DrewCurtisJr: That is the Statue of Liberty not the Statue of Immigration. And that was a poem not policy.

It's been our policy for 200 years. Or do you believe the majority of immigrants to this country were wealthy folks?

ChuDogg: Bob16: DrewCurtisJr: Why do you hate our poor? Or maybe hate is too strong a word, maybe you just don't care one way or the other.

The illegal immigrant apologists have been living off of phony compassion. I've heard many of them say "we'll if you can be replaced by an unskilled illegal immigrant you're pretty lame" which is very similar to the kind of callous attitude the "hate the poor" republicans have towards the the least fortunate americans.

I wonder how many of them are baby boomers. Their entire defense basically amounts to: "I got mine... Now fark off"

Probably the same percentage as generation X and Y. Or are you a generational supremacist ?

Why no love for the headline?

/good jorb, subby
//now the song is stuck in my head

Bob16: The illegal immigrant apologists have been living off of phony compassion.

Even though those most effected by the negative effects of illegal immigration are our poorest, mostly minority, citizens many people insist that the only reason you could possibly be against illegal immigration is because of racism.

Bob16: DrewCurtisJr: Why do you hate our poor? Or maybe hate is too strong a word, maybe you just don't care one way or the other.

The illegal immigrant apologists have been living off of phony compassion. I've heard many of them say "we'll if you can be replaced by an unskilled illegal immigrant you're pretty lame" which is very similar to the kind of callous attitude the "hate the poor" republicans have towards the the least fortunate americans.

They took are jerbs has also been an excuse for 200 years.

Fart_Machine: It's been our policy for 200 years. Or do you believe the majority of immigrants to this country were wealthy folks?

No it hasn't. We put limits on immigration during various periods in our history including the Johnson-Reed Act. Even it is had been, we are not the same country we were 200 years ago, different environment, so claiming what worked back then would work now is invalid.

Fart_Machine: They took are jerbs has also been an excuse for 200 years.

I see so illegal immigrants aren't taking jobs. Thats simply a lie huh ?

http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2006/06/23/us_de b ates_deportation_of_skilled_illegal_workers/

clip - "Massachusetts has been dependent on immigration for all of its employment growth since the late 1980s," said Andrew Sum, director of the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University in Boston. "In the absence of new immigrants, the labor force could have actually declined considerably."

Most of the undocumented workers fill construction, landscaping and other unskilled jobs. A Boston Globe analysis published on Sunday of nine recent public works projects showed that a third of 242 workers on weekly payroll lists lacked legitimate Social Security numbers.

Nationally, Sum reckons 56 percent of the rise in U.S. employment from 2000 to 2005 can be attributed to undocumented immigrants. In the same period, jobs disappeared for U.S.-born adults aged 16 to 24 and African-Americans without college degrees, he said.

"The greater the influx of illegal immigrants into any state, the greater the employment loss among people under the age of 35, particularly men without college degrees," he said.

Mmmmmm yeah deny education to those who are trying to become productive.

Smart?

I....don't think so.

Bob16: Fart_Machine: They took are jerbs has also been an excuse for 200 years.

I see so illegal immigrants aren't taking jobs. Thats simply a lie huh ?

http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2006/06/23/us_de b ates_deportation_of_skilled_illegal_workers/

clip - "Massachusetts has been dependent on immigration for all of its employment growth since the late 1980s," said Andrew Sum, director of the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University in Boston. "In the absence of new immigrants, the labor force could have actually declined considerably."

Most of the undocumented workers fill construction, landscaping and other unskilled jobs. A Boston Globe analysis published on Sunday of nine recent public works projects showed that a third of 242 workers on weekly payroll lists lacked legitimate Social Security numbers.

Nationally, Sum reckons 56 percent of the rise in U.S. employment from 2000 to 2005 can be attributed to undocumented immigrants. In the same period, jobs disappeared for U.S.-born adults aged 16 to 24 and African-Americans without college degrees, he said.

"The greater the influx of illegal immigrants into any state, the greater the employment loss among people under the age of 35, particularly men without college degrees," he said.

Oh, well if he reckons it... causation, correlation how the fark do they work?

Soon Right Away: Bob16: Fart_Machine: They took are jerbs has also been an excuse for 200 years.

I see so illegal immigrants aren't taking jobs. Thats simply a lie huh ?

http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2006/06/23/us_de b ates_deportation_of_skilled_illegal_workers/

clip - "Massachusetts has been dependent on immigration for all of its employment growth since the late 1980s," said Andrew Sum, director of the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University in Boston. "In the absence of new immigrants, the labor force could have actually declined considerably."

Most of the undocumented workers fill construction, landscaping and other unskilled jobs. A Boston Globe analysis published on Sunday of nine recent public works projects showed that a third of 242 workers on weekly payroll lists lacked legitimate Social Security numbers.

Nationally, Sum reckons 56 percent of the rise in U.S. employment from 2000 to 2005 can be attributed to undocumented immigrants. In the same period, jobs disappeared for U.S.-born adults aged 16 to 24 and African-Americans without college degrees, he said.

"The greater the influx of illegal immigrants into any state, the greater the employment loss among people under the age of 35, particularly men without college degrees," he said.

Oh, well if he reckons it... causation, correlation how the fark do they work?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Yeah he's just some Joe Blow off the street taking a wild guess. Right Einstein. Oh wait ...

Andrew Sum, director of the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University in Boston

Bob16: Soon Right Away: Bob16: Fart_Machine: They took are jerbs has also been an excuse for 200 years.

I see so illegal immigrants aren't taking jobs. Thats simply a lie huh ?

http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2006/06/23/us_de b ates_deportation_of_skilled_illegal_workers/

clip - "Massachusetts has been dependent on immigration for all of its employment growth since the late 1980s," said Andrew Sum, director of the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University in Boston. "In the absence of new immigrants, the labor force could have actually declined considerably."

Most of the undocumented workers fill construction, landscaping and other unskilled jobs. A Boston Globe analysis published on Sunday of nine recent public works projects showed that a third of 242 workers on weekly payroll lists lacked legitimate Social Security numbers.

Nationally, Sum reckons 56 percent of the rise in U.S. employment from 2000 to 2005 can be attributed to undocumented immigrants. In the same period, jobs disappeared for U.S.-born adults aged 16 to 24 and African-Americans without college degrees, he said.

"The greater the influx of illegal immigrants into any state, the greater the employment loss among people under the age of 35, particularly men without college degrees," he said.

Oh, well if he reckons it... causation, correlation how the fark do they work?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Yeah he's just some Joe Blow off the street taking a wild guess. Right Einstein. Oh wait ...

Andrew Sum, director of the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University in Boston

And it still amounts to a personal assessment of the data. Again, he reckons.

BarbadoSlim: Mmmmmm yeah deny education to those who are trying to become productive.

Smart?

I....don't think so.

It's not denying you idiot.

DrewCurtisJr: Fart_Machine: It's been our policy for 200 years. Or do you believe the majority of immigrants to this country were wealthy folks?

No it hasn't. We put limits on immigration during various periods in our history including the Johnson-Reed Act. Even it is had been, we are not the same country we were 200 years ago, different environment, so claiming what worked back then would work now is invalid.

Not sure you really want to use that as an example since the main reason for the Johnson-Reed Act was to limit those evil Jews and promote "racial hygiene".

Bob16: Yeah he's just some Joe Blow off the street taking a wild guess. Right Einstein. Oh wait ...

Andrew Sum, director of the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University in Boston


Appeal to Authority fallacy anyone?

SoCalSurfer: Actually now that I think about it, in response to my own question I wonder what the long run affects of giving an education to people who would otherwise remain in poverty have on tax revenues....and crime for that matter

What's the point in publicly funding college educations for people who can't legally work in the country? Oh, wait, I know: "Hey we spent all this money educating them, so to make sure it wasn't wasted, let's give them amnesty." Same strategy as they're going to try with California High Speed Rail: "Hey, we spent a ton of dough on this section in the Central Valley that nobody wanted or rides, so let's spend the other (insert unGodly sum here) completing the system, or the first tranche will have been wasted."

Re-open the borders, the way they were for much of this country's history. Anyone who can pass a TB test and who can demonstrate a clean criminal record is welcome. Stop pissing away money chasing down people like dogs.

Fart_Machine: Not sure you really want to use that as an example since the main reason for the Johnson-Reed Act was to limit those evil Jews and promote "racial hygiene".

How do you know, did you do some in depth research on a law you claimed not to know about 5 minutes ago?

Those who romanticize immigration always empathize the real problems that immigration was causing in this country. You don't have to look very hard to find historical accounts of what life was like for poor immigrants in this country, especially since we didn't have the social welfare systems and employment laws we have today.

And the fact remains is that we did indeed have laws to limit immigration in our past you cannot deny that. And if your argument is "what worked in the past should work in the present" then we should indeed focus on limiting immigration.

SoCalSurfer: BarbadoSlim: Mmmmmm yeah deny education to those who are trying to become productive.

Smart?

I....don't think so.

It's not denying you idiot.

The only idiot here is you. You know you are, that's why you idiotically attack people on the internet. I bet you are balling your fists right now, raging. You probably beat your wife too.

Hmmmm - no. I don't have time to get butthurt about something that will do some good and cost me about a nickel a year.
Neeeeext.

DrewCurtisJr: How do you know, did you do some in depth research on a law you claimed not to know about 5 minutes ago?

Yes, there's a thing called Google. You might have heard of it. So the law wasn't limiting the poor coming into this country. It was designed to limit immigration for the sake of racial purity. Or are you in favor of that sort of thing?

Fart_Machine: Yes, there's a thing called Google. You might have heard of it. So the law wasn't limiting the poor coming into this country. It was designed to limit immigration for the sake of racial purity. Or are you in favor of that sort of thing?

You can form your opinion on snippets you read on google or you can read about what was actually going on at the time. As with most issues a host of complex issues lead to passing immigrations laws, as they do today.

DrewCurtisJr: And the fact remains is that we did indeed have laws to limit immigration in our past you cannot deny that.

Your argument was that we tried to limit the poor from entering this country as immigrants. No, however we did have immigration laws that limited the areas where we would take immigrants from which was largely based on eugenics.

DrewCurtisJr: You can form your opinion on snippets you read on google or you can read about what was actually going on at the time.

So you really had no idea about the law you cited then. Why am I not surprised.

Fart_Machine: So you really had no idea about the law you cited then. Why am I not surprised.

You read a post from yahoo answers and you think you know something about history. Why am I not surprised.

What's the point? So you pay for an illegals college education. He's still not a citizen and can't get a real job. Is he going to pick lettuce with that psychology degree?

DrewCurtisJr: Fart_Machine: So you really had no idea about the law you cited then. Why am I not surprised.

You read a post from yahoo answers and you think you know something about history. Why am I not surprised.

No, I really didn't. There is a slew of historical information on the subject but I guess you're projecting here.

Discriminatory immigration policies aimed at southern and eastern Europeans figured into the quota-based policies of the 1920s. With the passage of the Immigration Act of 1924, also known as the National Origins Act or Johnson-Reed Act, the U.S. used restrictive immigration policies in the 1920s based on the 1890 proportions of foreign-born European nationalities. Since the 1890 census reflected higher numbers of northern Europeans, immigrants from those countries had greater opportunities to emigrate. The arguments, outlined in Madison Grant's 1916 book The Passing of a Great Race, held that older immigrants were skilled, thrifty, hardworking like native born Americans and recent immigrants from southern and eastern Europe were unskilled, ignorant, predominantly Catholic or Jewish and not easily assimilated into American culture. Madison Grant and Charles Davenport, among other eugenicists, were called in as expert advisers on the threat of "inferior stock" from eastern and southern Europe, playing a critical role as Congress debated the Immigration Act of 1924. The act attempted to control the number of "unfit" individuals entering the country by lowering the number of immigrants allowed in to fifteen percent of what it had been previously. Existing laws prohibiting race mixing were strengthened as well. The adoption of incest laws and many anti-miscegenation laws were also influenced by the premises of eugenics.

So I can only assume you are A) talking out of your ass when you claim to understand history or B) in favor of eugenics.

Which is it?

WhackingDay: You're going to pay to help somehow, that's the point of a society like America. You will either help pay for their education, their health care, their incarceration, something. I don't think people really understand how rare the bootstrappy entrepreneur is any more. Most of them have support from someone, family at the very least. And most of them had at least a good education. The days of 8th graders leaving school to found a successful business is lost in the sands of time.

You want America to continue leading the world, you better figure out how to start funding education better.


This.

Conservatives always make me think of the old oil filter commercial with the two mechanics, talking about how you can pay me now (routine maintenance, change oil, etc.) or you can pay me later. (engine rebuild)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aq3wL8ZXjBU (new window)

Decades of defunding education and mental health assistance, and now prison costs are skyrocketing... and that's just the cost of incarceration, not the actual social cost of stolen/damaged property, injury, loss of life, foster care for children of incarcerated parents, and god knows what else.

Do we want to spend money on the front end helping people become healthy, productive, contributing, revenue-generating members of society? or do we spend it on the back end, making them revenue-drains, paying for their imprisonment after they've cracked us over the head with a pipe wrench and stolen our wallet?

They're always so goddamn short-sighted and "penny-wise pound-foolish."

Bob16: randomjsa: SoCalSurfer: Why should we be handing out aid to people who don't pay taxes to begin with?

So they can vote for Democrats.

That's all it's ever about.
______________________________________

God you're an idiot.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/18/AR200 6 061800613.html

clip - The Bush administration, which is vowing to crack down on U.S. companies that hire illegal workers, virtually abandoned such employer sanctions before it began pushing to overhaul U.S. immigration laws last year, government statistics show.

You got told meme?

Fart_Machine: Discriminatory immigration policies aimed at southern and eastern Europeans figured into the quota-based policies of the 1920s. With the passage of the Immigration Act of 1924, also known as the National Origins Act or Johnson-Reed Act, the U.S. used restrictive immigration policies in the 1920s based on the 1890 proportions of foreign-born European nationalities. Since the 1890 census reflected higher numbers of northern Europeans, immigrants from those countries had greater opportunities to emigrate. The arguments, outlined in Madison Grant's 1916 book The Passing of a Great Race, held that older immigrants were skilled, thrifty, hardworking like native born Americans and recent immigrants from southern and eastern Europe were unskilled, ignorant, predominantly Catholic or Jewish and not easily assimilated into American culture. Madison Grant and Charles Davenport, among other eugenicists, were called in as expert advisers on the threat of "inferior stock" from eastern and southern Europe, playing a critical role as Congress debated the Immigration Act of 1924. The act attempted to control the number of "unfit" individuals entering the country by lowering the number of immigrants allowed in to fifteen percent of what it had been previously. Existing laws prohibiting race mixing were strengthened as well. The adoption of incest laws and many anti-miscegenation laws were also influenced by the premises of eugenics.

So I can only assume you are A) talking out of your ass when you claim to understand history or B) in favor of eugenics.

Which is it?

You gotta be kidding me.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_the_Johnson-Reed_Immigration_Act

Super Chronic: No financial aid for kids unless their mamas and papasthey are citizens?

That's what the issue is.

DrewCurtisJr: Fart_Machine: Discriminatory immigration policies aimed at southern and eastern Europeans figured into the quota-based policies of the 1920s. With the passage of the Immigration Act of 1924, also known as the National Origins Act or Johnson-Reed Act, the U.S. used restrictive immigration policies in the 1920s based on the 1890 proportions of foreign-born European nationalities. Since the 1890 census reflected higher numbers of northern Europeans, immigrants from those countries had greater opportunities to emigrate. The arguments, outlined in Madison Grant's 1916 book The Passing of a Great Race, held that older immigrants were skilled, thrifty, hardworking like native born Americans and recent immigrants from southern and eastern Europe were unskilled, ignorant, predominantly Catholic or Jewish and not easily assimilated into American culture. Madison Grant and Charles Davenport, among other eugenicists, were called in as expert advisers on the threat of "inferior stock" from eastern and southern Europe, playing a critical role as Congress debated the Immigration Act of 1924. The act attempted to control the number of "unfit" individuals entering the country by lowering the number of immigrants allowed in to fifteen percent of what it had been previously. Existing laws prohibiting race mixing were strengthened as well. The adoption of incest laws and many anti-miscegenation laws were also influenced by the premises of eugenics.

So I can only assume you are A) talking out of your ass when you claim to understand history or B) in favor of eugenics.

Which is it?

You gotta be kidding me.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_the_Johnson-Reed_Immigration_Act

I'm sure you thought you had a point here or something.

From your link.

Some of the law's strongest supporters were influenced
by Madison Grant and his 1916 book, The Passing of the Great Race. Grant was
a eugenicist and an advocate of the racial hygiene theory. His data
purported to show the superiority of the founding Northern European races.
But most proponents of the law were rather concerned with upholding an
ethnic status quo and avoiding competition with foreign workers.


Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_the_Johnson-Reed_Immigration_Act#ix zz1inTcPSAf

Fart_Machine: I'm sure you thought you had a point here or something.

Yes, that I claimed you read 2 or 3 paragraphs on some site like yahoo answers and you think you know enough to be knowledgeable about the subject and then you post something very similar to a post from wiki answers.

Read a couple books not a couple paragraphs.

Here's the problem with this act: universities in California are already preferring out of state students over in state students because of budget problems(much higher tuition for out of staters). Expanding the pool of people on in state tuition will only make it worse.

And this isn't a funding issue that can rectified, either, to be honest. Education inflation is historically double the rate of normal inflation(and says nothing about the fact that in the past decade costs have gone up 400% at CSUs and slightly less at UCs), which means that the burden will increase faster than everything else until it drowns us, kind of like healthcare has been.

DrewCurtisJr: Fart_Machine: I'm sure you thought you had a point here or something.

Yes, that I claimed you read 2 or 3 paragraphs on some site like yahoo answers and you think you know enough to be knowledgeable about the subject and then you post something very similar to a post from wiki answers.

Read a couple books not a couple paragraphs.

So far you've offered nothing as a rebuttal. But yeah, I'm sure you're an expert on history because you say so.

Soon Right Away: Bob16: Soon Right Away: Bob16: Fart_Machine: They took are jerbs has also been an excuse for 200 years.

I see so illegal immigrants aren't taking jobs. Thats simply a lie huh ?

http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2006/06/23/us_de b ates_deportation_of_skilled_illegal_workers/

clip - "Massachusetts has been dependent on immigration for all of its employment growth since the late 1980s," said Andrew Sum, director of the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University in Boston. "In the absence of new immigrants, the labor force could have actually declined considerably."

Most of the undocumented workers fill construction, landscaping and other unskilled jobs. A Boston Globe analysis published on Sunday of nine recent public works projects showed that a third of 242 workers on weekly payroll lists lacked legitimate Social Security numbers.

Nationally, Sum reckons 56 percent of the rise in U.S. employment from 2000 to 2005 can be attributed to undocumented immigrants. In the same period, jobs disappeared for U.S.-born adults aged 16 to 24 and African-Americans without college degrees, he said.

"The greater the influx of illegal immigrants into any state, the greater the employment loss among people under the age of 35, particularly men without college degrees," he said.

Oh, well if he reckons it... causation, correlation how the fark do they work?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Yeah he's just some Joe Blow off the street taking a wild guess. Right Einstein. Oh wait ...

Andrew Sum, director of the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University in Boston

And it still amounts to a personal assessment of the data. Again, he reckons.

A hypothesis would be reckoning.

Fart_Machine: Bob16: Yeah he's just some Joe Blow off the street taking a wild guess. Right Einstein. Oh wait ...

Andrew Sum, director of the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University in Boston


Appeal to Authority fallacy anyone?

That's not an appeal to authority. That's a defer to expertise. Yes, there is big difference.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc is also way over used as well.

Also: argumentum ad logicam

bhcompy: A hypothesis would be reckoning.

In science it isn't.

BarbadoSlim: SoCalSurfer: BarbadoSlim: Mmmmmm yeah deny education to those who are trying to become productive.

Smart?

I....don't think so.

It's not denying you idiot.

The only idiot here is you. You know you are, that's why you idiotically attack people on the internet. I bet you are balling your fists right now, raging. You probably beat your wife too.

Let me put this in a way way you can understand

U no pay taxes, u no get aid

U no legal resident = u no pay fair amount of taxes thus u no get taxpayer funded aid

SoCalSurfer: Oh who am I kidding, this is the politics tab. Bring on the derp

You know, for someone who is intensely ignorant of how damn near everything works, you sure do biatch about the Politics tab a lot. This is odd on many levels, not least that your posts are quite often the worst in the thread. I have also yet to see you explain why you are forced to click on every headline submission that doesn't interest you AND the corresponding comments to the right. I was under the assumption that we were all able to avoid threads we hate, but maybe for idiots like yourself, you haven't figured that whole part of navigating a website out yet.

In short: Fark you. You add nothing to this site and if you're this pig-ignorant in real life, you add nothing to anyone's existence.

Fart_Machine: bhcompy: A hypothesis would be reckoning.

In science it isn't.

You're playing semantically with words. He made an educated guess.

Fart_Machine: So far you've offered nothing as a rebuttal. But yeah, I'm sure you're an expert on history because you say so.

I don't claim to be an expert. But you didn't even know we had any history of immigration laws, and reading a couple paragraphs off ask.com isn't going to make you knowledgeable about a complex issue.

bhcompy: Education inflation is historically double the rate of normal inflation(and says nothing about the fact that in the past decade costs have gone up 400% at CSUs and slightly less at UCs), which means that the burden will increase faster than everything else until it drowns us, kind of like healthcare has been.

Couple that with the attempts to pass a "dream act" nationally, which would give legal status to illegal immigrant brought here at a young age who meet certain criteria, one of which is being enrolled in college. The number will only increase.

BSABSVR: SoCalSurfer: Oh who am I kidding, this is the politics tab. Bring on the derp

You know, for someone who is intensely ignorant of how damn near everything works, you sure do biatch about the Politics tab a lot. This is odd on many levels, not least that your posts are quite often the worst in the thread. I have also yet to see you explain why you are forced to click on every headline submission that doesn't interest you AND the corresponding comments to the right. I was under the assumption that we were all able to avoid threads we hate, but maybe for idiots like yourself, you haven't figured that whole part of navigating a website out yet.

In short: Fark you. You add nothing to this site and if you're this pig-ignorant in real life, you add nothing to anyone's existence.

Haters gonna hate

In summary: whats your point?

BarbadoSlim: Mmmmmm yeah deny education to those who are trying to become productive.

Smart?

I....don't think so.

Pigeon hole'r

Dear California,

You're too broke to push costly social agendas that benefit one foreign ethnicity over the collective.

Love,

Reality

P.S. fark you and your Prop 8 too.

DrewCurtisJr: Fart_Machine: So far you've offered nothing as a rebuttal. But yeah, I'm sure you're an expert on history because you say so.

I don't claim to be an expert. But you didn't even know we had any history of immigration laws, and reading a couple paragraphs off ask.com isn't going to make you knowledgeable about a complex issue.

So reading comprehension isn't your strong point either I see. I never said we didn't have a history of immigration laws. I stated we had a policy of letting in poor immigrants. So far you've offered nothing to counter that except for a pro-eugenics law which you obviously didn't read either or failed to understand.

Would you like to fail again?