It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
i see plenty of rhetoric from you too...like, for instance, your unwillingness to say "you(daedalus) are a biased, ignorant, racist asshole"...we both know you're talking about me, without actually talking about me...so let's quit pussyfooting, ok?
what I am saying, isn't motivated by ignorance, or "racism"*, it's motivated by first-hand experience with what these people bring with them, and what they do when they get here...
the kind of lawless, disrespectful people who violate our borders on a daily basis, are not the kind of people we need here.
obviously, you disagree...so what is your alternative?
additionally, i noticed you completely ignored my other posts to you....i can only assume that your lack of reply is a quiet concession of the associated points...
there is no racism
originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: Chrisfishenstein
people will forget about this by tomorrow
Like the VA scandal?
Notice how this immigration problem and ISIS kinda made it all go away?
originally posted by: sheepslayer247
Well, that's not an example of rhetoric...but whatever. Considering that it's ATS policy to go after the ball and not the player, it would not be wise to say such a thing whether I believe it or not. In fact, I was not actually referring to you specifically. There have been a few people in this thread that have made it seem like they may not like Mexicans.
Biased.....aren't we all?
That's funny because I deal with immigrants daily. My entire staff consists of Mexican immigrants. I'd like to know what these people "bring with them" and what they do when they get here. There may be some bad apples in the bunch, but my experience shows me that what they bring with them is their kids.....and when they get here, they work.
So what are you referring to?
I don't know what the answer is, frankly.
I do know that execution seems to be, well, a stupid thing to say.
I have to question the morality and intelligence of someone that wants to solve the immigration issue by just killing em.
If execution seems reasonable to you.....get some help. Seriously. You or others may be a threat to society at some point and I hope you aren't teaching your children such barbaric crap.
I'm sorry, could you point me to the post you want me to reply to? I must have missed it.
Very well, let's call it hatred for people of other cultures or colors out of ignorance and stupidity.
Why isn't congress doing something? Well, that's because they know that you can't simply deport every illegal immigrant. That's one reason why Reagan granted amnesty back in the 80's.
In the debates leading up to the 1986 IRCA, a sizable minority in Congress opposed any amnesty until the border was under control. They were overridden. The results were that the amnesty gave legal status to some 300,000 to 400,000 who had entered the U.S. illegally and claimed it fraudulently.
The federal government began legalizing almost three million illegal aliens 10 years ago, on May 5, 1987, wary of the fiscal liabilities of opening more public assistance programs to a population with high needs and low taxpaying power.
To ease the burden on the states, Washington closed some programs to the newly legalized for five years and reimbursed the states nearly $3.5 billion for some of their aid costs.
Was the concern of Congress, the White House, and many state and local leaders justified? A review of the evidence a decade later confirms that legalization indeed carried a high fiscal price tag — a total 10-year cost of $78.7 billion — with the indirect and downstream costs still accumulating. In the ten-year period ending in 1996, the amnestied population:
Accounted for an estimated $102.1 billion costs in current dollars in twenty federal, state, and local assistance programs and services.
Paid total taxes of $78 billion, for a ten-year fiscal deficit of $24 billion in the public assistance and services portion of the budget.
These are estimates of the direct costs only. There were, and will continue to be, significant indirect costs associated with the legalization of 2.7 million persons:
In ten years the United States has paid out $156.7 billion for the direct and indirect costs of the legalized population, but has received a little more than half that back in taxes — $78 billion. That figure would be substantially higher if expressed in 1996 dollars. The total fiscal deficit of $78.7 billion amounts to a government subsidy to each member of the 1987 legalized population of $29,148.
The legalized population has generated costs indirectly through displacement from jobs of U.S. residents, through the U.S. citizen children it creates, and through the undocumented minor children it brings to the United States.
Job Displacement: Displacement occurs when the addition of unskilled workers to a labor market causes employed workers to be laid off, work shorter hours or fewer weeks a year, spend longer periods of time in job searches, move to another labor market, or drop out of the labor force altogether. Wage depression is also often a result of the influx of low-expectation workers into an area. This study does not attempt to measure the wage depressing effects of amnestied workers, though falling wages can often be the trigger for replacement of established workers with less demanding newcomers.
The amnestied population brought little human capital. By 1992, just 36 percent of amnestied adults reported being able to speak English well. The figure for the Mexican majority was only 27 percent.
Only 28 percent of the legalized aliens over 24 were high school graduates, compared to 78 percent of native U.S. Hispanics; 55 percent of the amnesty adults had never eyen entered high school. Average wages for those legalized by the general amnesty working in private sector non-farm jobs in 1992 were nearly 16% lower than the national average.
In the ten years since amnesty the legalized population has received direct government benefits in 20 programs worth $102.1 billion, but paid total taxes of only $78 billion. Indirect costs associated with the legalized population such as job displacement and assistance and services to their minor children had reached $54.6 billion by the end of 1996. The total fiscal deficit on all direct and indirect costs is for the decade is $78.7 billion.
sure it is...it's a twist on the "if you don't agree with me, you're a racist" card..
and i asked you in this post what industry that might be....big surprise, you never answered.
you keep talking about how you work with immigrants....are they here legally or not
and yet you have no alternative you would like to share with the class
and they get executed
oh, how about this one?
what tax base? they're not paying taxes...and the money is leaving the country anyway...if anything, it will only IMPROVE the economy, as then we can have actual citizens doing the jobs, and paying taxes...
Yup. you don't get to profit, or prosper from committing a crime. return them home in the same state they arrived here...
Fair is fair....check everyone.
that being said...it's pretty easy to spot an illegal. or at least the worst ones are easy to spot...but still, check everyone.
there is a massive difference between deporting illegal aliens
And by the way, you do realize that the 1986 amnesty bill was a bipartisan bill endorsed and sponsored by democrats and republicans, right?
Those hopes were a major factor in the passage of IRCA. Another factor was the simple desire to end the long fight, to declare victory and go home. Lungren observed that “some people were just exhausted.”41 Said Mazzoli: “I think everyone wants to get something done.”42 The bill passed just before midnight, by a vote of 230-166. The tally showed 168 Democrats and 62 Republicans in favor, with 61 Democrats and 105 Republicans opposed.
In 1986 Congress finally did pass a bill — just barely — in October. A few weeks later, as President Reagan signed it into law, he hailed it as “the product of one of the longest and most difficult legislative undertakings of recent memory.
At one point in the 1986 debate, when the debate appeared to be deadlocked and the bill was declared dead, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino (D-N.J.) pleaded for action in tones that have often been heard among the Gang of Eight senators who engineered the immigration bill that passed the Senate in June.