If you're white and do it you're a criminal and you go to jail. If you're brown then you're a hard working immigrant who only wants a better life and you're untouchable.
The basic gist is accurate. Illegal immigration is a shift of wealth from natives to illegals. Illegals at best pay sales tax and have some social security / medicare withheld. Given that they don't make that much they pay around $1000 a year in taxes which is nothing when you consider one of their children costs $7,000 per year to educate at minimum. The middle-class really gets fucked on this one.
And then people like eskimospy wonder how people can vote against safety nets. Middle-class people would rather not shift their wealth to other people, especially when said people are illegals.
And then people like eskimospy wonder how people can vote against safety nets. Middle-class people would rather not shift their wealth to other people, especially when said people are illegals.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/87xx/doc8711/12-6-Immigration.pdf
Good reading on the impact of illegal immigration on federal, state, and local government. The most relevant quotes to you are probably these:
and
This is a far cry from 'the middle class really gets fucked'. If you are voting against social safety nets due to this reason, your vote is foolish.
Federal safety nets are not extended to illegals IIRC. Yet the same people oppose the safety nets at the federal level. Safety nets are opposed for ideological reasons. The fact that some states extend safety nets, or portions of them, to illegals just gives them another excuse to criticize something they would oppose anyway.
I already rejected that ridiculously shallow analysis in another thread. http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=32043377&postcount=28
That's a very poor rejection with no actual attempt to offer competing evidence. The paper is well footnoted with links to scientific and academic research on the subject to support its assertions. It's just telling you things that your gut says are wrong.
It doesn't really matter what Jose does or doesn't make/get vs. Joe.
What matters is the long term survival of our country and what that is going to entail anywhere from 150-400 years into the future. If one stops thinking short term and start thinking long term, the decisions we need to make regarding immigration - legal and illegal/"undocumented" - become much more clear.
Stop thinking so short term...
What matters is the long term survival of our country and what that is going to entail anywhere from 150-400 years into the future. If one stops thinking short term and start thinking long term, the decisions we need to make regarding immigration - legal and illegal/"undocumented" - become much more clear.
Stop thinking so short term...
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.
BoomerD
No Lifer
- Feb 26, 2006
- 66,329
- 14,730
- 146
While Jose Illegal may not qualify for welfare and other programs, if he has children, they will...even if they're illegals too, but especially if they're anchor babies.
The whole nanny-state attitude of "Won't someone please think about the children?" is dragging the country further and further into the sewers.
It's long past time to start expelling/deporting the illegals...and if a LEGAL immigrant has been here for decades without applying for citizenship...deport them as well.
The whole nanny-state attitude of "Won't someone please think about the children?" is dragging the country further and further into the sewers.
It's long past time to start expelling/deporting the illegals...and if a LEGAL immigrant has been here for decades without applying for citizenship...deport them as well.
Poor white trash breeders who live off welfare are bigger leaches than undocumented/illegal aliens. Let me tell you, there are more poor white trash breeders in the US than illegal aliens.
At least illegals give a hard days work.
At least illegals give a hard days work.
Way to bring race into this... By the way none of the demographic trends suggest what you say is true.
You brought race into by using the term anchor babies.
They aren't fucking anchor babies. They are US citizens until a constitutional amendment is passed. Even then those before the amendment(those current "anchor" babies), would still be US citizens.
Furthermore, SCotUS has repeatedly ruled that states ARE LEGALLY REQUIRED to provide education to children of illegal aliens, if they so choose to provide public education. The also ruled as late as this last session that a state can in fact provide stuff like instate tuition to undocumented aliens.
The constitution and SCotUS precedent is against you on EVERY issue relating to education and illegal or "anchor" babies.
On the topic of educations. The VAST VAST majority of the population does NOT pay enough in taxes to cover the cost of their children's education. More so if they have more than 1 kid.
Last edited:
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.
Simple question: If the illegals/"undocumented" were where they were supposed to be when their baby was born, that is, in the country they're legally a part of (not the one they happen to drop the baby in), would these kids be a.) US citizens or b.) non-US citizens?
What race are you saying is being attacked here? (By the way, consider being less emotional. It hurts your credibility.)
It doesn't really matter. If you think SCotUS will ever rule that these children are not US citizens. I got a bridge to sell you. Only right wing whack jobs interpret the constitution in away that makes "anchor" babies non US citizens.
Last edited:
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.
JEDIYoda
Lifer
- Jul 13, 2005
- 33,986
- 3,321
- 126
A parents illegal actions no way vitiate a child's right under the constitution. A child born on US soil who is subject to US jurisdiction, is a US citizen.
Here is a hint on jurisdiction. If you are in the US, you are subject to US jurisdiction, unless you have diplomatic immunity. Thus, if a child is born on US soil, it is subject to US jurisdiction, unless it has diplomatic immunity. Thus the child is a US citizen, unless their parent has diplomatic immunity.
Call them anchor babies all you want but the fact of the matter is, they are US citizens entitled to every right that comes with it.
In arguendo. When it comes to education, citizenship does not matter, the constitution as per SCotUS requires states to provide public education to illegals, if they so choose to offer public education to the population of their state. States are not constitutionally required to provide education, however, if they choose to cease providing education because they don't want to provide education, for say blacks, that would be unconstitutional.
Last edited:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter