Court Stops Arizona Law\ California Vindicated (high school, lawsuit, agriculture)

[AwayAndBackToSac]

Originally Posted by AwayAndBackToSac

And from 15 years ago...

http://www.gao.gov/archive/1998/he98030.pdf


"In fiscal year 1995, about $1.1 billion in AFDC and Food Stamp benefits
were provided to households with an illegal alien parent for the use of his
or her citizen child. This amount accounted for about 3 percent of AFDC
and 2 percent of Food Stamp benefit costs. A vast majority of the
households receiving these benefits resided in a few states—85 percent of
the AFDC households were in California, New York, Texas, and Arizona; 81
percent of Food Stamp households were in California, Texas, and Arizona.
California households alone accounted for $720 million of the combined
AFDC and Food Stamp benefit costs, with such households representing
about 10 percent of the state’s AFDC and Food Stamp caseloads. Although
illegal aliens also received SSI and HUD housing assistance for their citizen
children, data to develop estimates for these two programs were not
available."

Simple number. If it does not bother you fine. It does me.

Legal resident deserve the benefits. ILLEGALS DO NOT.

[ndfmnlf]

Originally Posted by AwayAndBackToSac

Simple number. If it does not bother you fine. It does me.

Legal resident deserve the benefits. ILLEGALS DO NOT.

Aww....don't get bogged down by semantics. If you don't like the word "illegal", then change it to "legal". Give the "illegal" a green card. Problem solved.

[AwayAndBackToSac]

Originally Posted by ndfmnlf

Again, may I offer you a lesson in statistics: the sample population of your data above is the universe of all illegal aliens. As the word implies, these "illegals" aren't exactly following the letter of the law. Hence the word "illegal". Many are living underground, on the run, hunted like dogs. So of course many of them will have spotty criminal records, just from the mere fact that crossing the border itself is considered a "crime".

But I will submit that a sizeable number of them are victims of false accusations and trumped-up charges. After all, if you are an illegal, what legal recourse do you really have if someone frames you, falsely accusing you of crimes you didn't really commit? You are destitute. You have no money to defend yourself in court. And even if you did, would you really volunteer to "out" yourself - exposing your lack of immigration documents - to challenge your accusers? You'd probably just continue hiding while the label "criminal" being slapped on you will stick.

I have great reason to suspect that the data you quote above is wildly inaccurate.

But let's assume your data is correct. When our immigration policy is run like the Prohibition, are you really surprised that criminal elements are attracted to the hugely profitable aspects of transporting undocumented aliens across the border? The more you restrict immigration, the more lucrative transporting illegal aliens becomes. Kind of like the Prohibition of alcohol and the current war against drugs. These restrictive laws have only made alcohol producers, bootleggers, and drug traffickers rich. They encourage the existence of a cottage industry of alcohol-, drug-, and human trafficking. Prohibition didn't fix the human desire to drink alcohol, nor will fascistic laws against illegal immigrants cure the human desire for a better life.

So here's your choice: clamp down hard on illegal immigrants, and sit back and watch as you pre-select the determined, hard core migrants with criminal records succeed in breaking your laws.....because it stands to reason that the weak and less determined would have failed already......Darwinian selection would favor the strong, the smart, the determined. These are the one you are more likely to select out of your universe of immigrants due to your harebrained immigration policies.

Or you can relax immigration laws....grant amnesty to those already here while deporting only those convicted felons. Give the rest of them legitimate SS numbers so they can start paying taxes. With increased tax revenues, you can then fix this country's fiscal mess so the rest of you can continue receiving your social security checks far into the future.....

You need to go live near the border...

My post was to exemplify the numbers involved, and the lack of law enforcement. As to you questioning the data, I challenge you to find better data than the GAO. Interestingly, this type of data is very hard to find... Perchance neither party wants to deal with it? As to natural selection... maybe fitness?, that would be grand. When I was near the border, 70-80% of the floors and unit players were Mexican Nationals. They either came illegally or legally. Regardless, the US taxpayer picked up the bill in almost all cases.

Since you claim to be in health care, a particularly cute gambit was when a Mexican National with ESRD would take a bus every few days across the border, eat a bunch of banana's, hit the ER complaining of CP, and Wiz bangO' he/she was on the old washer to the tune of several thousands of dollars... This occurs every hour in many ER's and associated dialysis units.

Ah, Natural selection... leading to improved fitness. That would at least lighten the patient load. Actually, having the strongest, smartest immigrants is the point. Other than refugee status, that is what smart immigration policies are about. Good point, we need a mine field, a wall, a moat, electric fence, circling drones...

As to legalization. That is ONLY about securing a VOTING BLOCK FOR THE DEMOCRATS, which I grant you will happen. I have no doubt...

...but don't you doubt. Legalizing this group of individuals will not help with the present budget situation or the need to provide for SSI and Medicare for the retiring boomers. That ship has sailed, the disproportionate population numbers make it impossible to continue the current level of social services.


Focus. The question is if the Federal Government will not do it's Constitutional duty, can a state perform that function? If not, what legal recourse does the state have?

[Gentoo]

I always look for common ground with those I don't agree with:

But let's assume your data is correct. When our immigration policy is run like the Prohibition, are you really surprised that criminal elements are attracted to the hugely profitable aspects of transporting undocumented aliens across the border? The more you restrict immigration, the more lucrative transporting illegal aliens becomes. Kind of like the Prohibition of alcohol and the current war against drugs. These restrictive laws have only made alcohol producers, bootleggers, and drug traffickers rich. They encourage the existence of a cottage industry of alcohol-, drug-, and human trafficking. Prohibition didn't fix the human desire to drink alcohol, nor will fascistic laws against illegal immigrants cure the human desire for a better life

To me anyway, this makes sense and I do believe that the more illegal something is, the more criminal activity will surround it. So now I can see where you're coming from, at least why you have your opinions.

Or you can relax immigration laws....grant amnesty to those already here while deporting only those convicted felons. Give the rest of them legitimate SS numbers so they can start paying taxes. With increased tax revenues, you can then fix this country's fiscal mess so the rest of you can continue receiving your social security checks far into the future.....

Something needs to be done for sure, but I'm not usre if this is it. Granted, I've yet to have any suggestions of my own.

[AwayAndBackToSac]

Originally Posted by ndfmnlf

Aww....don't get bogged down by semantics. If you don't like the word "illegal", then change it to "legal". Give the "illegal" a green card. Problem solved.

Actually, you know sometime I agree. Lets just open ALL borders and not have any resident status. We can take all refugees from all countries. We will do exactly as "The New Colossus" states at the Liberty National Monument:

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"


Lets see how long we are able to continue our form of government...


At the Chinese say, the United States will have "interesting times" in the near future.

[Gentoo]

Not sure if this is true. I've heard that at one time an immigrant was just an immigrant; there was no legal or illegal status. If this is true, what caused this to change?

[AwayAndBackToSac]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

Not sure if this is true. I've heard that at one time an immigrant was just an immigrant; there was no legal or illegal status. If this is true, what caused this to change?

Social services that necessitate more taxation!


I jest. Well, maybe not...


Actually, maybe they were talking about way before Ellis Island days, maybe the Colonial Period? The numbers of immigrant were so low, it wasn't worth the time, and any help in taming the new world was looked upon favorably?...

[steel7]

The illegals are costing the tax payers of ca 20 billion dollars a yr. The ca deficit is 20 billion. Do the math.

[Voyageur]

Originally Posted by nmnita

I am not totally familiar with the case so am judging my comments on just what I am reading here: I know what you are saying, but I disagree. I think there could have been others she could have counseled to fulfill her requirements and believe me, I am not anti gay. I do believe she had a right to refuse. During the world wars, there were many conscientious objectors for religious reasons. They were allowed to not fight but to serve the country in other ways. Why couldn't the masters program heads do something similar for her?

Nita

She had a right to refuse and she did. Refusing, she was unable to complete the program. She thus suffered the consequences of her actions.

Eastern Michigan University has rules prohibiting discrimination against gays. Apparently, Eastern Michigan applies that to everyone, including people who say "But I'm doing it for religious reasons!". And good for them.

Would we even be having this conversation if she wanted to discriminate against African Americans "for religious reasons"? Or if she was a Muslim who refused to counsel "infidels"?

I think not.

She deserves no special treatment.

[californio sur]

Originally Posted by nmnita

you were not even born during the Reagan years, you know absolutely nothing about the 60s, 70s and 80s except what you choose to believe.. I won't go into detail right now, but I know so much more about Reagan than you can imagine.

NIta

Of-course, you know everything. How did I forget that? I also greatly admire Franklin Roosevelt and suppose you know all about him too. I think you are just embarrassed that the Republican party has moved so far to the right than even Ronald Reagan would not be welcomed anymore and there is plenty of of evidence to back that up. But I don't blame you nmnita for trying your hardest to not beleive that your political party has gone into such an orbit that Reagan is probably turning over in his grave.