Joe vs. Jose

[fskimospy]

Evidence? The paper has no actual data. It's just a survey of other studies with huge holes in analysis. As I said, the biggest one is that the paper doesn't address the cost of educating illegals' children because the children are most often not illegal. (This is in a footnote.) The fact is that those anchor baby educations are costs that would not exist without illegal immigration. And it's funny that the paper recognizes that education are the state's largest budget item.

You are being intellectually lazy by just citing the conclusions of this government paper without actually looking at whether or not its actually justified.

My argument is straightforward. I don't want to repost the links here, but the average illegal pays about $800 in state taxes a year. A child's public's education costs at least $7000 per year. Those aren't close to adding up.

Actual data in what way? They are citing the conclusions of other papers. You know how writing a report like that works, right? It's not 'intellectual laziness' it's called 'how reports are written in reality'.

 

[Infohawk]

Actual data in what way? They are citing the conclusions of other papers. You know how writing a report like that works, right? It's not 'intellectual laziness' it's called 'how reports are written in reality'.

I'm asking you to look at the actual analysis IN the paper, which YOU are too lazy to do. You haven't addressed my specific issues with the paper, specifically the biggest one involving children of illegals who are a burden on state budgets but are not included in the report. But hey, I'm not going to force you to dig a little deeper. If you want to bleat "CBO paper says this, therefore its true" go for it but it doesn't change anything.

 

[chucky2]

blah blah

Dude, cannot you just answer the simple question? It's not hard, it doesn't mean you're for kicking out the illegals/"undocumented", it's really a black and white question.

Yeesh...

 

[Wreckem]

Dude, cannot you just answer the simple question? It's not hard, it doesn't mean you're for kicking out the illegals/"undocumented", it's really a black and white question.

Yeesh...

Again its a stupid question that in no way tells you the citizenship of a child born on US soil.

 

[chucky2]

Why would you need to tell the citizenship of a child born on US soil: They'd be a US citizen, because they're born on US soil. That's not the question I asked, why are you making strawman type statements to dodge around it.

What is your agenda in not answering the very simply question? Why keep dodging?

 

[Infohawk]

What is your agenda in not answering the very simply question? Why keep dodging?

He also dodged the simple question of which race he thinks is being attacked by the term anchor baby...

 

[fskimospy]

I'm asking you to look at the actual analysis IN the paper, which YOU are too lazy to do. You haven't addressed my specific issues with the paper, specifically the biggest one involving children of illegals who are a burden on state budgets but are not included in the report. But hey, I'm not going to force you to dig a little deeper. If you want to bleat "CBO paper says this, therefore its true" go for it but it doesn't change anything.

Uhmm, I did. The analysis in the paper is based off of the conclusions in the footnotes. Just because the CBO says it does not mean that it must be true, but you have presented no countervailing evidence other than complaining that US citizens are being educated by the US. (never mind the fact that what you inexplicably complain is not in the report is actually mentioned several times, along with associated footnotes for reports detailing exactly that).

From those footnoted reports you can see that, as the report stated, illegal immigrant costs as well as the costs for citizen children A.) comprise a small percentage of total state expenditures and B.) probably don't have a huge impact on state finances as a whole.

I can't help it if you're too lazy to read the footnotes, but if you're going to do that don't try and project that on to other people.

 

[Munky]

Bullshit and you know it.

Anchor baby is a derogatory phrase to describe illegal aliens crossing the border and having a baby. So yes it does have everything to do with race, because last I checked there aren't to many white canadians rushing across the US to have american citizens.

You are a blatant troll if you believe race has nothing to do with the term anchor baby.

LMAO, what's next, you'll say "illegal alien" is a derogatory racist term because most of them aren't white? I don't give a sh!t if it's derogatory, shouldn't have hopped the border illegally in the first place.

 

[Infohawk]

I can't help it if you're too lazy to read the footnotes, but if you're going to do that don't try and project that on to other people.

How have I not read the footnotes? I'm the one that brought the footnotes up... I'm specifically addressing the contents of one! I didn't say that they didn't mention the subject at all. My problem is they brush it off and it is a cost regardless of illegal immigration regardless of the fact that the kids are citizens.

Increased tax burdens on schools is directly caused by the illegal immigration. The children being citizens doesn't make it any less of a cost.

 

[fskimospy]

How have I not read the footnotes? I'm the one that brought the footnotes up... I'm specifically addressing the contents of one! I didn't say that they didn't mention the subject at all. My problem is they brush it off and it is a cost regardless of illegal immigration regardless of the fact that the kids are citizens.

Increased tax burdens on schools is directly caused by the illegal immigration. The children being citizens doesn't make it any less of a cost.

They don't brush it off. I don't know what else to say but once again, go read the footnotes.

I know this report tells you things you don't want to hear.

 

[Infohawk]

They don't brush it off. I don't know what else to say but once again, go read the footnotes.

I know this report tells you things you don't want to hear.

Footnote 31:

Most of the estimates that CBO reviewed did not include costs
associated with children who were born to unauthorized immigrants in the United States because those children are U.S. citizens. If those children had been included in the estimates, their fiscal impact—particularly on education—would have been
higher.

Let me spell it out for you. This pretty much makes the report useless. This could very well be the largest fiscal impact and they are not including it in their analysis!

Report: "Illegals don't cost that much unless you include their children's education which by the way is the biggest part of state budgets."

 

[fskimospy]

Footnote 31:


Let me spell it out for you. This pretty much makes the report useless. This could very well be the largest fiscal impact and they are not including it in their analysis!

Report: "Illegals don't cost that much unless you include their children's education which by the way is the biggest part of state budgets."

It in no way makes the report useless, if you look at the other footnotes and read the reports they come from, you will see that citizen children comprise a small fraction of what is already a small fraction of schoolchildren.

You're desperately looking for a way to keep thinking that illegal immigrants have this huge impact when the evidence clearly suggests this is not the case.

 

[Infohawk]

It in no way makes the report useless, if you look at the other footnotes and read the reports they come from, you will see that citizen children comprise a small fraction of what is already a small fraction of schoolchildren.

It's a big number. It's about 7% of minors in the entire country. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/12/us/12babies.html And we both know that many of these children are concentrated in certain areas of the country making the effect even larger in those places. So at best you have two parents generating about $1600 in sales taxes together and realistically they have several children (anecdotal but I've met families of six) costing $7,000 each to educate a year. That's a net loss. So really the OP's gist is on target. If you're an illegal, you and your family are benefitting from considerable public spending and only contributing a drop in the bucket.

You're desperately looking for a way to keep thinking that illegal immigrants have this huge impact when the evidence clearly suggests this is not the case.

Shut the fuck up about motives already. Are you cognizant that attacking motives is useless? I can also say that you're trying to bolster a pathetic and cursory piece of government writing because you want it to be true. It gets us nowhere.

 

[fskimospy]

It's a big number. It's about 7% of minors in the entire country. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/12/us/12babies.html And we both know that many of these children are concentrated in certain areas of the country making the effect even larger in those places. So at best you have two parents generating about $1600 in sales taxes together and realistically they have several children (anecdotal but I've met families of six) costing $7,000 each to educate a year. That's a net loss. So really the OP's gist is on target. If you're an illegal, you and your family are benefitting from considerable public spending and only contributing a drop in the bucket.

I don't know how to explain this better, the OP's gist is bullshit. Actually from your own link it's about 5% of minors, and even in that case you are talking about total numbers of people with at least ONE illegal parent, not both. This hardly means that all of those children would not have been born if it weren't for illegal immigration and so you have some fraction of 5% of students, probably in the 3-4% range (perhaps even less). Shockingly enough 3% of students is a noticeable amount, but hardly an extreme burden.

Shut the fuck up about motives already. Are you cognizant that attacking motives is useless? I can also say that you're trying to bolster a pathetic and cursory piece of government writing because you want it to be true. It gets us nowhere.

It's nothing about attacking motives, I'm just noticing a peculiar drive in you to dismiss troubling evidence that contradicts your deeply held beliefs. You've dismissed a paper compiled out of a huge amount of empirical research because you (incorrectly) believe that states aren't correctly assessing the impact of 3% of students. It's silliness.

I don't think you're capable of discussing this rationally right now, as it's pretty clear that you're getting angry. Maybe some other time, but I sincerely suggest you go learn more about this topic.

 

[chucky2]

He also dodged the simple question of which race he thinks is being attacked by the term anchor baby...

It is odd behavior...one would think he'd vote a or b, and then make his case. The refusal to even vote raises questions on the rationality of the poster IMO...

 

[Infohawk]

I don't know how to explain this better, the OP's gist is bullshit. Actually from your own link it's about 5% of minors, and even in that case you are talking about total numbers of people with at least ONE illegal parent, not both. This hardly means that all of those children would not have been born if it weren't for illegal immigration and so you have some fraction of 5% of students, probably in the 3-4% range (perhaps even less). Shockingly enough 3% of students is a noticeable amount, but hardly an extreme burden.

It might help if you have evidence. These numbers are not insignificant and you're ignoring the fact that they tend to be concentrated in certain school districts. It's not really surprising California schools barely have any money, for example. And regardless of the impact, it's not really relevant to the OP. What's relevant is that if you're an illegal you get more from the government in this country than you contribute. Do you have any evidence that would dispute that? (Hint: you'd want to show that they are generating enough taxes to pay for even their children's education.)

I don't think you're capable of discussing this rationally right now, as it's pretty clear that you're getting angry. Maybe some other time, but I sincerely suggest you go learn more about this topic.

LOL. You're the one attacking motives and suggesting I need to read up on things instead of addressing the actual issues. I'm going to take the higher ground here and not respond except to say you should try to focus on rational arguments.

 

[WackyDan]

1.) Illegal immigrants are not eligible for welfare.
2.) Illegal immigrants are not eligible for federal rent subsidies (and how is he applying without a SSN anyway?)
3.) If the free medical care at the clinics and emergency rooms is so great, why doesn't Joe Legal go do that? (we already know the answer to this)
4.) So what if Joe Legal's kids go home instead of to ESL classes? Don't they already know English?
5.) Police and fire services are usually paid for by property taxes and sales taxes, something that both Joes are contributing to equally.

I could go on. Jesus, people. Think before you post this stuff.

You state - "1.) Illegal immigrants are not eligible for welfare." HOWEVER - Their children born here automatically are enrolled on Medicaid at birth ( The hospitals do the paperwork as it is the only way they get paid). Because their child is also a citizen at that point, they can partake in many social assistance programs, and the checks come in the legal guardian's name regardless of citizenship.

 

[theeedude]

You state - "1.) Illegal immigrants are not eligible for welfare." HOWEVER - Their children born here automatically are enrolled on Medicaid at birth ( The hospitals do the paperwork as it is the only way they get paid). Because their child is also a citizen at that point, they can partake in many social assistance programs, and the checks come in the legal guardian's name regardless of citizenship.

So? The kids are Americans, we want them taken care of, regardless of who the legal guardian is.

 

[Lithium381]

We've let them drop babbies here for so long that eventually they'll be 18 and have a vote and COMPLETELY OPEN THE BORDER. And honestly i don't care about people coming to america, we have plenty of space..... just work hard and honestly and don't do crime. be the best you can be...... but have personal responsiblity. If you're going to milk the system then fuck you..... if you work hard and pay for yourself and aren't a burden, then welcome!

 

[Infohawk]

if you work hard and pay for yourself and aren't a burden, then welcome!

You can work hard and still making such a small salary that your taxes don't pay for the benefits you're getting from government.

 

[bfdd]

Anyone who has actually lived in an area with a significant illegal immigrant population would spit their coffee out at their monitor laughing at how insanely wrong this chain email is.

Just a few of the more obviously dumb things from it:

1.) Illegal immigrants are not eligible for welfare.
2.) Illegal immigrants are not eligible for federal rent subsidies (and how is he applying without a SSN anyway?)
3.) If the free medical care at the clinics and emergency rooms is so great, why doesn't Joe Legal go do that? (we already know the answer to this)
4.) So what if Joe Legal's kids go home instead of to ESL classes? Don't they already know English?
5.) Police and fire services are usually paid for by property taxes and sales taxes, something that both Joes are contributing to equally.

I could go on. Jesus, people. Think before you post this stuff.

Uh no that's wrong. You obviously have little to no experience with illegals. 1 and 2 definitely happen and it's something I see pretty much every time I go to Food 4 Less. The medical care isn't great, but it's free to them and costs tax payers money.

TBH the issues listed by the OP are meh, not even the real issue. The real issue is the job that fool is doing for 15 dollars an hour should be an American citizens job for 15 bucks an hour, or at least someone who went through the legal processes to get here. Americans have a hard time going to work for $15hr under the table though because we have to worry about tax evasion. Such an unfair marketplace for lower level labor employment in this nation and they happen to be pretty decent paying jobs too.

 

[chucky2]

I checked the Illinois State Board of Education website for about 5 minutes as I was curious...

...in 1998 (with the illegal immigration/"undocumented" issue in fully swing and already through Amensty 1 ((Amensty 2 will be forthcoming))), ISBE reports 13.3% Hispanic.

In 2010, with the economy down and Obama&Co kicking illegals out left and right (or so it's been suggested), meaning illegals/"undocumented" should be at just very low levels, and we know we don't have any type of (unwanted) population booms to worry about (i.e. nothing's wrong with letting them in! Just don't think about it, don't be a hater! Have White Guilt/Bleeding Heart/Damn"TheMan"!!!)...

...we have 21.1% (positive growth every year)

Yep...no long term problems here...lulz...

 

[WackyDan]

So? The kids are Americans, we want them taken care of, regardless of who the legal guardian is.

I don't disagree with that.

My point is that it is indeed costing us to have so much illegal immigration and that illegals benefit from welfare services... because their children do. They also tend to have plenty of children, just like other legal welfare queens... Just because one happens, doesn't mean we have to accept the other. We have enough problems.

 

[soccerballtux]

interesting.

I am reminded of all the prophecies in the Old Testament given to Israel that they would store up their wealth for themselves but it would be given to the foreigner of the land because they turned from God.

I'm shocked by how quickly the same has happened for us.

 

[Jhhnn]

The answer to the question is either my a or b listed. Which one is it? Don't deflect, just answer the simple question...pick a or b, that's all you need to do.

The Constitution says "A", Chucky, no matter how badly you want it to be otherwise.

You and the bigoted OP can have Wahmbulances, however.