Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: AZRedhawk44 on May 07, 2010, 06:48:02 PM
-
So, girlfriend made an amazing statement to me the other day.
There was some hullabaloo about our local AZ immigration bill and in particular, in regards to illegal alien students at ASU. If Campus Security (a division of Tempe police dept) would be deporting illegal alien students attending ASU.
She pointed out:
Why do you need a college degree to do "jobs that Americans won't do?" =D
I just leaned over and kissed her.
What good is a college degree to an illegal alien? They don't have an SSN or proper documentation to pass eVerify to get a job that utilizes that college degree. About all they could potentially do with it is go back to Mexico (or elsewhere) with that degree.
Anyone see a way for an illegal alien to actually utilize a US college degree in the US, short of identity theft/fraud?
-
I may be wrong about this, but I was under the impression the children of illegals, so long as they are born here, are naturalized citizens.
-
I may be wrong about this, but I was under the impression the children of illegals, so long as they are born here, are naturalized citizens.
#1 - They're not always born here. Often they are smuggled across the border with their parents.
#2 - It is arguable if the intent of the 14th amendment was for foreign nationals to give birth to children on US soil and immediately earn citizenship for the kid. We don't grant citizenship to the children of French tourists who might give birth while visiting the US... why should we grant it to the children of illegals that don't even bother with a tourism visa, let alone a green card for their true purpose of being here?
Regardless of how you feel about #2... we're talking about all the #1's in this issue. The #2's have documentation currently (whether we feel it is valid, or not).
-
in my experience working at colleges the degree is about as useful to the "native american". were you trying to establish a point i'm missing?
-
We don't grant citizenship to the children of French tourists who might give birth while visiting the US
There are several legitimate countries (South Korea most famously) where there are travel companies making a business of arranging carefully-timed trips to the US for pregnant women.
-
in my experience working at colleges the degree is about as useful to the "native american".
Bull.
I have a 4 year degree.
I make $80k+ a year as a software developer, with probability of that increasing pretty decently this year. If I lived somewhere more expensive to live (SanFran [barf], New York [barf], etc) then I would probably make upwards of $150-$200k.
While Bill Gates is certainly the notable exception... he's exactly that: an exception.
Most non-college-graduates are unable to break the $50k threshold.
were you trying to establish a point i'm missing?
What good is spending $20k on an education, if you cannot get hired for a good job because you can't pass eVerify?
For that reason alone, colleges should check immigration or citizenship status of students. I'll tell you right now that colleges DO check the student visa status of students reporting that they are attending due to a student visa. Why should illegals get a pass on that?
Between eVerify and the fact that Federal Stafford Loans are guaranteed by taxpayers, it is in the interest of taxpayers to stop illegals from running up taxpayer-insured debt while attending schools, when they can never get a job in the US to pay off that debt.
-
when they can never get a job in the US to pay off that debt.
your experience is different than mine.
i'd say about 1/2 the folks i saw attending college might as well have gone to barber college. or any trade school.
then there is this
http://www.financialaidnews.com/news/california-illegal-immigrants-less-than-1-percent-of-college-enrollment-sacramento-bee/
and this is not gonna fit in with your world view at all
http://www.finaid.org/otheraid/undocumented.phtml
Financial Aid and Scholarships for Undocumented Students
This page contains information about financial aid and scholarships for undocumented students and illegal aliens. (The terms "undocumented student", "illegal alien", and "illegal immigrant" are used interchangeably and intentionally in this page to enable this page to be found by students who are trying to find information about scholarships for undocumented students.) This page provides a neutral, objective and comprehensive summary of this topic.
Financial aid is generally not available for undocumented students and illegal aliens. The majority of all student aid, including Federal student aid, requires the recipient to be a US citizen or permanent resident (green card holder) or an eligible non-citizen. There are, however, a few states that allow undocumented students to qualify for in-state tuition rates. There are also several private scholarships available to undocumented students.
In-State Tuition
There is a conflict between Federal and State law regarding the eligibility of undocumented students for in-state tuition rates.
Federal law passed in 1996 prohibits illegal aliens from receiving in-state tuition rates at public institutions of higher education. Specifically, Section 505 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (Title 8, Chapter 14, Sec. 1623(a)) states: "an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State (or a political subdivision) for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount, duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident."
Several states -- Texas, California, New York, Utah, Illinois, Washington, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Kansas -- have passed state laws providing in-state tuition benefits to illegal aliens who have attended high school in the state for three or more years. Similar legislation is pending in Florida, Hawaii, Maryland (legislation passed, but awaiting governor's signature), Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia. (Connecticut and Wisconsin also passed such a law, but their governors vetoed it.) The Nevada system of higher education does not consider immigration status for in-state tuition, but does require it for a state-sponsored scholarship. Also, some schools in Georgia provide in-state tuition benefits to illegal aliens. The Texas law also allows illegal aliens to receive state student financial aid.
These state laws attempt to circumvent the federal law by simply not asking students whether they are in the US legally. (The California law, AB 540, requires the student to file an affidavit that he/she has filed an application to legalize his/her immigration status or intends to file an application as soon as he/she is eligible to do so. So California doesn't even attempt to maintain the fiction that the school is unaware of the student's immigration status.) They also circumvent the law by basing eligibility for in-state tuition on attendance at or graduation from an in-state high school and not on state residence.
Subsection 8 USC 1621(d) permits states to provide illegal aliens with state and local public benefits provided that a state law is enacted after August 22, 1996 specifically permitting illegal aliens to receive such benefits. However, this subsection makes a potentially limiting reference to subsection 1621(a) and so does not override the restrictions in 8 USC 1623(a). As such, it would appear that the state laws permitting in-state tuition to illegal aliens are not permitted by the federal law.
Virginia passed a law barring illegal aliens from receiving in-state tuition, but it was vetoed by the governor. The state attorney general then stated that existing state law requires state colleges and universities to charge illegal aliens higher tuition. Legislation to ban in-state tuition for illegal aliens is pending in Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Mississippi, and North Carolina. A bill to ban in-state tuition for illegal aliens was defeated in Arizona in March 2005, but a ballot initiative requiring illegal aliens to pay out-of-state tuition and making them ineligible for state student financial aid (Proposition 300) was passed in November 2006 and went into effect on December 7, 2006. States banning in-state tuition for illegal aliens include Georgia and Colorado. (The Colorado attorney general ruled on August 14, 2007 that Colorado students who were born in the US of illegal immigrant parents may nevertheless pay in-state tuition rates. The argument is that a US citizen -- the student -- is the beneficiary beneficiary of the in-state tuition, not the parents, so the parents' illegal status should have no bearing on eligibility. This follows in the footsteps of a late-2006 settlement between the State Student Assistance Commission of Indiana and the ACLU of Indiana, concerning denial of state scholarships in the Indiana 21st Century Scholars Program to an otherwise eligible US citizen student because of her parents' illegal status.)
The heart of the controversy concerning in-state tuition for illegal immigrants is a conflict between pragmatism, compassion and fairness. On the one hand, why should children of illegal immigrants be punished for violations of immigration law by their parents or for delays caused by INS bureaucracy? Denying illegal aliens in-state tuition rates denies most of them access to a higher education. Many of these students will eventually become legal residents. One can also argue that the cost of not helping these students pursue a higher education is greater than the cost of helping them. Education increases tax revenues and decreases spending on welfare, health care and law enforcement. (The 1997 report The New Americans by the National Research Council found that immigrants -- both legal and undocumented -- with a college education save the government money, while those with just a high school diploma consume more in services than they contribute in taxes.) It seems inconsistent to provide illegal aliens with a free public elementary and secondary school education, only to deny them access to a postsecondary education. This effectively limits them to a life of indentured servitude. On the other hand, why should law-abiding US citizens have to pay higher public college tuition rates than illegal aliens? They too can be helped by lower in-state tuition rates, providing future benefits to the state and the nation. To the extent that in-state tuition rates are intended to provide a benefit to state taxpayers whose tax dollars support state colleges, the tuition breaks for illegal aliens are somewhat inconsistent. (While only 5 percent of undocumented workers file federal income tax returns according to the Mexican Migration Project (MMP), a much larger percentage have taxes withheld from their paychecks. Of the roughly 2,100 undocumented workers surveyed by the MMP, as much as two-thirds report having had federal income taxes withheld from 1997-2002. Other, more conservative studies estimate that about half of undocumented workers have income taxes withheld from their paychecks. It is unclear whether the employers deliver the withheld taxes to the government or are simply pocketing the money. Since very few undocumented workers file income tax returns to obtain a refund, effectively these workers are paying taxes at a higher marginal rate than US citizens. However, a greater percentage of US citizen workers have income taxes withheld and file income tax returns than undocumented workers.) Yet the Federal government also lacks a consistent and enforceable immigration policy, nor the will to devote sufficient resources to enforce existing immigration law.
This controversy is unlikely to be resolved until the US Supreme Court hears a case concerning it. (The most likely test case will be a lawsuit, Day v. Sebelius, filed on July 19, 2004 to challenge a Kansas law (76-731a) that allows children of illegal aliens to pay in-state tuition rates. However, the US Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled on August 30, 2007 (05-3309) that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Kansas law and that the plaintiffs lacked a private right of action to enforce preemption by 8 USC 1623. The court's decision hinged on the plaintiffs failure to demonstrate that they had suffered actual "concrete and nonspeculative" harm from the Kansas law, nor that the injury would be redressed by overturning the law. In particular, even if the court struck the provision allowing illegal alien state residents to qualify for in-state tuition, the plaintiffs would still not be qualified to obtain tuition rates reserved for residents. Likewise, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a causal relationship between the benefits accorded to illegal aliens and the tuition charged to nonresident US citizens. As such, their claimed injury is conjectural and hypothetical, and unsupported by evidence. Since the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring their suit, the appeals court did not evaluate whether the Kansas law violates the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment or the merits of the preemption claims brought by the plaintiffs.) On December 17, 2007, the 10th circuit court of appeals denied a request for a rehearing before the full court. Most likely the decision will focus on the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the US Constitution, as did the decision in Plyler v. Doe, 457 US 202 (1982). It will also likely overturn state laws, regardless of whether they provide in-state tuition to illegal immigrants or ban it, since the authority to regulate immigration belongs exclusively to the federal government. It might also find that offering reduced in-state tuition to state residents is unconstitutional.
Court cases in Kansas and California have also focused on the use of the word 'benefit' in 8 USC 1623, arguing that Congress's intent was to restrict monetary benefits and that in-state tuition is not a monetary benefit but a status benefit. In particular, "state or local public benefit" is defined in 8 USC 1621(c)(1)(B) as benefits for which "payments or assistance are provided to an individual, household, or family eligibility unit by an agency of a State or local government or by appropriated funds of a State or local government" and 8 USC 1623(a) uses the word "amount" in connection with the term "postsecondary education benefit". The crux of the argument is that reduced in-state tuition is not a monetary benefit because payments are never made to the individual or family. However, one could also argue that Congress's intent in passing this law was clearly to prohibit in-state tuition for illegal aliens in addition to state financial aid, and that reduced in-state tuition falls within the scope of the term "assistance".
There is pending legislation in the House and Senate that would repeal the Federal restriction and make college more affordable for illegal aliens. (The original 2003 Senate version of the bill was known as the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act (S 1545) and the original House version of the bill was known as the Student Adjustment Act (HR 1684). These bills were reintroduced in the 110th Congress as the DREAM Act of 2007 (S.774) and the American Dream Act (H.R.1275), with the latter bundled into the STRIVE Act of 2007 (H.R.1645).) The DREAM Act would permit states to determine state residency for higher education purposes by repealing Section 505 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. It would also provide a mechanism for undocumented students of good moral character to become legal permanent residents and to qualify for Federal student aid.
Additional information can be obtained from the National Conference of State Legislatures site.
-
Financial aid is generally not available for undocumented students and illegal aliens.
Well, that's nice. I wonder what the exceptions are? ;/
-
couple paragraphs down it tells you. and then check the first link for an idea of the extent of the "problem" in california
-
Interesting information there, C&SD. But what about anchor kids, the children of illegals, but legal US citizens themselves, whose first loyalty seems to be to Mexico or other places to the south? Do you believe they should be getting student aid?
It seems clear to me that many of the kids pictured in the recent May Day protests have no love for this country.
-
Interesting information there, C&SD. But what about anchor kids, the children of illegals, but legal US citizens themselves, whose first loyalty seems to be to Mexico or other places to the south? Do you believe they should be getting student aid?
It seems clear to me that many of the kids pictured in the recent May Day protests have no love for this country.
I hate to say it, but if they're citizens they should be able to go after all the same financial aid as you or me.
Granted, I don't think financial aid should exist at all.
Seems like the best alternative would be to quit handing out citizenship to people simply because their mothers were here when they started to pop.
-
Interesting information there, C&SD. But what about anchor kids, the children of illegals, but legal US citizens themselves, whose first loyalty seems to be to Mexico or other places to the south? Do you believe they should be getting student aid?
It seems clear to me that many of the kids pictured in the recent May Day protests have no love for this country.
how do i feel on a visceral level? or how do i feel they should be treated under our law?
many of the kids pictured in the recent May Day protests have no love for this country
i don't blame em a whole lot for that. you crap on someone long enough they start not to like you.
i find the op to be interesting. while i often disagree with him i listen to what he says because i find him to be worth it and well informed yet somehow folks get sucked up in a lot of less than factually based rhetoric. and get quite emotionally vested in it. i wonder what drives that.
its history repeating itself though
http://www.kinsella.org/history/histira.htm
-
how do i feel on a visceral level? or how do i feel they should be treated under our law?
That's the real question, isn't it? A quandry.
-
it is indeed.
-
So now we should have a patriotism screen for qualifying for student aid? Perhaps membership in the campus chapter of the Young Republicans would be a good idea, too.
-
#1 - They're not always born here. Often they are smuggled across the border with their parents.
#2 - It is arguable if the intent of the 14th amendment was for foreign nationals to give birth to children on US soil and immediately earn citizenship for the kid. We don't grant citizenship to the children of French tourists who might give birth while visiting the US... why should we grant it to the children of illegals that don't even bother with a tourism visa, let alone a green card for their true purpose of being here?
Regardless of how you feel about #2... we're talking about all the #1's in this issue. The #2's have documentation currently (whether we feel it is valid, or not).
It was to protect the slaves, actually. Its antiquated and should be gotten rid of.
-
What slaves? Slavery has been outlawed for at least three years before its passing.
-
What slaves? Slavery has been outlawed for at least three years before its passing.
Allow me to clarify. [*ahem] Former slaves. Those recently released from bondage and or indentured servitude. [ahem]
So now we should have a patriotism screen for qualifying for student aid? Perhaps membership in the campus chapter of the Young Republicans would be a good idea, too.
I'm good with that. =D ;)
-
So now we should have a patriotism screen for qualifying for student aid? Perhaps membership in the campus chapter of the Young Republicans would be a good idea, too.
Not what I said. But it does sit a little rough with me when our tax dollars are being spent to educate young people that dislike this country.
-
tax dollars are being spent to educate young people that dislike this country
that would include a lot more than the latinos
-
tax dollars are being spent to educate young people that dislike this country
that would include a lot more than the latinos
Very true.
-
When I was working at the juvenile prison there was a kid there that was an illegal immigrant. You didn't get to that facility without committing a serious felony. It was not his first time there. He had gang tats, whole 9 yards. His mom, and most likely her boyfriend/husband were also illegal immigrants.
When that kid was due for release at the end of his sentence he was discharged into the custody of ICE. ICE knew his immigration status. They knew his mom's status. They knew where they lived. ICE released the kid TO HIS MOM.
Multiple FELONY convictions (apart from immigration law violations). Known gang affiliations. Released from prison into the custody of ICE. And not deported.
$10 that kid winds up in the news for some heinous crime.
Illegal immigrants at our universities drawing financial aid is, sadly, among the least of our problems with that subject.
-
Every day it seems I see something new that likens the US to Rome. Failure to control the borders or inability to do so was a big catalyst to the demise of Rome. So it will be with the US.
-
Why do you need a college degree to do "jobs that Americans won't do?"
Depends on the idiocy of the employer; at my previous one, I didn't qualify for a data-entry clerk spot because I didn't have a 4-year degree. Same requirement for the receptionist and the mailroom. You had to have a degree to work anywhere that didn't have floor drains.
-
So now we should have a patriotism screen for qualifying for student aid? Perhaps membership in the campus chapter of the Young Republicans would be a good idea, too.
Ja, vee must make sure zhat zhey hev zee proper amount of respekt for zee party no?
-
Every day it seems I see something new that likens the US to Rome.
What makes you say that?
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftsfiles.files.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F08%2Fbarack-caesar-peter-lavigna.jpg&hash=5712a70dd99a68836a948dff59952216ef7be4dd)
-
Most non-college-graduates are unable to break the $50k threshold.
I know several and least 3 of which make 6 figures. Two of those making 6 figures have GEDs.
These days, I seriously question the *need* for a college degree.
Chris
-
I know several and least 3 of which make 6 figures. Two of those making 6 figures have GEDs.
These days, I seriously question the *need* for a college degree.
Chris
Both jobs I've held in the past 14 years have been >$50K/year. No college degree, although I did get technical training in the Navy and on the job. Those jobs are (current) water plant operator and (previous) nuclear power plant operator. If I'd stayed at the power plant and gotten my license, I'd have averaged around $85+K/year. Pay's not quite as good at the water plant, but I've cleared $50K/year each year since I started, back in May '06.
Granted, prior to that, I was making about $20K/year in the Navy...
-
I am on board with CSD that half the folks in college are wasting their time, which would be better spent in one of ay number of training regimen.
IMO, public higher ed ought to be yet another filter to shake out illegals, just as ANY contact with ANY gov't entity ought to.
-
Not what I said. But it does sit a little rough with me when our tax dollars are being spent to educate imprison young people that dislike this country.
Fixed it for you. I would rather spend the tax dollars on education rather than the prison system. I think the return on investment tends to be greater.
-
smaller investment too
-
smaller investment too
Even cheaper, just point a few of these south;
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.billfryer.com%2Fdsc%2Fnewimages%2Fcat5.jpg&hash=024922b0ff142da0b979ec8a33ae146e1934962c)
-
Fixed it for you. I would rather spend the tax dollars on education rather than the prison system. I think the return on investment tends to be greater.
You have a point.
-
I would rather spend the tax dollars on education rather than the prison system.
There's a difference between the two ???
;)
-
I would rather spend the tax dollars on education rather than the prison system.
Yessiree. A college education is such a good deterrent to others thinking about crossing the border. :facepalm:
DD
-
Yessiree. A college education is such a good deterrent to others thinking about crossing the border. :facepalm:
DD
So you must think that for an illegal alien, a college education has the same degree of certainty as prison? Hmmm. Last time I checked, the deterrent effect of prison didn't seem to be slowing down the flow that much.
-
So you must think that for an illegal alien, a college education has the same degree of certainty as prison? Hmmm. Last time I checked, the deterrent effect of prison didn't seem to be slowing down the flow that much.
Well, it is just one more of many carrots rather than a stick.
We got enough carrots, I'd say break out a stick or two.
-
So you must think that for an illegal alien, a college education has the same degree of certainty as prison? Hmmm. Last time I checked, the deterrent effect of prison didn't seem to be slowing down the flow that much.
Do you think there should be less illegal immigrants in the US?
Do you think we should reward criminal behavior?
Do you think it would be in our best interest to make illegal entry into the US less attractive?
-
if they pay for their school why not? i'm hearing they can't make enough as unskilled labor to be worth it to us. if they can elevate themselves and make that cut what is the problem?
-
Do you think there should be less illegal immigrants in the US?
Do you think we should reward criminal behavior?
Do you think it would be in our best interest to make illegal entry into the US less attractive?
Do you think that an illegal alien faces the certainty of imprisonment? And that certainty deters illegal entry?
-
Last time I checked, the deterrent effect of prison didn't seem to be slowing down the flow that much.
So it's your contention that .gov is actually enforcing its laws? Really??
DD
-
So it's your contention that .gov is actually enforcing its laws? Really??
DD
Do you think that an illegal alien faces the certainty of imprisonment? And that certainty deters illegal entry?
-
Answer to question #1 is "no", which makes question #2 irrelevant.
DD
-
I know several and least 3 of which make 6 figures. Two of those making 6 figures have GEDs.
A friend of mine dropped out of high school. That was about fifteen years ago, and he's spent most of that time as co-founder/owner of a business that provides IT support for several schools, churches and businesses, including my current employer.
A couple of my other friends quit college, or just never went. They also have done pretty well for themselves in IT.
-
you fans of mr dobbs are gonna hate this
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/cost-of-illegal-immigrants/
see the lil blue boxes in the beginning that has cis actually debunking some of the more popular manure imagine that cis
Cost of Illegal Immigrants
April 6, 2009
Bookmark and Share
Q: Do illegal immigrants cost $338.3 billion dollars a year? More than the Iraq war?
A: A chain e-mail that makes this claim is loaded with errors and misleading assertions. Published studies vary widely but put the cost to government at a small fraction of that total.
FULL QUESTION
I wonder if much of this is true? Is this on your radar screen?
This is astounding and infuriating. Why isn’t this in the papers? Please read and pass it on.
⬐ Click to expand/collapse the full text ⬏
WHY ARE WE BANKRUPT?
Informative, and mind boggling!
You think the war in Iraq is costing us too much? Read this:
Boy am I confused. I have been hammered with the propaganda that it is the Iraq war and the war on terror that is bankrupting us.
I now find that to be RIDICULOUS.
I hope the following 14 reasons are forwarded over and over again until they are read so many times that the reader gets sick of reading them. I have included the URL’s for verification of all the following facts.
1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year.
Verify at: http://tinyurl.com/zob77
2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://www.cis..org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://www.cis..org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.0.html
5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.
Verify at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare & social services by the American taxpayers.
Verify at: http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html
9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that’s two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html
11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and marijuana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern border.
Verify at: Homeland Security Report: http://tinyurl.com/t9sht
12. The National Policy Institute, ‘estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.’
Verify at: http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deportation.pdf
13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin.
Verify at: http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm
14. ‘The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States.’
Verify at: http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml
The total cost is a whopping $ 338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR AND IF YOU’RE LIKE ME HAVING TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY; IT IS $338,300,000,000.00 WHICH WOULD BE ENOUGH TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY FOR THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY.
Are we THAT stupid? YES, FOR LETTING THOSE IN THE U.S. CONGRESS GET AWAY WITH LETTING THIS HAPPEN YEAR AFTER YEAR!!!!!
If this doesn’t bother you then just delete the message. If, on the other hand, if it does raise the hair on the back of your neck, I hope you forward it to every legal resident in the country including every representative in Washington, D.C. - five times a week for as long as it takes to restore some semblance of intelligence in our policies and enforcement thereof.
FULL ANSWER
This chain e-mail has been forwarded to us by readers many times over the past year. The most recent version adds a new angle, claiming that the amount of money taxpayers spend on illegal immigrants would be enough to "stimulate the economy." But no matter the spin, the e-mail is rife with errors.
It also contains several red flags that should tip off readers that this is more bogus than believable. For one thing, the figures given don’t add up to a "whopping $338.3 billion dollars a year" spent on illegal immigrants in the U.S., as the e-mail claims.
The e-mail lists 14 claims about illegal immigrants, all of which were included in a longer list penned by anti-immigration activist Frosty Wooldridge and published on the conservative Web site NewswithViews.com on Jan. 22, 2007. Another NewswithViews columnist, Lynn Stuter, included Wooldridge’s list, with some updated links, in an article posted on April 15, 2008.
The source cited for at least nine of the items is either the conservative Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) or the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), both of which call for more restrictive immigration laws. CIS spokesman Bryan Griffith told us that he had never seen the e-mail but that he suspected something was out there because of occasional surges in traffic that forced him to rewrite Web pages. When told about the e-mail’s contents and conclusion of a $338.3 billion yearly cost, he responded that CIS "never said anything of the like and is not going to comment on a chain e-mail that is in no way scientific."
The e-mail also continually blurs the important distinction between legal and illegal immigrants – a sign of sloppy and untrustworthy work.
Summary
Because we’re gluttons for punishment, we’ve gone through each claim in turn and report on each in detail farther down. But here are a few highlights (or lowlights) of what we found:
* The e-mail includes a link to a CIS report that contradicts some of the e-mail’s own claims. The report found that illegal immigrant welfare use "tends to be very low." It also estimates the total federal net cost of households headed by illegal immigrants at under $10.4 billion, a small fraction of what this message claims.
* One "paper" that is cited is a non-peer-reviewed, non-scientific study that essentially fabricates a number for illegal immigrant criminals.
* Five of the links lead to transcripts of Lou Dobbs’ cable television show, which fulminates regularly against illegal immigration and is hardly a neutral source. Furthermore, in all instances, the e-mail then takes the original Dobbs reporting out of context.
So, how much do illegal immigrants cost federal, state and local governments in the U.S.? Estimates vary widely, and no consensus exists. The Urban Institute put the net national cost at $1.9 billion in 1992; a Rice University professor, whose work the Urban Institute criticized, said it was $19.3 billion in 1993. More recently, a 2007 report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office examined 29 reports on state and local costs published over 15 years in an attempt to answer this question. CBO concluded that most of the estimates determined that illegal immigrants impose a net cost to state and local governments but "that impact is most likely modest." CBO said "no agreement exists as to the size of, or even the best way of measuring, that cost on a national level."
-
The Details
For those who want more, we take on each of the e-mail’s claims in order:
1. "$11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year."
This item is completely false. The link given to "verify" the claim actually leads to an issue brief by the conservative Federation for American Immigration Reform. But the FAIR brief says nothing of the sort. It says: "Each year, state governments spend an estimated $11 billion to $22 billion to provide welfare to immigrants." That’s welfare payments in 2001 to all immigrants – both legal and illegal – plus households including U.S. citizens if they are headed by a person who was born outside the United States.
The site says the FAIR report was last updated in October 2002, but a footnote credits this statistic to a March 2003 report from the Center for Immigration Studies. CIS began as an off-shoot of FAIR. But the CIS report doesn’t actually say anything about $11 billion or $22 billion. And it explains that its references to "immigrant households" include persons here legally and persons born outside the U.S.
CIS report: Like the Census Bureau, and other academic work that has examined this question, this report looks at welfare use by immigrant and native households. Households are defined as immigrant or native based on the nativity of the household head. As already indicated, this report uses the terms immigrant and foreign-born synonymously.
CIS estimated that welfare payments to illegal immigrant households averaged $1,040 per household in 2001, mainly Medicaid "on behalf of their U.S.-born children." But the report did not attempt to come up with a total for all such households.
2. "$2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens."
3. "$2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens."
These figures supposedly come from a 2004 report by CIS that estimated the costs to the federal government of households headed by illegal immigrants in 2002. But the CIS report actually put the costs of food stamp, WIC and free school lunch programs to "illegal alien households" at $1.9 billion, not the $2.2 billion claimed in the e-mail. The $2.5 billion figure for Medicaid to such households is quoted accurately, but again, much of this was in benefits for U.S.-born children, who are citizens.
Most interesting is that the CIS report includes a total net cost estimate to the federal government for illegal immigrants of just under $10.4 billion for the year, after accounting for the taxes these immigrants paid. That doesn’t include any potential costs to state or local governments, but it’s a far cry from this e-mail’s cost claim of $338.3 billion.
CIS report: Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household.
Even CIS’ figures have been questioned by other researchers. The Urban Institute reviewed a related 2003 CIS paper and concluded that its "methods overstate the percentage of the population receiving Medicaid and the share of immigrants on Medicaid, resulting in misleading conclusions about welfare use among immigrants."
Even so, the CIS report actually rebuts claims repeated by this chain e-mail:
CIS: Our findings show that many of the preconceived notions about the fiscal impact of illegal households turn out to be inaccurate. In terms of welfare use, receipt of cash assistance programs tends to be very low, while Medicaid use, though significant, is still less than for other households. Only use of food assistance programs is significantly higher than that of the rest of the population. Also, contrary to the perceptions that illegal aliens don’t pay payroll taxes, we estimate that more than half of illegals work “on the books.”
4. "$12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!"
5."$17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies."
Both links given to "verify" these claims lead to an April 1, 2006, episode of "Lou Dobbs Tonight" on CNN. During the show, correspondent Christine Romans cited both of these stats and attributed them to FAIR. A FAIR research paper from 2005 does include these cost projections, but a closer look shows that the underlying assumptions are inflated or unsupported.
The FAIR report starts with the presumption that there are "1.5 million school-aged illegal immigrants residing in the United States." That figure is attributed to an Urban Institute presentation that doesn’t actually say that. Instead, the Urban Institute said: "We estimate that there are about 1.4 million undocumented children under 18 with about 1.1 million of school age (5 -19)."
The FAIR report also assumes there are 2 million "U.S.-born siblings" of illegal immigrant families. However, the Urban Institute makes no estimates of U.S.-born siblings and FAIR gives no citation for its figure. And in any case, again, those U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants are themselves U.S. citizens and not "illegal aliens."
6. "$3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens."
7. "30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens."
Both of these claims can be traced back to that same April 1, 2006, episode of "Lou Dobbs Tonight" on CNN, in the same segment, with the same correspondent, Christine Romans. But the e-mail misrepresents what Romans said. She gave figures for people who are "not U.S. citizens," a category that would include legal residents as well as "illegal aliens."
Romans said that "according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, 30 percent of federal prisoners are not U.S. citizens," adding that "most are thought to be illegal aliens." Actually, the Federal Bureau of Prisons does not keep figures on illegal immigrants. What solid numbers we can find point to a much smaller figure. A Department of Justice report from 2003 found that only 1.6 percent of the state and federal prison populations was under Immigration and Customs Enforcement jurisdiction, and thus known to be illegal immigrants. Half of these prisoners were detained only because they were here illegally, not for other crimes.
The Bureau of Prisons does track prisoners by offense when information is available. By that metric, 10.7 percent of prisoners in federal jails were incarcerated for immigration offenses in 2009. In 2006, when Romans gave her report, the figure was 10.2 percent.
The "$3 million dollar a day" figure is based on the false assumption that 30 percent of all inmates are illegal immigrants, and thus is greatly inflated.
8. "$90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare & social services by the American taxpayers."
The link to "verify" this claim is dead. However, we found a transcript of a Lou Dobbs episode on Oct. 29, 2006, in which Robert Rector of the conservative Heritage Foundation made the following statement:
Robert Rector, Oct. 29, 2006: Well, assuming that we have about 11 million immigrants in the U.S., the net cost or the total cost of services and benefits provided to them, education, welfare, general social services would be about $90 billion a year, and they would pay very little in taxes. It’s important to remember that at least half of illegal immigrants are high school dropouts.
We checked with Rector, who said he was referring to both legal and illegal low-skill immigrant households (those headed by someone who doesn’t have a high school diploma). His research also looked at many forms of government spending per household, including money spent on parks and transportation.
9. "$200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens."
Again, this is from that same April 1, 2006, Lou Dobbs episode. On the show, Dobbs said that "estimates by the most authoritative and recent study put the suppressed wages at $200 billion a year, as a result of immigration, both legal and illegal." The e-mail continues its practice of ignoring any distinction between legal and illegal immigration.
We couldn’t find any study that supported Dobb’s figure.
10. "The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that’s two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US"
This is false. The "verify" link leads to yet another transcript of Lou Dobbs speaking with Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation. This one is dated June 12, 2006, and Rector says, "Hispanics in the United States have a crime rate that’s two and a half times that of white non-Hispanics."
Rector said Hispanics, not illegal immigrants, as the e-mail alleges. Considering there are 45.4 million Hispanics in the country, and an estimated 11.9 million illegal immigrants, the distinction is notable. Rector’s statistic for all Hispanics is correct, according to a 2003 report from the Justice Department.
11. " During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and marijuana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern border. "
The link goes to a 2006 report written by the Republican staff of the House Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security. To start, the "19,500" number of "illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries" is nowhere to be found in this report. In fact, the report estimates the number of illegal immigrants coming over the southern border from countries known to harbor terrorists to be in the "hundreds." We’ve seen a similar scare tactic used previously in ads advocating for a border fence.
And the 4 million to 10 million statistic is extrapolated using some imprecise reasoning. The committee report figures that since "Border Patrol apprehended approximately 1.2 million illegal aliens" in 2005 and since "Federal law enforcement estimates that 10 percent to 30 percent of illegal aliens are actually apprehended," that "therefore, in 2005, as many as 10 to 4 million [sic] illegal aliens crossed into the United States." That simplistic math produces a figure starkly different from more widely accepted estimates. The Pew Hispanic Center estimated that in 2005 there were 11.1 million illegal immigrants total, living in the United States. The center also estimated that about 500,000 illegal immigrants a year came to the U.S. from 2005 to 2008.
12. "The National Policy Institute, ‘estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.’ "
No, it didn’t. The National Policy Institute, a group that says it promotes the rights of "white Americans," ironically was citing figures from the liberal Center for American Progress in a report that argued against mass deportation of undocumented workers. CAP said such deportation would cost more per year than the entire Department of Homeland Security budget, illustrating "the false allure of deportation as a response to our broken immigration system."
13. "In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin."
This is another bogus figure. The email’s link leads to the original Frosty Wooldridge article, which in turn cites as its source for this figure a link to a Contra-Costa Times article, which is no longer working. Nevertheless, we were able to find a news release from the Inter-American Development Bank stating Latin American immigrants sent $45 billion in remittances in 2006. But that figure applies to all immigrants, including legal residents.
14. "The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States."
Once again, the "verify" link is dead. But a little Internet research found the article cited. An independently published, non-peer-reviewed study did estimate that nearly a million sex crimes have been committed by illegal immigrants over a seven-year period, but it employs some highly creative math and interesting assumptions to get there. The "study" is actually a pretty good case study in bad research.
The author assumes that 2 percent of illegal immigrants are sex offenders after "examining ICE reports and public records," but does not say how that figure was calculated. A bibliography cites miscellaneous Immigration and Customs Enforcement press releases and media accounts of instances of apprehending illegal immigrants who were sex offenders (seemingly manufacturing a "rate" based on anecdotal evidence). The author then makes no distinction between male and female illegal immigrants when estimating the number that are "sex offenders."
As we’ve said before, anonymous chain e-mails making dramatic claims are quite likely to be false. And that goes even for those that may seem to cite legitimate sources. This one is yet another good candidate for the "delete" key.
– Justin Bank
Sources
Steven A. Camarota, “Back Where We Started: An Examination of Trends in Immigrant Welfare Use Since Welfare Reform,” Center for Immigration Studies, March 2003.
Camarota, Steven A., "The High Cost of Cheap Labor: Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget," Center for Immigration Studies, August 2004.
Immigration and Welfare," Federation for American Immigration Reform, Oct 2002.
A Line in the Sand: Confronting the Threat at the Southwest Border," prepared by the Majority Staff of House Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Investigations, Nov 2006.
Goyle, Rajeev, "Deporting the Undocumented: A Cost Assessment," Center for American Progress. 26 July 2005.
Sending Money Home: Leveraging the Development Impact of Remittances," Inter-American Development Bank. 18 Oct 2006.
Schurman-Kauflin, Dr. Deborah, "The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants in the United States," Violent Crimes Institute, 2006.
Martin, Jack, "Breaking the Piggy Bank: How Illegal Immigration is Sending Schools Into the Red," Federation for American Immigration Reform. June 2005.
Fix, Michael and Passel, Jeffrey, "U.S. Immigration—Trends and Implications for Schools," Immigration Studies Program, The Urban Institute, 2003.
"Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: 1990-2000," Office of Policy Planning, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, January 2003.
"Table 169, Current Expenditure Per Pupil in Fall Enrollment in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools, by State: 1969-70 to 1999-00," Digest of Education Statistics 2002, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.
-
Social Security for Immigrants and Refugees
April 17, 2009
Bookmark and Share
Q: Do immigrants and refugees get more in benefits than a retired U.S. citizen gets in Social Security?
A: This is nonsense. The claims propagated by a viral e-mail are not even close to the truth.
FULL QUESTION
Is this true?
This is an insult and a kick in the butt to all of us…
⬐ Click to expand/collapse the full text ⬏
Get mad and pass it on - I don’t know how, but maybe some good will come of this travesty. If the immigrant is over 65, they can apply for SSI and Medicaid and get more than a woman on Social Security, who worked from 1944 until 2004. She is only getting $791 per month because she was born in 1924 and there’s a ‘catch 22′. It is interesting that the federal government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890. Each can also obtain an additional $580 in social assistance, for a total of $2,470 a month. This compares to a single pensioner, who after contributing to the growth and development of America for 40 to 50 years, can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012 in old age pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees! Consider sending this to all your American friends, so we can all be ticked off and maybe get the refugees cut back to $1,012 and the pensioners up to $2,470. Then we can enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the Government over the last 40 or 50 or 60 years. Please forward to every American to expose what our elected politicians have been doing over the past 11 years - to the over-taxed American. SEND THIS TO EVERY AMERICAN TAXPAYER YOU KNOW
FULL ANSWER
We’ll start with the most comical error. There is no monthly payment to refugees.
Refugee Re-do
The wrongheaded idea that refugees in the U.S. get "a monthly allowance of $1,890" actually started as a mistaken claim about refugees in Canada. In 2004 an irate Canadian misread a story in the Toronto Star and sent off an error-filled e-mail, which was so widely forwarded it prompted an official debunking by the Canadian government. Somewhere along the way a malicious prankster copied the falsehood almost verbatim and applied it to the U.S. We explained all this in an "Ask FactCheck" item in 2007.
Maximum Mistake
Also wrong – and by a wide margin – is the claim that a Social Security pensioner can get "a monthly maximum of $1,012 in old age pension." The true figure is more than double that. A person retiring this year at the full retirement age of 66 could qualify for a monthly check of up to $2,323, depending on how much she earned and paid into the system over her working life, according to the Social Security Administration.
Notch Baby Nonsense
The example of the woman who retired in 2004 after 60 years of work is also absurd. For one thing, somebody born in 1924 normally would have retired no later than full retirement age – which then was 65 years and four months – rather than continuing to work until age 80.
It’s remotely possible that a relatively low-income worker would have received a monthly pension check of only $791 per month as claimed, but depending on her earnings over her working life she could have received up to $1,825 per month – which was the maximum pension benefit for persons retiring in 2004 at full retirement age. The average monthly benefit paid to all retirees in January 2004, including those who retired in earlier years, was $903. That was adjusted upward to $922 by the annual cost of living adjustment that year.
The reference to a "catch 22" may be a garbled allusion to the "notch baby" controversy from an earlier decade. Some persons born between 1916 and 1921 felt unfairly treated by an adjustment Congress made in 1977, and they lobbied Congress for years to increase their benefits. Financial columnist Jane Bryant Quinn called their grievance "a distortion" in a 1999 article explaining the background. But whatever side one takes in the dispute, it’s a simple fact that somebody born in 1924 would not have been affected.
Bashing Immigrants
The message seeks to generate outrage about over-generous treatment of "immigrants," but misleads the reader in several ways – mainly by failing to distinguish between illegal immigrants (who generally don’t qualify for any benefits) and naturalized U.S. citizens.
It begins by saying "If the immigrant is over 65, they can apply for SSI and Medicaid." Note that SSI, the acronym for Supplemental Security Income, is a welfare system separate from Social Security retirement benefits. Medicaid is a state-federal program providing medical insurance for low-income persons and is separate from the federal Medicare system for any American who reaches age 65.
Generally, legal immigrants – those who have become citizens and some who have legal permission to be in the U.S – can qualify for these programs on the same basis as anybody else. (The rules allowing some non-citizens to get SSI are complicated, and explained here.) Many people see the word "immigrants" and automatically think "illegal," and the plain fact is that illegal immigrants don’t qualify for either SSI or Social Security.
Illegal immigrants also don’t qualify for Medicaid, except in certain emergency conditions, and that amounts to relatively little. A 2007 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association looked at 48,391 individuals who received services reimbursed under Emergency Medicaid during a 4-year period in North Carolina, a state with a rapidly growing immigrant population. The study found that nearly all the patients were in the U.S. illegally, but that spending for their emergency care (mostly childbirth and treating complications of pregancy) amounted to less than 1 percent of the state’s total Medicaid spending.
To sum up: This email’s claim that immigrants and refugees get more generous Social Security, SSI and Medicaid benefits than ordinary citizens is completely wrong.
-Brooks Jackson
Sources
Sellar, Don. "Can we dispel this urban myth?" Toronto Star. 27 Nov 2004.
Roseman, Ellen. "The government and your money." 50Plus Magazine. Feb 2005.
"Just the Facts: Financial Assistance for Refugees." Citizenship and Immigration Canada. 22 Nov. 2006, accessed 17 Apr 2009.
Walters, Meridith et al. "TANF Cash Benefits as of January 1, 2004." Congressional Research Service. 12 Sep 2005.
State of California Department of Social Services. All County Letter No. 07-34E. 17 Oct. 2007.
Social Security Administration. "2009 Social Security Changes." Oct 2008.
Social Security Administration. "2004 Social Security Changes." Oct 2003.
-
I do not understand the rationale behind defending those who enter the country illegally. ???
DD
-
I do not understand the rationale behind defending those who enter the country illegally. ???
DD
There is only one true rationale behind it. Once given amnesty and made dependent on government social programs by the Democrats, those millions of illegals are expected to vote for said Democrats. It's a play at gaining a massive dependable voting block, plain and simple.
-
Oh, I'm aware of that plot.
The ones that baffle me are the ones with no political gain to be had... There are some on this board.
DD
-
if its about political support the reps had the latino vote and have managed to lose it . it was a choice
-
Sometimes honor and doing the right thing win out... at a cost.
DD
-
thats funny cause i was a fence sitter about immigration at one point. and then i heard some stuff from some folks and it made me mad. but cynic that i am i hada look at their facts and stats. and i started finding out some funny things. and as a result i was finding wile i was unsure about immigration i became positive i was never gonna be on the same side with some of the folks on the anti side. no way in heck i could hang with some of those folks. honorably anyway.
-
Well, I'd be a lot more ok with illegal immigration if it were replacing the existing American underclasses with one who was nominally more willing to work.
Unfortunately, there is the rather inconvenient fact that our existing underclasses have civil rights and whatnot, and we simply can't "be rid of them". So now we have our under-under class, and our new at-least-they-work illegal alien underclass here in the U.S.
Plus, there's the issue that Mexico is willfully using the U.S. as a safety valve for their own institutionalized inequalities. Instead of revolt or reform, people with enough drive to "do something about it" come here instead. Shut off our border, and there will be a "pressure cooker" effect on Mexico. Although I concede the point that what results may not be to our liking, and wind up looking more like a bigger version of Venezuela, and right on our border this time.
And I suspect there are powers-that-be here in the U.S. who think so too, and would rather we be awash in illegals, rather than see some hard-left/Communist/narco-terror junta arise in Mexico to take the current democratic soft-kleptocracy's place.
Any long term SUCCESSFUL resolution to the Mexican/Latino illegal immigration problem will have to contain these three points:
1. Meaningful border and labor enforcement against illegal immigration. Military, walls, patrols, and state and local .gov empowered to help.
2. Economic reform, payroll/FICA tax reform, and entitlement/welfare reform to FORCE America's existing underclass demographics into the labor market that the illegal immigrants are serving.
3. Political, economic, diplomatic and military support/guidance for Mexico for when our closed borders increases their internal domestic pressures to the point they "pop", and what results is some semblance of "Win-win democratic capitalism", rather than their current brand of "Win-lose capitalism" and so they don't devolve into Marxism or worse.
-
if its about political support the reps had the latino vote and have managed to lose it . it was a choice
That's because Republicans generally aren't willing to give illegals free health-care, free education, free housing, and free citizenship just for being here. Democrats are. And even if some Republicans are in favor of amnesty and the like, they are still just (D)-Lite. Democrats excel at emptying the public trough in exchange for a few votes. That's their plan with illegals, and it's working. Not to mention conservatives are generally in favor of immigrants, legal or no, truly melding with American culture and wanting to be Americans inside and out. Liberals however are generally the ones who like to divide everyone into groups, pitting one against the other, and while telling them it's White-America's fault. This goes hand in hand with illegals who are here to leech money and free services on the public dime, without every really intending to become Americans.
Go to the next La Raza protest/riot in the Southwestern US and ask around if the rioters would have favored McCain/Palin over Obama/Biden. I don't think it takes a rocket surgeon to guess what the results would be.
-
and as a result i was finding wile i was unsure about immigration i became positive i was never gonna be on the same side with some of the folks on the anti side.
Serious question: Are you lumping illegal and legal immigration together? I'm not. There is a distinct difference between standing in line and going through the process to become a LEGAL immigrant, and sneaking in the back door while others are going about it the correct/legal way.
DD
-
how many folks can legally come from mexico a year?
and why do they come?
and when i find the some of the folks on the anti side floating so much utter bs it turns me away. the more so when its swallowed and regurgitated so readily by so many
-
So, you ARE lumping them together. Rational discussion of the topic is pointless.
DD
-
er no but probably is this where you refute with "i don't care "6 times?
or do you not know or want to know the answer? you need to know the questions before you come up with solutions and again that assumes folks really want solutions
-
er no but probably is this where you refute with "i don't care "6 times?
A little punctuation please? Just a clue as to what the hell you're trying to get across...
DD
-
is this where you refute with "i don't care "6 times?
And here you refer to an unrelated topic on another forum entirely! http://www.thehighroad.us/showthread.php?t=418003&page=3 (http://www.thehighroad.us/showthread.php?t=418003&page=3) Kind of ironic, since you're now doing what I was pointing out that you were doing there: obfuscating the topic with strawmen, smoke, and distraction.
Same old tactic, same old song.
DD
-
So, you ARE lumping them together. no Rational discussion of the topic is pointless. probably
-
Rational discussion of the topic is pointless. probably
C&SD, we have reached agreement! I'll buy you a drink if you'll buy me one.
DD
-
mine will have to be pepsi but sure
-
You and them high-falutin' tastes! I'm settling for Diet Sam's Cola. =D
DD
-
i'm flyin high while i can diet pepsi is in my future
-
and when i find the some of the folks on the anti side floating so much utter bs it turns me away. the more so when its swallowed and regurgitated so readily by so many
I have posted quite a few arguments & facts. Many with links to source material. Do please point out which ones are BS or retract your accusation of dishonesty.
-
i apologize if you think i was referring to your posts or for the most part any posts here
as a matter of fact there is a link to an article i posted that is about the real costs that i would love your input on i'll see if i can find it
-
here it is
http://redblueamerica.com/truthornot/2008-04-03/do-illegal-immigrants-receive-more-government-benefits-they-pay-taxes-2300
Do illegal immigrants receive more government benefits than they pay in taxes?
Posted April 3rd, 2008 by Joel
The Associated Press
Day laborers, who identified themselves as illegal immigrants looking for work, gather around a potential employer that stopped to hire workers at a street corner where illegal immigrants gather in Dallas.
One of the most common criticisms of illegal immigration is that immigrants pay little or no taxes, yet still receive government services paid for by tax-paying U.S. citizens. This criticism was repeated again recently by Missouri Treasurer Sarah Steelman as she opened her campaign for governor of that state:
The Republican presented a report to a Senate committee, expounding on the burden that illegal workers place on the state and federal government. Such workers and their employers avoided paying between $242 million and $449 million a year in income and payroll taxes for Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance, she said.
“So the problem is quite evident,” Steelman said. “It also creates an unfair advantage for employers who are not paying those taxes over companies that do pay the required taxes.”
Steelman, it turned out, misread a study on the topic and overestimated the amount of unpaid taxes. But she asserted that her general claim -- that the hiring of illegal immigrants robs government of taxes. Is it true?
It may depend on whether you take a long-term or short-term view of the topic. In the short term, experts seem to agree, illegal immigrants tend to receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes. The disparity has given rise to a Web site created by the conservative Heritage Foundation: No Free Mustang.
Why is it called that? Robert Rector explains:
"The average illegal immigrant family receives an average of $30,000 in governmental benefits! Yet they pay only about $9,000 in taxes per year. That creates a $21,000 shortfall that the American taxpayer has to make up. That's like buying each of the illegal immigrant families a brand new Mustang convertible -- each and every year!"
The Center for Immigration Studies, a vocal opponent of illegal immigration, looked at "The High Cost of Cheap Labor"
in 2004 and found that illegal immigrant families tended to receive fewer welfare and Medicaid benefits than other households -- but even then, didn't pay enough in taxes to cover the cost.
Based on Census Bureau data, this study finds that, when all taxes paid (direct and indirect) and all costs are considered, illegal households created a net fiscal deficit at the federal level of more than $10 billion in 2002. We also estimate that, if there was an amnesty for illegal aliens, the net fiscal deficit would grow to nearly $29 billion.
In terms of welfare use, receipt of cash assistance programs tends to be very low, while Medicaid use, though significant, is still less than for other households. Only use of food assistance programs is significantly higher than that of the rest of the population. Also, contrary to the perceptions that illegal aliens don't pay payroll taxes, we estimate that more than half of illegals work "on the books." On average, illegal households pay more than $4,200 a year in all forms of federal taxes. Unfortunately, they impose costs of $6,950 per household.
The disparity might be higher, but the Reason Foundation's Shikha Dalmia noted in 2006
that the federal government had long since cracked down on benefits to illegal immigrants.
The 1996 welfare reform bill disqualified illegal immigrants from nearly all means-tested government programs including food stamps, housing assistance, Medicaid and Medicare-funded hospitalization. The only services that illegals can still get are emergency medical care and K-12 education.
According to a study by the Urban Institute, the 1996 welfare reform effort dramatically reduced the use of welfare by undocumented immigrant households, exactly as intended.
The exception for K-12 education, though, is a pretty big one -- and it's borne, generally, by state and local governments. Wisconsin is an example, as shown in this report
on a study in March by that state's Policy Research Institute:
The data show Brown County loses an average of about $9 million a year on immigrants. In other words, immigrants consume more in state and local services than they pay into the system through state and local taxes. The biggest cost burden is education for children, which is the most expensive public service.
On the other hand, the presence of illegal immigrants in the United States has apparently bolstered the finances of Social Security. Many undocumented workers pay into the system, but never retire or receive a dime from the program, as the New York Times reported in 2005:
As the debate over Social Security heats up, the estimated seven million or so illegal immigrant workers in the United States are now providing the system with a subsidy of as much as $7 billion a year.
While it has been evident for years that illegal immigrants pay a variety of taxes, the extent of their contributions to Social Security is striking: the money added up to about 10 percent of last year's surplus.
That continues to be true, according to an April 2 editorial in the Times:
In the fine print of the 2008 annual report on Social Security, released last week, the program’s trustees noted that growing numbers of “other than legal” workers are expected to bolster the program over the coming decades.
We’re not talking chump change. According to the report, the taxes paid by other-than-legal immigrants will close 15 percent of the system’s projected long-term deficit. That’s equivalent to raising the payroll tax by 0.3 percentage points, starting today.
And in a 2007 report, the White House Council of Economic Advisers asserted that, over the long haul, immigrants end up paying off:
The long-run impact of immigration on public budgets is likely to be positive. Projections of future taxes and government spending are subject to uncertainty, but a careful study published by the National Research Council estimated that immigrants and their descendants would contribute about $80,000 more in taxes (in 1996 dollars) than they would receive in public services.
The overall effect, the council said, is a bit of a wash -- and a minor one at that:
The long-term fiscal approach imparts four main lessons: 1) although subject to uncertainty, it appears that immigration has a slightly positive long-run fiscal impact; 2) skilled immigrants have a more positive impact than others; 3) the positive fiscal impact tends to accrue at the federal level, but net costs tend to be concentrated at the state and local level; and 4) the overall fiscal effect of immigration is not large relative to the volume of total tax revenues – immigration is unlikely to cure or cause significant fiscal imbalances.
As Congress in 2007 debated a bill that would create a "pathway to citizenship" for immigrants already in the United States, the Congressional Budget Office weighed in with a mixed fiscal review of the proposal:
The immigration bill before Congress would cost the federal government roughly $18 billion over the next decade, largely because of the huge costs of additional border control and law enforcement measures, according to an analysis released yesterday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
The analysis found that over the next decade, newly legalized immigrants and guest workers would generate $48 billion in additional tax and Social Security revenues, while using about $23 billion worth of tax credits and social services. Thus, the newly legal immigrant population would contribute a net of about $26 billion over the decade, the report said.
Over the long haul, the bill would be a virtual fiscal wash, costing after 20 years a few billion dollars a year more in enforcement and government assistance than the Treasury would get back in tax revenues from the foreign-born workers, the study said.
So: Immigrants consume far more in government benefits than they pay in taxes. Truth or not?
Truth
Not
there is also that fact check link that uses the cis to debunk some common fibs that are tossed about some of which claim to use the cis as a source. i think they count, rightfully on folk hearing what they wanna hear and not checking facts
-
Go to the next La Raza protest/riot in the Southwestern US and ask around if the rioters would have favored McCain/Palin over Obama/Biden. I don't think it takes a rocket surgeon to guess what the results would be.
Or just watch a sample right here. This is a High School teacher, hired by the government to teach your children. Work safe, blood pressure unsafe:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGqPo5ofk0s
-
Serious question: Are you lumping illegal and legal immigration together? I'm not. There is a distinct difference between standing in line and going through the process to become a LEGAL immigrant, and sneaking in the back door while others are going about it the correct/legal way.
You could make a correlation with firearms. Some people choose to follow the "law" and get a concealed carry license, some states it doesn't take much to get one while others you have to jump through hoops to get one, while others follow what they believe to be right and carry without one. Should the people that have to jump through hoops to get one be pissed because someone else didn't? What about people who one guns in California even though it is illegal to own them?
The only reason they are "illegal" is because the law says they are. Back during the Jim Crow days a black person would be violating the law for using something that is whites only, it would be "illegal" for them to do it.
-
You could make a correlation with firearms. Some people choose to follow the "law" and get a concealed carry license, some states it doesn't take much to get one while others you have to jump through hoops to get one, while others follow what they believe to be right and carry without one. Should the people that have to jump through hoops to get one be pissed because someone else didn't? What about people who one guns in California even though it is illegal to own them?
The only reason they are "illegal" is because the law says they are. Back during the Jim Crow days a black person would be violating the law for using something that is whites only, it would be "illegal" for them to do it.
Those are two very, very specious analogies.
The heart of Jim Crow was gov't sanctioned racial discrimination against American citizens. Non-American citizens have no right or standing to claim squat against us. The legal immigrants are here at our pleasure for our benefit, the illegal aliens are door-crashers and welcome as a case of the clap. If they want full & complete liberty, American-style, they can go back to their pit of a country and make it so.
The CCW analogy is just bizarre, but I'll attempt to make some sense of it, in the spirit of debate. Heck, I'll take a stab at it from two angles.
1. CCW from Second Amendment / COTUS
If one claims the right to CCW from the COTUS and, specifically, from the 2nd Amendment (and wishes to analogize form them to non-citizen's liberties & privileges), do know that the COTUS grants the power to Congress to enact laws WRT "naturalization" and restricts non-citizens from many liberties/opportunities. Non-citizens are called out in several places for treatment different from citizens. No love there.
2. CCW from innate right of self protection
If one bases the right to CCW/self-protection on something other than the COTUS, say, a natural law God-given right to life, this still fails as an analogy for illegal immigration. If one reads the Bible, it clearly states that the State is to have some power and that power is granted by God. Moreover, respect and obedience is due the state. In the case of America, the ultimate source of power (on Earth) is the citizenry and that citizenry has been loud & clear as to its desires WRT illegal immigration. Also, the innate right to self-protection does not translate into "innate right to self-protection wherever your self might be on earth." For instance, if you break into someone's condo, it does not apply when the condo owner decides to draw down on you with a shotgun. Your innate right to self-protection has limits, one of them relating to time & place.
-
thats funny cause i was a fence sitter about immigration at one point. and then i heard some stuff from some folks and it made me mad. but cynic that i am i hada look at their facts and stats. and i started finding out some funny things. and as a result i was finding wile i was unsure about immigration i became positive i was never gonna be on the same side with some of the folks on the anti side. no way in heck i could hang with some of those folks. honorably anyway.
Facts and stats, huh? Paid for by whom exactly?
Defending illegal immigration is defending illegality and defending the right of a tyrannical elite to ignore the will of the American people and to impose its own instead. We are being coerced to subsidize the destruction of American culture and the theft of our own treasure. That is the heart of the matter here; anything else is bleeding-heartism that ignores the facts.
-
Defending illegal immigration is defending illegality
What about defending pot smokers? Which could also be used in my example from above.
If one bases the right to CCW/self-protection on something other than the COTUS, say, a natural law God-given right to life, this still fails as an analogy for illegal immigration. If one reads the Bible, it clearly states that the State is to have some power and that power is granted by God. Moreover, respect and obedience is due the state.
Not to cause a branch in the discussion so I'll be brief. I disagree and believe that it should be interpreted differently. I'm a Christian anarchist. But that would be for a whole different thread.
a natural law God-given right to
This is mostly what I base it on.
-
It was said above that the GOP once had the "latino" vote and lost it. So be it. If retaining that vote means endorsing illegal immigration, we gain nothing by embracing it. I am not so sure that we lose "latinos" by doing the right thing, and I am sure that assuming tribal and ethnic loyalty as our guiding principle is definitely a bad thing.
-
I am not so sure that we lose "latinos" by doing the right thing, and I am sure that assuming tribal and ethnic loyalty as our guiding principle is definitely a bad thing.
Agreed. There are plenty of latinos here legally that have been harmed by illegal immigration due to its effect on the job market. Moreover, the Latinos here legally get sick of being lumped with the largely uneducated lower class latinos that make up the ranks of illegal aliens.
Not unlike the Chris Rock "I hate n*****s" sentiment.
-
Facts and stats, huh? Paid for by whom exactly?
well if you read the links above you'd see the one where fact check debunked some of the common "facts?" that get forwarded to me from wnd or prison planet or a certain site that must not be named for fear of godwin. most remarkably they cited some allegations that are supposed to come from cis. even more remarkable they were able to use actual cis stats and info to debunk the claims. there exists a certain demographic (cough alex jones) that wants to hear a certain world view very badly, and believe it or not they sometimes seem to practice selective hearing and reading. all in order to try to shade reality to fit their world view as opposed to adapting that world view to accommodate reality. feel free to refute any of the observation stats etc in the links i posted.
-
Just out of curiosity, where do you live, CSD?
-
about 45 miles south of dc right now. over the years lots of places. though never on the west coast well unless you count hawaii
-
here it is
http://redblueamerica.com/truthornot/2008-04-03/do-illegal-immigrants-receive-more-government-benefits-they-pay-taxes-2300
.....
Haven;t forgotten about you.
-
i'm glad and i welcome the analysis . its outside my depth i can analyze a business but the larger scale makes my head hurt.
-
Agreed. There are plenty of latinos here legally that have been harmed by illegal immigration due to its effect on the job market. Moreover, the Latinos here legally get sick of being lumped with the largely uneducated lower class latinos that make up the ranks of illegal aliens.
Not unlike the Chris Rock "I hate n*****s" sentiment.
I'll believe that a lot more when they start policing their own group and trying to improve the image. Much like that "only a small % of Muslims are terrorists" sentiment. When any group allows a small sect to act out in bad ways, and yet does nothing to clean it up internally to improve their overall image, I don't take any claims of "well they don't represent us" seriously. For further reading, see the response Bill Cosby got after he came out and said blacks need to start taking education and self reliance seriously.
-
My wife is Mexican (descended of legal immigrants), and hates illegal immigration with a passion. She also has no contact with that community. If she knew any illegals she'd be calling ICE on them. So how, pray tell, is she supposed to help "regulate" the behaviour of the law breakers who happen to have the same skin color as she does?
-
n any group allows a small sect to act out in bad ways, and yet does nothing to clean it up internally to improve their overall image, I don't take any claims of "well they don't represent us" seriously.
Forget here all the things Muslims actually do to condemn terrorism - the condemnations of it by some of the most respectable religious figures of Sunni Islam, the fact several of the major Muslim countries are constantly shooting/killing/arresting members of AQ and Hamas, and the fact millions of Muslims are quite well 'acclimated' in the West and have nothing to do with 'BEHEAD THE JUICE' folks.
Move along. Move along.
-
RD is making the the same mistake that many politicians do. Namely, that Hispanics are some monolithic entity that all think the same, have the same socioeconomic background, and the same political views. Politicians and various special interest groups use the blanket term of Hispanic or Latino to cover lot of ethnicities and nationalities. Then they pretend that they can pigeonhole all of them into one set of political views.
I am descended from Puerto Ricans, Spaniards, and dwellers of the British Isles. Demographically, I'm a Hispanic. In Arizona, no one would suspect it because of my light skin and red hair. (People form Miami or the Caribbean would be more likely to "spot me" as a Hispanic though.) Most people alive in my family today speak English as their first language, and only about half of us are conversant in Spanish. We don't run in the same circles as illegal aliens. What are we supposed to do to "regulate our own"?
I am not some big exception in the "Hispanic" world. There are lots of us with no ties to the illegal world. Hell, here in Arizona there are plenty of Hispanic families that have been here since before it was a territory, and they have been represented among the pro 1070 people.
-
If you tell someone who has nothing but the clothes on their back that you will give them a house, free food, and free education for their kids if they only vote for you, that person will say yes. Tell it to 12 million people, and 12 million people will say yes.
What are you supposed to do? Well you are in a unique position where you can go to rallies or political events if you choose and oppose the dependency-for-votes cycle and not automatically be called a racist. And that's another reason why the Left is so fond of open borders and bloated social programs. They have convinced most minorities that Republican=White Racist. You look at these Reconquista rallies and all the protests whenever there is some new legislation that cracks down on illegal immigration, and without fail it is spearheaded by Leftists organizers telling Hispanics that white conservatives are racist and just want to take away all the free goodies the Democrats give them. I'm glad you're here legally and consider yourself American. I, and conservatives, are not the ones who like breaking people into groups and pitting them against each other for votes. To me, you're just another self-sufficient American. You say that I makes the mistake of thinking of Hispanics as some monolithic entity? That is not the case. I am talking about illegals. Hispanics who are American legally as well as in mind and heart like you are NOT what I am talking about. I am talking about people who come here because they have been told that there is a whole bunch of free programs and services they can take advantage of without actually having to "become American". And when the time for amnesty comes, which it will, they are going to vote for the guys who are the best and giving away "free" stuff at the public's expense, the Democrats.
If you make someone dependent on your for their very livelihood, you got em.
In addition, look at the how blacks tend to vote. Almost entirely Democrat. Why? Because the Democrats played a 2-part game, and they played it well. They addicted the lower class blacks to the drug of Public assistance. And then they told the rest of the blacks that the White Republicans are racist and want to take away the generous and benevolent care the kind Democrats are giving their black brothers and sisters. Just look at California. A lot of blacks are actually conservative in belief, more than one would think. It was mainly the blacks turning out to vote that allowed the Californian ban on gay marriage to pass a few years back. Yet when voting for candidates? Democrats every time. Over the decades and generations, blacks have been tricked into thinking they need social programs to live. Of course they don't really, but once you give someone a cart full of free stuff, it's a hard thing to pass up in the future. Combined with a skillful campaign that the Left has waged for 50 years to convince minorities that Republican=White Racist, they have the black vote in their pocket, even if many blacks actually have a lot of conservative beliefs.
And now the Democrats are playing the same tried and true game with illegals. Addict them to free social services, and tell them Republicans are racists who want to take the goodies away.
-
Well you are in a unique position where you can go to rallies or political events if you choose and oppose the dependency-for-votes cycle and not automatically be called a racist.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
You've never actually seen a conservative black or Mexican stand against welfare or illegal immigration, have you? Although I suppse "race traitor" might be more in line with the common reaction.
-
The enemy is tribalism. Seeing individuals not as individuals but as members of a racial or ethnic or otherwise protected group as sanctioned by the State. That concept of de-individualization needs to be openly and publicly derided every chance we get. It is the protein of the Left.
-
there exists a certain demographic (cough alex jones) that wants to hear a certain world view very badly, and believe it or not they sometimes seem to practice selective hearing and reading. all in order to try to shade reality to fit their world view as opposed to adapting that world view to accommodate reality.
It sounds a lot like how anti-gunners behave. Even padding the statistics with things to make it seem worse than it actually is, such as adding suicides to how many deaths guns cause.
-
very similar even to the reluctance to loom at that which threatens that world view. and to the similar tendency to get carried away and use stats that are easily proven false or to misquote another study from an allied group. and the made up "facts take on a life of their own. you end up with curious linkages too. fols will quote something that was on a "respectable " site only to find out the "journalism" came from stormfront
-
The enemy is tribalism. Seeing individuals not as individuals but as members of a racial or ethnic or otherwise protected group as sanctioned by the State. That concept of de-individualization needs to be openly and publicly derided every chance we get. It is the protein of the Left.
only the left? >:D
the irony here is special :facepalm: :facepalm:
-
Did I say only the Left?
No, I didn't. But the Left's made an open religion of it with "diversity," "mutliculturalism," "affirmative action," and "disparate impact."
The Constitution isn't built to defend tribes and clans.
-
The Constitution isn't built to defend tribes and clans. am i mistaken in thinking you want it to defend yours? not the latinos?
-
If you tell someone who has nothing but the clothes on their back that you will give them a house, free food, and free education for their kids if they only vote for you, that person will say yes. Tell it to 12 million people, and 12 million people will say yes.
Well, I guess we shouldn't let illegal aliens register to vote. To register in AZ, you have to prove citizenship. (This law was denounced as racist and Xenophobic too.) :facepalm:
What are you supposed to do? Well you are in a unique position where you can go to rallies or political events if you choose and oppose the dependency-for-votes cycle and not automatically be called a racist.
As I mentioned, around here, because of my appearance, it would just be assumed that I am a racist anyway.
Your contention that "they don't police their own" is misinformed.
You are making a big assumption that there aren't people of all backgrounds in favor of 1070. The local news here have had man on the street interviews with plenty of obviously hispanic individuals that are in favor. Of course, this doesn't make it to the national news outlets, because that would be counter to the predetermined narrative that 1070 is a racist xenophobic law rammed through the legislature to appease AZ rednecks. The reality is that citizens of all nationalities don't want to live in a state that has a city with the world's second largest number of kidnappings, the country's second highest incidence of identity theft, and where shootouts between factions of illegals happen on a daily basis.
I am talking about people who come here because they have been told that there is a whole bunch of free programs and services they can take advantage of without actually having to "become American". And when the time for amnesty comes, which it will, they are going to vote for the guys who are the best and giving away "free" stuff at the public's expense, the Democrats.
Well, then we need to fight against amnesty. There will be plenty of legal immigrants against it. BTW, there are plenty of hispanics in our country legally that abhor welfare and socialism because they come from countries where that experiment didn't work. Many of these people hate the welfare state more than you could imagine.
Your characterization of blacks is also painted with an overly broad brush. According to many political scientists, GWB was able get elected and re-elected by engaging blacks and jews on issues that some of them cared about more than social programs or perceptions of racism. By engaging these groups on socially conservatives issues, he was able to peel off enough votes from the democratic party to pull off a win. This was in direct opposition the the GOP conventional wisdom that you are spouting that "Blacks will only vote for D's because they want their welfare."
As longeyes said, tribalism is the enemy. It allows demagogues and charlatans to hijack the political process. It ignores the fact that individuals each can have their own individual political outlook.
-
The Constitution isn't built to defend tribes and clans. am i mistaken in thinking you want it to defend yours? bot the latinos?
I would like the US government to help defend US citizens and its border.
-
But the Left's made an open religion of it with "diversity," "mutliculturalism,"
Culture bad, grrrr.
-
no, people coming to America to rebuild the cesspool they just left. BAD!
-
Yellow Peril (sometimes Yellow Terror) was a color metaphor for race that originated in the late nineteenth century with immigration of Chinese laborers to various Western countries, notably the United States, and later associated with the Japanese during the mid 20th century, due to Japanese military expansion. The term refers to the skin color of East Asians, and the belief that the mass immigration of Asians threatened white wages and standards of living.
Many sources credit Kaiser Wilhelm II with coining the phrase "Yellow Peril" (German: gelbe Gefahr) in September 1895. The Kaiser had a portrait of this title - depicting the Archangel Michael and an allegorial Germany leading a charge against an Asiatic threat represented by a golden Buddha - hung in all ships of the Hamburg America Line. It was ostensibly painted by the Kaiser himself.[1]
In 1898, the British writer M. P. Shiel published a short story serial entitled The Empress of the Earth. The later novel edition was named The Yellow Danger. Shiel's novel centers on the murder of two German missionaries in Kiau-Tschou in 1897 and features the Chinese villain, Dr. Yen How.
The phrase "yellow peril" was common in the U.S. newspapers owned by William Randolph Hearst[2]. It was also the title of a popular book by an influential U.S. religious figure, G.G. Rupert, who published The Yellow Peril; or, Orient vs. Occident in 1911. Based on the phrase "the kings from the East" in the Christian scriptural verse Revelation 16:12,[3] Rupert, who believed in the doctrine of British Israelism, claimed that China, India, Japan and Korea were attacking England and the U.S., but that Jesus Christ would stop them.[4]
"Pulp magazines in the 30s had a lot of yellow peril characters loosely based on Fu Manchu," says William F. Wu, a pioneer in Asian science fiction writing in the U.S. "Most were of Chinese descent, but because of the geopolitics at the time, a growing number of people were seeing Japan as a threat, too."
In his 1982 book The Yellow Peril: Chinese Americans in American fiction, 1850-1940, Wu theorizes that the fear of Asians dates back to Mongol invasion in the Middle Ages during the Mongol Empire. "The Europeans believed that Mongols were invading en masse, but actually, they were just on horseback and riding really fast," he writes. Most Europeans had never seen an Asian before, and the harsh contrast in language and physical appearance probably caused more skepticism than transcontinental immigrants did. "I think the way they looked had a lot to do with the paranoia," Wu says.[5]
Contents
[hide]
-
http://books.google.com/books?id=mN8KAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA553&lpg=PA553&dq=what+to+do+about+the+dago&source=bl&ots=u8f6otLbbY&sig=iSNOmiIX761ziaAjbwuuZTOAZh8&hl=en&ei=B5_pS62MB4OC8gbG79XkDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=what%20to%20do%20about%20the%20dago&f=false
and there is this
Catholics and Protestants kept their distance; intermarriage between Catholics and Protestants was uncommon, and strongly discouraged by both ministers and priests.[44]
Public schools used the King James Version of the Bible, which Catholics were forbidden to read.[45] One response was the creation of a Catholic parochial school system. These elementary and high schools as well as numerous Catholic colleges, allowed Irish youth to be educated without contact with public school teachers or students.
Prejudice against Irish Catholics in the US reached a peak in the mid-1850s with the Know Nothing Movement, which tried to oust Catholics from public office. The image was widespread of Irish drinking, fighting, ignoring their children, gambling, and crowding poorhouses.
New York Times want ad 1854–the only New York Times ad with NINA for men.
After 1860—and well into the 20th century—the Irish believed that Protestants refused to hire them, and claimed that "HELP WANTED - NO IRISH NEED APPLY" was in operation. They called these "the NINA signs." NINA signs were common in London in the early 1800s, and the memory of this discrimination in Britain was imported to the US. After 1860 the Irish sang songs (see illustration) about NINA signs, and these songs have had a deep impact on the Irish sense of discrimination. One NINA notice has been found in US history—the one shown in the New York Times ad of 1854, leading some historians to argue that actual job discrimination was minimal.[43]
Many Irish work gangs were hired by contractors to build canals, railroads, city streets and sewers across the country. In the South they underbid slave labor. One result was that small cities that served as railroad centers came to have large Irish populations.
[edit] Stereotypes
Irish Catholics were popular targets for stereotyping in the 19th century. According to historian George Potter, the media often stereotyped the Irish in America as being boss-controlled, violent (both among themselves and with those of other ethnic groups), voting illegally, prone to alcoholism, and dependent on street gangs that were often violent or criminal. Potter quotes contemporary newspaper images:
You will scarcely ever find an Irishman dabbling in counterfeit money, or breaking into houses, or swindling; but if there is any fighting to be done, he is very apt to have a hand in it." Even though Pat might "'meet with a friend and for love knock him down,'" noted a Montreal paper, the fighting usually resulted from a sudden excitement, allowing there was "but little 'malice prepense' in his whole composition." The Catholic Telegraph of Cincinnati in 1853, saying that the "name of 'Irish' has become identified in the minds of many, with almost every species of outlawry," distinguished the Irish vices as "not of a deep malignant nature," arising rather from the "transient burst of undisciplined passion," like "drunk, disorderly, fighting, etc., not like robbery, cheating, swindling, counterfeiting, slandering, calumniating, blasphemy, using obscene language, &c.[46]
The Irish had many humorists of their own, but were scathingly attacked in German American cartoons, especially those in Puck magazine from the 1870s to 1900. In addition, the cartoons of German American Thomas Nast were especially hostile; for example, he depicted the Irish-dominated Tammany Hall machine in New York City as a ferocious tige
-
Apples ≠ Oranges
-
The Constitution isn't built to defend tribes and clans. am i mistaken in thinking you want it to defend yours? not the latinos?
YES, you ARE mistaken. My interest is in individual rights, not in identifying, separating, or segregating by race or ethnicity. I don't consider "American" to be a tribe or a clan. Culture is a matter of values, not DNA.