting immigration laws enforced subjects illegal immigrants to "scorn and derision."

That is a lie.

Any other country seems to be permitted to uphold their laws regarding immigration. Unfortunately, the United States gets pummeled by feeble-minded citizens who think it is mean and wrong to want these people to work to improve living conditions in their own country.

Keep them here in Fairfax and Arlington Counties if you wish.

Also, if I don't want to pay for people who aren't citizens, I'm a right-wing nut; because there's no such thing as left-wing nuts!

Just to note, I'm not calling anybody in a particular a name - just sayin'.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by JEB77

What does that mean? You previously said that illegal immigrants are distinguished by their efforts to avoid contact with "official" society, so who exactly is "similarly situated" to whom?

An example of equivocation. Use of a word in one context does not alter its meaning in another. Seeking to lay low and stay under the radar by avoiding as much contact with "official" society as possible will tend, among other things, to minimize those ER costs so often overstated and ballyhooed by some. But in the larger picture, this sensible tendency on the part of illegal immigrants (and those with legitimate fear of being taken for one) does not impact on the nature of either the costs or contributions of people who, but for their lack of a particular piece of paper, are no different from any other human beings on the planet.

"Similarly situated" is meanwhile a common legal phrase implying a general equality of relevant social characteristics and circumstances. It goes toward assuring that apples are considered in comparison to apples, and that when one apple is considered, it is understood to be representative of many more.

Originally Posted by JEB77

And I suppose that many would take the position that, by definition, those who are in the country legally and illegally are not "similarly situated".

The sincerity of those who do is often brought into very serious question in a common and pronounced tendency to claim ability to divine the immigration status of individuals and groups of individuals through such means as driving past them standing on the sidewalk. Concern for actual status seems so often to be totally deprecated in favor of such factors as whether people are of certain complexions and/or linguistic practices. In other words, who do they think they are fooling.

Further, typical immigration violations are status crimes. Like driving with an expired state inspection sticker. Neither one says anything at all about what sort of person one is. Typical violators might sit next to you in church. They might coach your kid's soccer team. They almost certainly serve you in some way every day. Yet some would treat them as lepers and worse for not having a piece of paper when the system for making such a piece of paper available is totally broken and out of date. It should be obvious that some degree of rethinking is necessary here.

[Caladium]

Originally Posted by RestonRunner86

To be fair, Normie, that last part of your last sentence is a bit of an exaggeration because I don't think many, if any, of my peers would want to live in a home with seven or eight strangers.

Well, since it's now against the law I guess it's just as well that such an idea doesn't appeal to you. Back when I was in my 20's sharing a house was a popular way to live close to the city, especially for people who loved the older Victorian homes or if you were new in town and wanted a faux family. I shared a house with 4 other girls for a short time, and it was fun. I will admit, though, that between 5 girls and our boyfriends we had cars parked up and down the entire street. And, we did have music blasting most nights because, realistically, a few people were always hanging out and when you're in your 20s turning up the music and staying up late shooting the breeze is part of life. Group houses are fun to live in, but they do tend to develop a party atmosphere.

Originally Posted by RestonRunner86

I see some ads on CraigsList for very nice 5-bedroom homes available for rent in Great Falls and McLean, both of which would be convenient to my office, and wonder who they will actually wind up renting them to now that you can't have more than just four unrelated people living in the same dwelling.

Usually families with children rent those homes.

Originally Posted by RestonRunner86

Five unrelated people in a suburban 5-BR/4-BA home should not negatively impact the quality-of-life for neighbors in any greater sense than having a married couple with seven children living in that home would be.

That's not really comparing apples to oranges, since you're talking about comparing 5 people to 9 people. But let's go ahead an use the comparison. Five unrelated adults will still have more impact on a neighborhood than 2 adults with 5 children. Five unrelated adults will each have a car, and their friends/boyfriends will also have cars. A family with seven children will probably have 2 cars, possibly 3 if an adult child is still at home.