Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / General / January 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Illegal Immigrants Inundate Hospitals

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Bunn E. Rabbit - 10 Jan 2005 23:47 GMT
Now I have to die for Bush's and PC illegals.  Never mind my higher
property taxes to pay the free array of social services while business
gets their cheap labor.  "Free Market", eh?

--
Keith

http://www.nj.com/news/times/index.ssf?/base/news-2/1105261605299220.xml

Illegal immigrants inundate hospitals
Sunday, January 09, 2005
By ANDREW D. SMITH
Staff Writer

New Jersey's escalating population of illegal immigrants is placing an
ever-growing burden on the state's hospitals, which expect to lose
$200 million this year on care to the underground community.

Doctors and administrators around the state are complaining that the
cost of treating illegal immigrants has forced them to delay the
purchase of life-saving technology or the addition of valuable staff.

And according to the New Jersey Hospital Association (NJHA) in West
Windsor, the burden will only increase unless state or federal
agencies step in and pay the bills.

"New Jersey hospitals generate about $15 billion in total annual
revenue, so people may assume that $200 million would have little
impact on the industry," said Sean Hopkins, the senior vice president
for health economics at the NJHA.

"However," Hopkins said, "even with all those revenues, the hospitals
in this state expect to generate a total net surplus of just $78
million, and some 40 percent of the hospitals in the state expect to
lose money.

"When you look at those tight margins, the $200 million figure
suddenly looks much more important," Hopkins said. "For some
hospitals, the money they spend on uncompensated care for undocumented
immigrants may force them to delay a big service or economize on
existing care."

The shadowy nature of illegal immigration has hindered efforts to
tally the number of illegal aliens or to calculate the exact costs
they impose upon the health-care system.

The federal government officially estimates 135,000 illegal immigrants
live in the state, but the Seton Hall University Institute on Work
believes the number may actually exceed 500,000. Estimates of the
number of illegal aliens in the country vary just as widely.

Given the uncertainty about how many immigrants live in the country
illegally, no one can say exactly how much they cost the nation's
hospitals.

However, given that New Jersey's illegal aliens cost hospitals an
estimated $200 million, the many millions of illegal aliens across the
nation surely cost several billion dollars per year. The hospitals in
just one city, Los Angeles, report that they lose $350 million a year
on illegal immigrants.

The federal government bears primary responsibility for enforcing the
nation's immigration laws, but it never agreed to foot the bill for
those who escape its grasp.

To compensate for the multibillion-dollar costs that illegal aliens
impose upon the nation's hospitals, for example, the federal
government is planning to spend just $200 million a year, nationwide,
for the next four years.

Hospitals in New Jersey expect to receive about $5.7 million a year -
about 3 percent of the costs they'll incur - during that period.

Hospitals can get additional reimbursement from the state government,
which pays some money for charity care given to state residents,
regardless of whether those residents live here legally.

In practice, however, charity care covers only a very small percentage
of the cost associated with illegal-immigrant health care.

To qualify for payments from the state, hospitals must convince their
patients to give extensive information about themselves and their
finances. Many illegal immigrants, for obvious reasons, decline to
provide such information. Many others provide false information.

To make matters worse, from the hospital viewpoint, charity care
historically pays out about a quarter for every dollar that hospitals
spend on a qualified patient. Payment levels are higher now, but
hospitals still get less than 50 cents on the dollar.

In other words, hospitals spend big money on providing free care, not
just to illegal aliens but to all types of residents.

Among those who qualify for charity care, hospitals in New Jersey
expect to spend $813 million this year and get $381 million back from
the state. In addition, hospitals expect to lose another $1.2 billion
treating those who do not qualify for state aid and do not pay their
bills.

Most of the money spent on illegal aliens falls into the second
category - bad debt. But hospitals do convince some immigrants to do
the paperwork needed to bring charity-care payments.

More government aid would, of course, help offset both types of
losses. However, officials in both Washington and Trenton refuse to
speculate about the possibility of expanding payments, while Hopkins
and his colleagues in West Windsor express little hope.

"I'm no insider. I have no idea what is happening in Trenton or
Washington," he said. "On the other hand I do know, just from reading
the paper, that the state government expects to face a pretty large
deficit in the next budget year and that the federal budget looks even
worse. In other words, I'm not exactly holding my breath."

Princeton HealthCare System, which runs the University Medical Center
at Princeton, provided a glimpse into how hospitals care for patients
who live here illegally.

Patients who visit either the Princeton HealthCare clinic or the
hospital emergency room must provide basic information, such as their
name and address and some proof of residence. That information helps
Princeton HealthCare figure out whether the patient qualifies either
for Medicaid or for state charity care.

Medicaid refuses to pay for illegal aliens.

Bruce Traub, the chief financial officer at Princeton HealthCare,
figures that even after accounting for government reimbursement, his
organization gives away about $4 million worth of care every year. Of
that, he estimates Princeton HealthCare spends somewhat less than
$400,000 specifically on illegal aliens.

"The cost of charity care affects every other aspect of our
operations," Traub said. "It affects our staffing levels. It affects
our maintenance expenditures. It affects our technology investments. .
. . To give you some perspective, we spend a total of about $4 million
each year on new technologies and maintaining the facilities, so an
extra $4 million, even an extra $400,000, would be a big deal."

The area's other hospitals either declined to comment about illegal
immigrants or provided a brief statement about their commitment to
care for all people, regardless of their immigration status or their
ability to pay.

A statement from Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital at Hamilton,
for example, reads: "We believe that everyone should have equal access
to quality health care regardless of their ability to pay. As a
nonprofit organization we finance charity care and other programs to
help those that cannot afford adequate medical care."

New Jersey's hospitals have little hope, beyond government payments,
for the number of illegal aliens who may need their care, even as that
number grows by the hour.

Recent data from U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement indicate
that more than 8,200 illegal immigrants sneak into the United States
every day. At that rate, some 3 million illegal aliens, most of them
Mexicans, will enter the country this year, adding to an underground
population that may already total 15 million.

Estimates, however, vary widely. Other analyses of government data
conclude that only 750,000 illegal immigrants arrive each year, while
the 2000 Census counted 8 million illegal immigrants.

The federal government employs just under 10,000 people to guard the
nation's 2,000-mile border with Mexico. In all, federal agents have
apprehended more than 1 million illegal immigrants in the past year,
but their efforts often go to waste.

The government has little room to detain immigrants between their
arrests and their deportation hearings, so it must release the vast
majority of the people it arrests and hope they return for future
hearings.

In a recent study by the Office of the Inspector General, fewer than
10 percent of all aliens ordered deported from the country ever got
the boot. The rest, who were released before trials they never
attended, eluded capture.

Even when the government does manage to deport people, many of them
simply return to this country, often in just a few days.

In California, which has far more illegal aliens than New Jersey, the
state medical association reports the cost of caring for illegal
immigrants has helped force 60 emergency rooms to close during the
past decade.

Those closures, in turn, have led to crowding at many of the others.
In big cities from Sacramento to San Diego, patients with minor
injuries often must wait hours for care.

The situation will likely get worse in the next few years.

The rate of closures is on the rise, according to reports from the
California Medical Association, and considering that some 80 percent
of the state's emergency rooms report that they now lose money,
largely because of the care they give away to illegal immigrants,
hundreds more emergency rooms may be at risk.

In Arizona, along the Mexican border, dozens of hospitals have cut
back on services to cover the money they lose by providing free care
to illegal immigrants. Administrators from one facility, the Southeast
Arizona Medical Center, told local and national publications that the
costs of caring for aliens drove them out of business.

At first glance, New Jersey's hospitals may seem capable of
alleviating many of their own problems with illegal aliens. Even
accounting for the fact that hospitals will not turn away a patient in
need of medical care, a quick call to some deporting authority would
theoretically ensure that no hospital would have to treat the same
illegal alien twice.

As it turns out, hospitals not only have no legal obligation to report
those who violate the nation's immigration law, they also lack the
right to make such reports voluntarily.

Federal patient privacy laws forbid New Jersey hospitals from telling
authorities about patients who break federal immigration laws.

This suits hospital officials just fine.

Doctors concede their obligation to notify the authorities when they
have reason to suspect violent crimes, but they oppose any measure
that would reverse current law and require them to turn in illegal
aliens.

"The law does require hospitals to notify authorities about every case
of wound or burn related to a weapon used in an act of aggression,"
said Ron Czajkowski, a spokesman for the hospital association.

"But the hospitals in this state are quite firm in their opposition to
any law that would require them to report immigration violations.

"Violence is one thing, but immigration is not really a crime. It's a
social phenomenon that happens to be illegal. Besides, if people
suspected that health-care providers would report them, they would not
seek medical care, which would be bad for them and could create a
public health menace."


         

_____

"Cosmic upheaval is not so moving as a little child pondering the death
of a sparrow in the corner of a barn." -Anouk Aimee, French Actor  
_____

"Death is better, a milder fate than tyranny", Aeschylus (525BC-456BC),
Agamemnon
_____

"I wear no Burka." - Mother Nature
   
----------
To send mail: remove hutch
Bill - 11 Jan 2005 00:15 GMT
> Now I have to die for Bush's and PC illegals.  Never mind my higher
> property taxes to pay the free array of social services while business
> gets their cheap labor.  "Free Market", eh?
>
> --
> Keith

Luke 10 may give you some comfort. It is the parable of the good Samaritan.

http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=10&version=31

Bill

> http://www.nj.com/news/times/index.ssf?/base/news-2/1105261605299220.xml
>
[quoted text clipped - 242 lines]
> ----------
> To send mail: remove hutch
Perfesser White - 11 Jan 2005 03:26 GMT
> > Now I have to die for Bush's and PC illegals.  Never mind my higher
> > property taxes to pay the free array of social services while business
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Luke 10 may give you some comfort. It is the parable of the good Samaritan.

Read it closely- the Good Samaritan didn't stop to help freeloaders,
opportunists, or invaders.

Perfesser White

> Bill
>
[quoted text clipped - 244 lines]
> > ----------
> > To send mail: remove hutch
Bill - 11 Jan 2005 06:22 GMT
>> > Now I have to die for Bush's and PC illegals.  Never mind my higher
>> > property taxes to pay the free array of social services while business
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Read it closely- the Good Samaritan didn't stop to help freeloaders,
> opportunists, or invaders.

I have read it many times. I don't think the Good Samaritan really asked about
these things - at least it was not noted in the Bible. Just a person in need.
So where do you get your information? But the point of the Samaritan was that
this was a person of a different country who stopped to help.

Bill

> Perfesser White
>
[quoted text clipped - 252 lines]
>               <><><><><><><>   The Worlds Uncensored News Source
> <><><><><><><><
Chadwick Stone? - 11 Jan 2005 07:12 GMT
> >> > Now I have to die for Bush's and PC illegals.  Never mind my higher
> >> > property taxes to pay the free array of social services while business
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> So where do you get your information? But the point of the Samaritan was that
> this was a person of a different country who stopped to help.

The only "help" required by those here illegally is the foot in the a.s to
"help" reintroduce them to their own country followed by the laying down of
mines and deployment of snipers along the border to "help" them remember
their proper place.

--

                         Chadwick Stone?

Formerly the AFA-B Sovereign Sockpuppet?
  "No longer anonymous but still immune"
           Usenet's most helpful netizen

    SovereignSockpuppet at Yahoo dot com
    Benevolent Order of the Pointy Stick
           Skepticult? ID: 581-00504-208
                A mean and nasty bastard
                I am the New World Order
Bill - 11 Jan 2005 07:43 GMT
> X-No-Archive: YES
>>
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> mines and deployment of snipers along the border to "help" them remember
> their proper place.

That is not consistent with Christian beliefs. For example, Luke 10. However,
if you wish an economic argument, immigration is necessary to support Social
Security - i.e. have more people paying in to replace the baby boomers going
out. What is the logic of your position - other than hate?

Bill
> --
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>                 A mean and nasty bastard
>                 I am the New World Order
Moderate Mammal - 11 Jan 2005 08:20 GMT
>> X-No-Archive: YES
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
>Security - i.e. have more people paying in to replace the baby boomers going
>out. What is the logic of your position - other than hate?

Doofus, the illegals are not paying taxes, using up social services
and destroying the culture of the United States at a net loss.  No
replacement is necessary. Crying "hate" does not negate the facts on
the matter.

--
Keith

>Bill
>> --
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>>                 A mean and nasty bastard
>>                 I am the New World Order

_____

"Cosmic upheaval is not so moving as a little child pondering the death
of a sparrow in the corner of a barn." -Anouk Aimee, French Actor  
_____

"Death is better, a milder fate than tyranny", Aeschylus (525BC-456BC),
Agamemnon
_____

"I wear no Burka." - Mother Nature
   
----------
To send mail: remove hutch
Bill - 11 Jan 2005 08:43 GMT
>>> X-No-Archive: YES
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
>
> --

Why do you find it necessary to call people names. But I do agree with you
point that the illegals should be made legal so that they pay taxes. And in
what way are they destroying the culture?

Bill

> Keith
>>
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> ----------
> To send mail: remove hutch
Moderate Mammal - 11 Jan 2005 08:59 GMT
>>>> X-No-Archive: YES
>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 40 lines]
>
>Why do you find it necessary to call people names.

Calling someone a doofus is mild in comparison to the accusation of
"hate".  

>But I do agree with you
>point that the illegals should be made legal so that they pay taxes.

So we can all make 5 bucks an hour while CEO's get 300 million dollar
bonuses?

>And in
>what way are they destroying the culture?

The gangs, the destruction of whole towns, the spanish only
nonsense...  Why do you think America works?  It's because we have a
_culture_.  Who going to run the breast cancer gala when the culture
breaks down?  Who's going to run the towns after Americans are chased
out because of gangs, rape, other crime, depressed wages, loss of
jobs, high rents, environmental destruction and no one speaks English?

www.google.com  Type in "illegal immigration" and educate yourself.

--
Keith

>Bill
>
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
>> ----------
>> To send mail: remove hutch

_____

"Cosmic upheaval is not so moving as a little child pondering the death
of a sparrow in the corner of a barn." -Anouk Aimee, French Actor  
_____

"Death is better, a milder fate than tyranny", Aeschylus (525BC-456BC),
Agamemnon
_____

"I wear no Burka." - Mother Nature
   
----------
To send mail: remove hutch
Bill - 11 Jan 2005 09:20 GMT
>>>>> X-No-Archive: YES
>>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 49 lines]
> Calling someone a doofus is mild in comparison to the accusation of
> "hate".

Your point is fair.

>>But I do agree with you
>>point that the illegals should be made legal so that they pay taxes.
>
> So we can all make 5 bucks an hour while CEO's get 300 million dollar
> bonuses?

I don't understand that at all. The minimum wage is higher than that. "All"
does not enter into it because most people make above the minimum. And what do
CEOs have to do with it.
>>And in
>>what way are they destroying the culture?
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> --
> Keith

I just don't accept that that is true. Why would I stop speaking English for
example. Or you.

Around here there are some Spanish gangs. Also black ones. Also White ones. I
don't see any takeover or anything like that. Provide some specific evidence
to support your claim rather then saying "look in Google"

Bill

>>Bill
>>
[quoted text clipped - 44 lines]
> ----------
> To send mail: remove hutch
Chadwick Stone? - 11 Jan 2005 09:00 GMT
> >>> X-No-Archive: YES
> >>>>
> >>>> "Perfesser White" <perfesser_white@whiteuniv.org> wrote in message

news:perfesser_white-DE9952.22331310012005@cosmos.uncensored-news.com...

> >>>> >> > Now I have to die for Bush's and PC illegals.  Never mind my higher
> >>>> >> > property taxes to pay the free array of social services while
[quoted text clipped - 39 lines]
> Why do you find it necessary to call people names. But I do agree with you
> point that the illegals should be made legal

No, that would be rewarding their criminal behavior and caving to Mexico's
agenda of sending them here.

> so that they pay taxes. And in
> what way are they destroying the culture?

Wage depression, increasing unemployment among legal citizens, consumption
of social services, and contributing to overpopulation on the socio-economic
front as well posing an ever increasing terrorist threat.

Signature

                         Chadwick Stone?

Formerly the AFA-B Sovereign Sockpuppet?
  "No longer anonymous but still immune"
           Usenet's most helpful netizen

    SovereignSockpuppet at Yahoo dot com
    Benevolent Order of the Pointy Stick
           Skepticult? ID: 581-00504-208
                A mean and nasty bastard
                I am the New World Order

Bill - 11 Jan 2005 09:25 GMT
> X-No-Archive: YES
>>
[quoted text clipped - 60 lines]
> No, that would be rewarding their criminal behavior and caving to Mexico's
> agenda of sending them here.

I don't think the former is the goal, but perhaps an effect. But we would be
better off. And Mexico's agenda is irrelivant.
>> so that they pay taxes. And in
>> what way are they destroying the culture?
>
> Wage depression, increasing unemployment among legal citizens, consumption
> of social services, and contributing to overpopulation on the socio-economic
> front as well posing an ever increasing terrorist threat.

You have just made these claims with no support. Please support your argument.
Wages in the US have been going up and unemployment going down. I agree with
you if you are talking about illegal Arabs and terrorism but what support do
you have, for example, for illegal Mexicans.

Bill
Chadwick Stone? - 11 Jan 2005 10:27 GMT
> > X-No-Archive: YES
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 63 lines]
> I don't think the former is the goal, but perhaps an effect. But we would be
> better off. And Mexico's agenda is irrelivant.

Mexico's agenda is very much relevant.  By sending their poor to the U.S.
they are not taking responsibility for their own people.

> >> so that they pay taxes. And in
> >> what way are they destroying the culture?
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> you if you are talking about illegal Arabs and terrorism but what support do
> you have, for example, for illegal Mexicans.

http://fairus.org
http://www.fairus.org/ImmigrationIssueCenters/ImmigrationIssueCentersList.cfm?c=15
http://www.fairus.org/ImmigrationIssueCenters/ImmigrationIssueCenters.cfm?ID=121
1&c=15

http://www.fairus.org/ImmigrationIssueCenters/ImmigrationIssueCenters.cfm?ID=120
9&c=15

http://www.fairus.org/ImmigrationIssueCenters/ImmigrationIssueCentersList.cfm?c=17
http://www.fairus.org/ImmigrationIssueCenters/ImmigrationIssueCentersList.cfm?c=13

--

                         Chadwick Stone?

Formerly the AFA-B Sovereign Sockpuppet?
  "No longer anonymous but still immune"
           Usenet's most helpful netizen

    SovereignSockpuppet at Yahoo dot com
    Benevolent Order of the Pointy Stick
           Skepticult? ID: 581-00504-208
                A mean and nasty bastard
                I am the New World Order
Bill - 11 Jan 2005 10:45 GMT
> X-No-Archive: YES
>>
[quoted text clipped - 105 lines]
>
> --

All of this is just claims by a biased organization. It does not provide
support. They say they did an analysis and here are the results. Where is the
support for terrorism in particluar so we don't have to debate many things at
once.

Bill

>                          Chadwick Stone?
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>                 A mean and nasty bastard
>                 I am the New World Order
Chadwick Stone? - 11 Jan 2005 11:17 GMT
> > X-No-Archive: YES
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> "Perfesser White" <perfesser_white@whiteuniv.org> wrote in message

news:perfesser_white-DE9952.22331310012005@cosmos.uncensored-news.com...

> >> >> >>>> >> "Bunn E. Rabbit" <BunnERabbit@verizon.hutch.net> wrote in
> > message
[quoted text clipped - 88 lines]
> >
> > http://fairus.org

http://www.fairus.org/ImmigrationIssueCenters/ImmigrationIssueCentersList.cfm?c=15

http://www.fairus.org/ImmigrationIssueCenters/ImmigrationIssueCenters.cfm?ID=121
1&c=15


http://www.fairus.org/ImmigrationIssueCenters/ImmigrationIssueCenters.cfm?ID=120
9&c=15


http://www.fairus.org/ImmigrationIssueCenters/ImmigrationIssueCentersList.cfm?c=17

http://www.fairus.org/ImmigrationIssueCenters/ImmigrationIssueCentersList.cfm?c=13

> > --
>
> All of this is just claims by a biased organization. It does not provide
> support. They say they did an analysis and here are the results. Where is the
> support for terrorism in particluar so we don't have to debate many things at
> once.

Their data comes from the INS and other federal sources, and everything I've
cited is covered by that site.

--

                         Chadwick Stone?

Formerly the AFA-B Sovereign Sockpuppet?
  "No longer anonymous but still immune"
           Usenet's most helpful netizen

    SovereignSockpuppet at Yahoo dot com
    Benevolent Order of the Pointy Stick
           Skepticult? ID: 581-00504-208
                A mean and nasty bastard
                I am the New World Order
Bill - 11 Jan 2005 12:02 GMT
> X-No-Archive: YES
>
> Their data comes from the INS and other federal sources, and everything I've
> cited is covered by that site.
>
> --

Again it is the analysis of the data that counts. Please provide a govt.
source that suggests that illegal immigration (other than Arab) leads to
terrorism. Don't just say it is in there somewhere.

Bill

>                          Chadwick Stone?
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>                 A mean and nasty bastard
>                 I am the New World Order
Chadwick Stone? - 11 Jan 2005 12:45 GMT
> > X-No-Archive: YES
> >
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> source that suggests that illegal immigration (other than Arab) leads to
> terrorism. Don't just say it is in there somewhere.

Common sense demands you ask how the 9/11 terrorists got into the country.
It certainly wasn't through any legal means.

You simply don't want to accept the analysis because it contradicts your
globalist views.

--

                         Chadwick Stone?

Formerly the AFA-B Sovereign Sockpuppet?
  "No longer anonymous but still immune"
           Usenet's most helpful netizen

    SovereignSockpuppet at Yahoo dot com
    Benevolent Order of the Pointy Stick
           Skepticult? ID: 581-00504-208
                A mean and nasty bastard
                I am the New World Order
mariposas morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges - 11 Jan 2005 13:00 GMT
> Common sense demands you ask how the 9/11 terrorists got into the country.
> It certainly wasn't through any legal means.

now i know youre simply trolling

arf meow arf

cthulu loves you
he loves the little children
with ketchup please
Kurt Ullman - 11 Jan 2005 13:04 GMT
>Common sense demands you ask how the 9/11 terrorists got into the country.
>It certainly wasn't through any legal means.

 Most of them got in legally through tourist visas or student
visas.
       The 9/11Commission Report states (p. 237):

   The muscle hijackers began arriving in the United States in late
April 2001. In most cases they traveled in pairs on tourist visas
and entered the United States in Orlando or Miami, Florida;
Washington D.C.; or New York. Those arriving in Florida were
assisted by Atta and Shehhi, while Hazmi and Hanjour took care of
the rest. By the end of June, 14 of the 15 muscle hijackers had
crossed the Atlantic.
   Of the Big Four (my designation), three were here on tourist
visas and one on an expired student visa.

   

--------------------------------------------------------
They say Jesus will find you wherever you go
But when He'll coming looking for you, they don't know
In the meantime, keep your profile low.
      -Warren Zevon
Chadwick Stone? - 11 Jan 2005 13:21 GMT
> >Common sense demands you ask how the 9/11 terrorists got into the country.
> >It certainly wasn't through any legal means.
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>     Of the Big Four (my designation), three were here on tourist
> visas and one on an expired student visa.

Hmmm... I was under the impression they were here with false credentials.
Okay, well, that still doesn't diminish national security concerns:

http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_6213.shtml
...To quote Bonner: "Think about it. If an impoverished, uneducated Mexican
can come wandering across the border unchallenged, consider how much easier
it is for a well-financed, well-trained terrorist to do exactly the same
thing"...

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16509
...Roughly 60,000 illegal immigrants designated as 'other-than-Mexican,' or
OTMs, were detained last year along the U.S.-Mexico border, including a
sizable number from Arab and Muslim countries. And if recent reports are any
indication, they may be getting some troubling new help in their efforts to
enter the United States.

In a December 4 incident that received scant media attention, a Bangladeshi
Muslim man named Fakhrul Islam was among a group of 13 illegal aliens
arrested near Brownsville, Texas, just across the border from Mexico. Border
Patrol agents have said that one of the men detained along with Islam was a
member of Mara Salvatrucha, a violent Salvadoran criminal gang with more
than 300,000 members across Central and North America, including powerful
enterprises in several major U.S. cities...

http://www.washingtondispatch.com/article_10648.shtml
...The southern border of the United States is a sieve through which passes
illegal Mexicans looking for work, illegals from nations who have made their
way to Mexico, Chechen terrorists with ties to Al Qaeda and anyone else who
cannot get into the United States easily because of the crack down at
airports and legal border crossings...

Signature

                         Chadwick Stone?

Formerly the AFA-B Sovereign Sockpuppet?
  "No longer anonymous but still immune"
           Usenet's most helpful netizen

    SovereignSockpuppet at Yahoo dot com
    Benevolent Order of the Pointy Stick
           Skepticult? ID: 581-00504-208
                A mean and nasty bastard
                I am the New World Order

Bill - 11 Jan 2005 13:21 GMT
> X-No-Archive: YES
>>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> Common sense demands you ask how the 9/11 terrorists got into the country.
> It certainly wasn't through any legal means.

No your argument was that Mexican's were a terrorist threat. If you wish to
make an argument that porus borders are a threat I would not disagree. But
that is not the point you made. Please support the point you made rather than
changing subjects.

> You simply don't want to accept the analysis because it contradicts your
> globalist views.
>
> --

No it is because the organization has an admitted bias. I've asked you to
provide govt. sources, which you claim exist, to support your argument. You
have failed to do so.

Bill

>                          Chadwick Stone?
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>                 A mean and nasty bastard
>                 I am the New World Order
H. Reader - 11 Jan 2005 22:19 GMT
>> X-No-Archive: YES
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> No your argument was that Mexican's were a terrorist threat.

   The damage done to this country by millions of Mexicans is
a terrorist's dream.  Mexicans cost us billions of dollars every
year in health, education, and welfare.  They're ruining
our hospitals and schools.  They're disrupting our politics
with ethnic demagoguery.  I mean ... where do you live?
The middle of North Dakota?
dsharavi@hotmail.com - 11 Jan 2005 23:29 GMT
>The damage done to this country by millions of Mexicans is
>a terrorist's dream.  Mexicans cost us billions of dollars every
>year in health, education, and welfare.

In 1992, the cost to taxpayers of illegal immmigration from Mexico was
$10.1 BILLION. Imagine what taxpayers are shelling out today.

>They're ruining our hospitals and schools. They're disrupting our
politics
>with ethnic demagoguery.

Illegals also constitute a health threat.

>I mean ... where do you live?
>The middle of North Dakota?

Probably not in California, Oregon, Arizona, New Mexico, or Texas.
Deborah
Bill - 12 Jan 2005 00:58 GMT
>>> X-No-Archive: YES
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> with ethnic demagoguery.  I mean ... where do you live?
> The middle of North Dakota?

Actually there are a lot of Mexicans around where I live. I find them to be
nice people. And I don't accept your claims on cost. They pick crops, etc.
that contribute to the economy, That, in turn, creates jobs up the line.
Growers say they would go out of business without them - because Americans
would not work for those wages and then whole industries would move to other
countries.

Bill
H. Reader - 12 Jan 2005 06:56 GMT
>>>> X-No-Archive: YES
>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> Actually there are a lot of Mexicans around where I live. I find them to be nice people. And I don't accept your
> claims on cost.

   They aren't my claims.  They're the claims of studies done by the GAO,
by Professor Borjas of Harvard, by Professor Huddle of Rice, and by
every other study, aside from the Cato Institute study, done in the past
15 years.

> They pick crops, etc. that contribute to the economy,

   What do you mean they "contribute to the economy?"  They contribute
to the economies of the unscrupulous employers who hire them.  They
cost the rest of us billions of dollars every year.  And exactly what
crops are being picked by the millions of Mexicans in Phoenix, Dallas,
Houston, Chicago, New York, and other big cities?

> That, in turn, creates jobs up the line. Growers say they would go out of business without them

   That doesn't strike you as a self-serving declaration by
the employers of illegals?

> - because Americans would not work for those wages

   Right.  And when the flood of labor dissapates, the wages
rise and Americans work.  Problem?

>and then whole industries would move to other countries.

   Nonsense.  The economy comes into a balance we once
enjoyed, when working people could earn a decent living.
Your arguments are similiar to those made by slave owners.
Furthermore, mechanization -- harvesting machines -- is
a whole industry that isn't being developed because of
the huge availability of cheap labor.  How many good
jobs in a potentially huge industry to you estimate dont't
exist because of cheap Mexican labor?
Bill - 12 Jan 2005 08:00 GMT
.

>>>    The damage done to this country by millions of Mexicans is
>>> a terrorist's dream.  Mexicans cost us billions of dollars every
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> every other study, aside from the Cato Institute study, done in the past
> 15 years.

You might be right on cost. It is just that I do not take your word for it.

>> They pick crops, etc. that contribute to the economy,
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> crops are being picked by the millions of Mexicans in Phoenix, Dallas,
> Houston, Chicago, New York, and other big cities?

Someone in Calif. picks lettice. From there it goes on a truck and is sold by
a farmer. The farmer in turn sells it to someone else. Finally to a
supermarket. Finally to a customer. All along the line someone makes money and
in the end the customer gets a good deal.

Why did you ask

> exactly what
> crops are being picked by the millions of Mexicans in Phoenix, Dallas,
> Houston, Chicago, New York, and other big cities?

I never claimed that all were picking crops, Only some.

>> That, in turn, creates jobs up the line. Growers say they would go out of
>> business without them
>
>    That doesn't strike you as a self-serving declaration by
> the employers of illegals?

Could be true also.

>> - because Americans would not work for those wages
>
>    Right.  And when the flood of labor dissapates, the wages
> rise and Americans work.  Problem?

Yes because that is not what will happen. Jobs will move South where things
are cheaper and less Americans will work.

>>and then whole industries would move to other countries.
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> jobs in a potentially huge industry to you estimate dont't
> exist because of cheap Mexican labor?

You claim that things would be better because of hypothetical machines which
do not exist. You have no way to support that.

Bill
H. Reader - 13 Jan 2005 00:48 GMT
> .
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> You might be right on cost. It is just that I do not take your word for it.

   The cost is so well and long established as to be silly to dispute.

>>> They pick crops, etc. that contribute to the economy,
>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> it to someone else. Finally to a supermarket. Finally to a customer. All along the line someone makes money and
> in the end the customer gets a good deal.

   Thanks for elaborating on the obvious.  Now tell us, why should illegals
be involved in any of the process?  by the way, bank robbers, using your
logic, also contribute to the economy when they spend the money they've
stolen.

> Why did you ask
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> I never claimed that all were picking crops, Only some.

   Right.  How many?  One, two percent of them?

>>> That, in turn, creates jobs up the line. Growers say they would go out of business without them
>>
>>    That doesn't strike you as a self-serving declaration by
>> the employers of illegals?
>
> Could be true also.

   Frankly, it's self-serving nonsense.

>>> - because Americans would not work for those wages
>>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Yes because that is not what will happen. Jobs will move South where things are cheaper and less Americans will
> work.

   Jobs will move south?  Not if the government does its job of
representing the people instead of corporations.

>>>and then whole industries would move to other countries.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> You claim that things would be better because of hypothetical machines which do not exist.

   As a matter of fact, the "hypothetical machines" do exist as prototypes with
patents.

>You have no way to support that.

   So far, your arguments amount to silly and wildly elborate rationalizations
for the presence of millions of illegal aliens in this country.  I can't imagine
why any American, unless he's an unscrupulous employer or just
a simpleton misplacing his compassion, would want this country
full of illegals, or for that matter, the million legal immigrants who
arrive here each year.  So which are you, unscrupulous employer
or simpleton?
Bill - 13 Jan 2005 07:17 GMT
>> .
>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 95 lines]
> arrive here each year.  So which are you, unscrupulous employer
> or simpleton?

I see. Now you have decided name calling is your best argument.

You are a simpleton. So take that! :)

Bill
H. Reader - 13 Jan 2005 20:20 GMT
>>> .
>>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 93 lines]
>
> You are a simpleton. So take that! :)

   I merely asked you a question.
Bill - 13 Jan 2005 22:21 GMT
>>>> .
>>>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 104 lines]
>
>    I merely asked you a question.

No merely about it. You asked "So which are you, unscrupulous employer
or simpleton?"

Prove those are the only two conclusions. :)

Bill
H. Reader - 13 Jan 2005 23:57 GMT
>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 100 lines]
>
> Prove those are the only two conclusions. :)

   You're kind of doing it for me, Bill.
Bill - 14 Jan 2005 08:58 GMT
>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 112 lines]
>
>    You're kind of doing it for me, Bill.

I see back to name calling I think. Otherwise explain.

Bill
John Que - 14 Jan 2005 11:10 GMT
>     Jobs will move south?  Not if the government does its job of
> representing the people instead of corporations.

Ha ha. Jobs are going South. Even Ag jobs. Asparagus growing
has gone to Peru. The government represents the corporate
entities.

> >>>and then whole industries would move to other countries.
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>     As a matter of fact, the "hypothetical machines" do exist as prototypes with
>  patents.

They are around on paper or as prototypes but they often
damage the fruit or are wasteful. And they
don't come cheap. It vastly simpler to hire human
hands and back especially for small and medium
operations. It is a fair bet in Peru they pick asparagus
by hand with the pay being very low.
Tiny Human Ferret - 12 Jan 2005 20:22 GMT
>>>>X-No-Archive: YES
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
> would not work for those wages and then whole industries would move to other
> countries.

Whole industries _have_ moved to other countries. First they moved to
Canada, where they got workers of quality about the same or better than
they got from Americans, for slightly less costs. Then they moved to
Mexico, where they got comparable workers (in certain trades) to
Americans, for far less cost. Then they discovered that they could get
practically-cost-free near-slave labor costs in China, and that is where
they've gone to now.

It's simply that capital goes wherever it can get the most work done for
the least cost. If it takes slave labor to get lowest cost, they'll go
where slavery is legal. But all that really happens is this: chasing
after that "bottom dollar", countries are abandoned which have laws
enforcing liberty and justice. In the meantime, illegal aliens give
incentive to the remaining industries to circumvent the laws enforcing
liberty and justice, and before long, everyone is clamoring for the
repeal of liberty and justice just so they can have a job, any job.
Well, it couldn't happen without people like you. If you feel hated it's
because you've got good perceptions about how other people feel about
your kind.

Signature

The incapacity of a weak and distracted government may
often assume the appearance, and produce the effects,
of a treasonable correspondence with the public enemy.
                  --Gibbon, "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"

Chadwick Stone? - 12 Jan 2005 01:32 GMT
> >> X-No-Archive: YES
> >>>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> with ethnic demagoguery.  I mean ... where do you live?
> The middle of North Dakota?

He's a torll.  Note the tactics of denial and evasion.  Best to consign him
to the killfile.

--

                         Chadwick Stone?

Formerly the AFA-B Sovereign Sockpuppet?
  "No longer anonymous but still immune"
           Usenet's most helpful netizen

    SovereignSockpuppet at Yahoo dot com
    Benevolent Order of the Pointy Stick
           Skepticult? ID: 581-00504-208
                A mean and nasty bastard
                I am the New World Order
Bill - 12 Jan 2005 01:53 GMT
> X-No-Archive: YES
>>
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
>
> --

Wow are you characterizing yourself.

Bill

>                          Chadwick Stone?
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>                 A mean and nasty bastard
>                 I am the New World Order
Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy) - 12 Jan 2005 04:00 GMT
>I mean ... where do you live?
>The middle of North Dakota?

I live about as far away from Mexico as you can get, and still be in
Norte America, and we just had a guy get busted, hauling a carload of
illegals to a construction site.
--
V.G.

Change pobox dot alaska to gci.
"Actually the Law of Conservation of Energy proves there's free energy." - Professor Alexa connects some brand new dots.

Sarcasm is my sword, Apathy is my shield.
H. Reader - 12 Jan 2005 06:57 GMT
>>I mean ... where do you live?
>>The middle of North Dakota?
>
> I live about as far away from Mexico as you can get, and still be in
> Norte America, and we just had a guy get busted, hauling a carload of
> illegals to a construction site.

   I'm sorry to hear that.  I guess no place is immune anymore.
Tiny Human Ferret - 12 Jan 2005 20:27 GMT
>>>I mean ... where do you live?
>>>The middle of North Dakota?
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>     I'm sorry to hear that.  I guess no place is immune anymore.

Hell, the northamerican deep sea fishing fleet crews have largely been
replaced by illegal aliens, and here in Maryland, they're griping about
how they can't get any oyster-shuckers or crab-pickers. See today's
_Washington Post_ if you're interested. Seems that the annual allotment
of H-2B workers was signed up by January 3rd.

They'll almost certainly just hire on whatever illegals aren't hired for
the nearby chicken factories.

Personally I'd rather they just collapsed the Chesapeake fishing
industries and let the fish and crab and shellfish stocks replenish
themselves. If they hadn't overfished the Bay to the point where they
have no operating margins, they'd be able to support the traditional
Maryland Watermen at living wages, instead of stooping to hiring
illegals because they can't import enough legal seasonal workers.

--klaatu, crabs and oysters are overrated anyway

Signature

The incapacity of a weak and distracted government may
often assume the appearance, and produce the effects,
of a treasonable correspondence with the public enemy.
                  --Gibbon, "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"

Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy) - 13 Jan 2005 03:40 GMT
>Hell, the northamerican deep sea fishing fleet crews have largely been
>replaced by illegal aliens, and here in Maryland, they're griping about
>how they can't get any oyster-shuckers or crab-pickers. See today's
>_Washington Post_ if you're interested. Seems that the annual allotment
>of H-2B workers was signed up by January 3rd.

I know we have shitloads of miscellaneous Hispanics in our canneries,
but I couldn't even estimate how many are illegal.
--
V.G.

Change pobox dot alaska to gci.
"Bush things is he never attends a Funderal - He will live forever!" - Donnieboi Ferrt explains... something.

Sarcasm is my sword, Apathy is my shield.
John Que - 14 Jan 2005 11:17 GMT
> I know we have shitloads of miscellaneous Hispanics in our canneries,
> but I couldn't even estimate how many are illegal.
> --
> V.G.

What year was the last amnesty? I heard talk of another.
With Congress this is like the social security lock box....
......................................................LOL
Biffa - 12 Jan 2005 08:58 GMT
>>I mean ... where do you live?
>>The middle of North Dakota?
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> illegals to a construction site.
> --
So who would you hold responsible in this situation.
The illegals who are actually trying to earn money, or the employer who is
trying to run his business on the cheap by employing these illegals.
This kind of situation puts into perspective exactly what is going on in
America.
Far from being the stereo-typical lazy race, these Mexicans actually WANT to
work and it is the business leaders who employ them to the detriment of the
American worker who are encouraging them to cross the border in order to
gain cheap labour.

America was literally built on immigration and slave labour.
Much of America's railways were built by Chinese immigrants
Only now are that American trailer-park trash sitting on their a.ses and
complaining that they can't get a job because of these immigrants who are
willing to work for less money, and usually work twice as hard.

You can't have it both ways.

Just how often is it that an American 'captain of industry' is ever
prosecuted for employing these Mexican immigrants illegally.
nospam@pacbell.net - 12 Jan 2005 20:37 GMT
>Just how often is it that an American 'captain of industry' is ever
>prosecuted for employing these Mexican immigrants illegally.

Often enough.  I worked for a company which employed an illegal alien.  When the
INS came to get him, the president of the company panicked and fired everyone in
the company who had an accent.  

Ora
H. Reader - 13 Jan 2005 00:53 GMT
>>>I mean ... where do you live?
>>>The middle of North Dakota?
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> America was literally built on immigration and slave labour.

   Over the history of the US, the number of immigrants living
here amount to an average of about five percent.  How exactly
did five percent of the population build America?

> Much of America's railways were built by Chinese immigrants

   No, some, in the West, were built by Chinese laborers, many
of whom returned to China and weren't immigrants at all.

> Only now are that American trailer-park trash sitting on their a.ses and complaining that they can't get a job
> because of these immigrants who are willing to work for less money, and usually work twice as hard.

   You are a simpleton, aren't you.

> You can't have it both ways.
>
> Just how often is it that an American 'captain of industry' is ever prosecuted for employing these Mexican
> immigrants illegally.

   The American captains of industry who hire illegals should
be hanged from lamp posts.
dsharavi@hotmail.com - 13 Jan 2005 00:59 GMT
> > So who would you hold responsible in this situation.
> > The illegals who are actually trying to earn money, or the employer who is trying to run his business on the
> > cheap by employing these illegals.

The employer.

> > This kind of situation puts into perspective exactly what is going on in America.
> > Far from being the stereo-typical lazy race, these Mexicans actually WANT to work and it is the business leaders
> > who employ them to the detriment of the American worker who are encouraging them to cross the border in order to
> > gain cheap labour.

Sure. Go into some local welfare office, and see all the hard working
Mexicans.

> > America was literally built on immigration and slave labour.

Baloney.

>Over the history of the US, the number of immigrants living
>here amount to an average of about five percent.  How exactly
>did five percent of the population build America?

They didn't.

>>Much of America's railways were built by Chinese immigrants

The Irish claim they were built by Irish immigrants.

>No, some, in the West, were built by Chinese laborers, many
>of whom returned to China and weren't immigrants at all.

>>Only now are that American trailer-park trash sitting on their a.ses and complaining that they can't get a job
> > because of these immigrants who are willing to work for less money, and usually work twice as hard.

Tell that to all the Oregonians who DON'T live in trailer parks and are
still out of work.

>You are a simpleton, aren't you.

That's obvious.

>>You can't have it both ways.
> > Just how often is it that an American 'captain of industry' is ever prosecuted for employing these Mexican
> > immigrants illegally.

Never.

>     The American captains of industry who hire illegals should
> be hanged from lamp posts.
They should be find $50,000 to $100,000 for every illegal they hire.
Tiny Human Ferret - 13 Jan 2005 03:28 GMT
<snips>

>>Just how often is it that an American 'captain of industry' is ever prosecuted for employing these Mexican
>>immigrants illegally.
>
>     The American captains of industry who hire illegals should
> be hanged from lamp posts.

No no no. They're poor pathetic mentally-ill deluded insane people
driven by uncontrollable addiction to greed and gambling with other
people's livelihoods.

A lifetime of electroshock therapy combined with therapy of immersion
without escape into the lifestyles of the exploited is the humane
approach. And if they ever think they've finally revised their attitude,
a few years of homelessness combined with being beaten for being
homeless (by the illegal-alien employees of the importers of
union-busting scab labor) should finally adjust their attitude to
something resembling sanity. Then when they realize the enormity of what
they've done, they're sane enough for trial. Bust and prosecute them to
the fullest extent of the law, at that point. Televise their sentencing
to cheering crowds and force them to watch tapes of this for the rest of
their lives in jail. But to remain humane, allow them the option of
taking the hypo out of the wall and firing themselves up with a
deathshot to demonstrate that they've finally changed from sociopath to
human, and then they can be laid in their graves by clergy that won't
feel compelled to spit on their corpses and on anyone who would actually
mourn them.

By the way, did I mention that there's no better time for a revolution
than the Vernal Equinox?

there's a reason they call it "March".

Signature

The incapacity of a weak and distracted government may
often assume the appearance, and produce the effects,
of a treasonable correspondence with the public enemy.
                  --Gibbon, "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"

John Que - 14 Jan 2005 11:36 GMT
> <snips>
>
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
>
> there's a reason they call it "March".

Now now, Walmart is all about granny greeters at
the door and ra ra sessions for the workers that
are all wrapped in red, white, and blue.
They would never sell goods from Vietnam or
Red China;-)  Walmart top brass talk about
the "China price" which if you can't match
you don't sell wholesale to them.

Of course, once your done killing the parasite class, you are left
with a new upper class of predators who haven't yet evolved into
the slightly less vicious parasite class. That can take at least
a couple of generations.

Think Czar Nicolas and then think Lenin and Stalin. What happen in between?
A revolution.
Chadwick Stone? - 11 Jan 2005 23:39 GMT
> > X-No-Archive: YES
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> that is not the point you made. Please support the point you made rather than
> changing subjects.

No, my argument was that anyone entering the country illegally is a
terrorist threat.  Unless you can provide credible evidence that terrorists
would not use the U.S./Mexican border then you haven't got a valid argument,
as the potential security risk stands unrefuted.  Stop trying to distort my
argument, such tactics only cast your allegiances in a suspicious light and
call your motives into question.

> > You simply don't want to accept the analysis because it contradicts your
> > globalist views.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> provide govt. sources, which you claim exist, to support your argument. You
> have failed to do so.

fairus.org cites their sources, many of them government sources.  In
addition, you haven't provided a credible refutation or provided credible
sources that refute the facts presented by fairus.org.

Speaking of bias, have you looked in the mirror, lately?

Signature

                         Chadwick Stone?

Formerly the AFA-B Sovereign Sockpuppet?
  "No longer anonymous but still immune"
           Usenet's most helpful netizen

    SovereignSockpuppet at Yahoo dot com
    Benevolent Order of the Pointy Stick
           Skepticult? ID: 581-00504-208
                A mean and nasty bastard
                I am the New World Order

Bill - 12 Jan 2005 00:50 GMT
> X-No-Archive: YES
>>
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
> argument, such tactics only cast your allegiances in a suspicious light and
> call your motives into question.

Wow! Now you are questioning my allegiances and motives for trying to distort
your arguments! Curious. Perhaps OBL has decided that his new terror tactic is
to annoy you?

Again you miss the point. Let me try saying it another way. If you want to
build a thousand foot high wall along the Mexican border and claim it was
there to prevent terriorists - I would at least say you have an argument.
Where I am saying you don't have an argument, is when you claim Mexicans
already here in this country pose a terrorist threat.

>> > You simply don't want to accept the analysis because it contradicts your
>> > globalist views.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> addition, you haven't provided a credible refutation or provided credible
> sources that refute the facts presented by fairus.org.

Again the sources are not important the analysis is. I've asked you to provide
support for you argument. You have said it is in there somewhere. But from
what I looked at, they just present a number - the results of our analysis
show etc. - not the details of the analysis. I might as well say I looked at
govt. data and the results of my analysis show something.

> Speaking of bias, have you looked in the mirror, lately?

Thanks. Very good looking.

Bill

>                          Chadwick Stone?
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>                 A mean and nasty bastard
>                 I am the New World Order
H. Reader - 12 Jan 2005 06:59 GMT
>> X-No-Archive: YES
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 40 lines]
> Where I am saying you don't have an argument, is when you claim Mexicans already here in this country pose a
> terrorist threat.

   Mexicans are doing damage to this country that terrorists can
only dream of.
Bill - 12 Jan 2005 08:03 GMT
>>> X-No-Archive: YES
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 50 lines]
>    Mexicans are doing damage to this country that terrorists can
> only dream of.

I think you mean that they are a net burden to the economy as a whole.I'm not
sure of that. But do you mean Mexicans? Just illegal ones? If they became
legal would that fix the problem because now they would pay taxes etc.?

Bill
mariposas morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges - 12 Jan 2005 08:16 GMT
> >    Mexicans are doing damage to this country that terrorists can
> > only dream of.

> sure of that. But do you mean Mexicans? Just illegal ones? If they became

he means anyone who speaks spanish as a first language
regardless of conbtry of origin or citizenship

arf meow arf

cthulu loves you
he loves the little children
with ketchup please
H. Reader - 13 Jan 2005 00:57 GMT
>>>> X-No-Archive: YES
>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 45 lines]
>
> I think you mean that they are a net burden to the economy as a whole.I'm not sure of that.

   You don't know enough of the fundamentals of the issue to discuss
it intelligently.

>But do you mean Mexicans? Just illegal ones? If they became legal would that fix the problem because now they
>would pay taxes etc.?

   I mean illegal and legal Mexicans.  And the issue isn't merely
the money they cost us.  It's the social and political damage that
is the more profound cost.
Bunn E. Rabbit - 12 Jan 2005 07:24 GMT
>> X-No-Archive: YES
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 59 lines]
>Again the sources are not important the analysis is. I've asked you to provide
>support for you argument.

A half a dozen posters have provided enough evidence to write a
freaking thesis.  You have yet to take issue with any of the facts and
data presented.  Emoting is not a debate skill.

--
Keith

>You have said it is in there somewhere. But from
>what I looked at, they just present a number - the results of our analysis
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>>                 A mean and nasty bastard
>>                 I am the New World Order

_____

"Cosmic upheaval is not so moving as a little child pondering the death
of a sparrow in the corner of a barn." -Anouk Aimee, French Actor  
_____

"Death is better, a milder fate than tyranny", Aeschylus (525BC-456BC),
Agamemnon
_____

"I wear no Burka." - Mother Nature
   
----------
To send mail: remove hutch
Bill - 12 Jan 2005 08:09 GMT
> A half a dozen posters have provided enough evidence to write a
> freaking thesis.  You have yet to take issue with any of the facts and
> data presented.  Emoting is not a debate skill.
>
> --

OK. Help me out. I have not seen any that comes from an unbiased source.
Please cite a specific example - which should be easy if there are so many of
them. Again the argument was that Mexicans here pose a terrorist threat.

Bill

> Keith
John Que - 14 Jan 2005 10:54 GMT
> > Common sense demands you ask how the 9/11 terrorists got into the
country.
> It certainly wasn't through any legal means.

Ha ha. They used legal means.
I can't believe you didn't know this. As the other responder pointed
out you must be trolling.

> You simply don't want to accept the analysis because it contradicts your
> globalist views.

My views aren't globalist, I just support slave labor;-)
How else can I buy new fannel shirts for less than 5 dollars?
Tiny Human Ferret - 11 Jan 2005 17:26 GMT
Bill, fix your browser. Line-length should be no more than about 74
characters. Also, see below:

>>X-No-Archive: YES

<CHOMP>

>>>You have just made these claims with no support. Please support your argument.
>>>Wages in the US have been going up and unemployment going down. I agree with
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>>http://www.fairus.org/ImmigrationIssueCenters/ImmigrationIssueCentersList.cfm?c=17
>>http://www.fairus.org/ImmigrationIssueCenters/ImmigrationIssueCentersList.cfm?c=13

> All of this is just claims by a biased organization. It does not provide
> support. They say they did an analysis and here are the results. Where is the
> support for terrorism in particluar so we don't have to debate many things at
> once.

Start around http://www.numbersusa.com/

http://www.cis.org/  is also an excellent resource.

However, for the purposes of these discussions -- what are the costs of
illegal aliens -- see http://www.bordercounties.org/ which is the Border
Counties Coalition, a group of county governments along the US/Mexico
border which have been driven to the point of insolvency and
organizational collapse by the Invasion.

Signature

The incapacity of a weak and distracted government may
often assume the appearance, and produce the effects,
of a treasonable correspondence with the public enemy.
                  --Gibbon, "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"

Bill - 12 Jan 2005 00:08 GMT
> However, for the purposes of these discussions -- what are the costs of
> illegal aliens -- see http://www.bordercounties.org/ which is the Border
> Counties Coalition, a group of county governments along the US/Mexico border
> which have been driven to the point of insolvency and organizational
> collapse by the Invasion.

Ok. That is at least on topic. It says $200 million in the Southern border
states for medical care for illegals in 2000. I never said there was no cost.
To remind people. Here is my original post which people have been arguing
about:

Luke 10 may give you some comfort. It is the parable of the good Samaritan.

http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=10&version=31

This was in reference to a post that complained about high medical costs for
illegals.

Bill
H. Reader - 11 Jan 2005 22:14 GMT
>> X-No-Archive: YES
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 107 lines]
>
> All of this is just claims by a biased organization.

   That's an ad hom fallacy.

> It does not provide support.

   Plenty of support exists on those web sites.

> They say they did an analysis and here are the results. Where is the support for terrorism in particluar so we
> don't have to debate many things at once.
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>>                 A mean and nasty bastard
>>                 I am the New World Order
Bill - 12 Jan 2005 00:12 GMT
>> All of this is just claims by a biased organization.
>
>    That's an ad hom fallacy.

Now you are being silly. They claim to have an agenda.

"FAIR seeks to improve border security, to stop illegal immigration, and to
promote immigration levels consistent with the national interest?more
traditional rates of about 300,000 a year."

Support your argument that they would not have a bias when analyzing results.

>> It does not provide support.
>
>    Plenty of support exists on those web sites.

Then it should be easy for you to be specific.

>> They say they did an analysis and here are the results. Where is the
>> support for terrorism in particluar so we don't have to debate many things
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>>>                 A mean and nasty bastard
>>>                 I am the New World Order
H. Reader - 12 Jan 2005 06:42 GMT
>>> All of this is just claims by a biased organization.
>>
>>    That's an ad hom fallacy.
>
> Now you are being silly. They claim to have an agenda.

   Right.  They oppose massive immigration.  They present facts
to support their position.  Argue with the facts, not with the messenger.

> "FAIR seeks to improve border security, to stop illegal immigration, and to promote immigration levels consistent
> with the national interest-more traditional rates of about 300,000 a year."

   The horror ... the horror ...

> Support your argument that they would not have a bias when analyzing results.

   I suggest you look at their data and draw your own conclusion.
And by the Way, the Jordon Commission, Congress's own study
group, made pretty much the same recommendations a decade ago.
Was Barbara Jordon and her Commission biased, do you think?

>>> It does not provide support.
>>
>>    Plenty of support exists on those web sites.
>
> Then it should be easy for you to be specific.

   Hold your own hand and sort through it.  I'm "biased."
Bill - 12 Jan 2005 07:51 GMT
>>>> All of this is just claims by a biased organization.
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>    Right.  They oppose massive immigration.  They present facts
> to support their position.  Argue with the facts, not with the messenger.

No they don't. They say here is the results of our analysis and that is it.
How can one argue with that?

>> "FAIR seeks to improve border security, to stop illegal immigration, and to
>> promote immigration levels consistent with the national interest-more
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> group, made pretty much the same recommendations a decade ago.
> Was Barbara Jordon and her Commission biased, do you think?

OK. Give me a reference to what you mean, and I will. As I said all they say
is here are our results. Why should I believe that.

>>>> It does not provide support.
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>    Hold your own hand and sort through it.  I'm "biased."

You are just unable to support your position and when challenged you say look
at the internet it is there.

Bill
H. Reader - 13 Jan 2005 00:39 GMT
>>>>> All of this is just claims by a biased organization.
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> No they don't. They say here is the results of our analysis and that is it. How can one argue with that?

   Facts are, obviously, facts.  Are you disputing the facts?

>>> "FAIR seeks to improve border security, to stop illegal immigration, and to promote immigration levels
>>> consistent with the national interest-more traditional rates of about 300,000 a year."
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> OK. Give me a reference to what you mean, and I will. As I said all they say is here are our results. Why should
> I believe that.

   Go to Google, type in the Jordon Commission, and read.  Is
that sufficient reference for you?  That you've never heard of
the Jordon Commission is a considerable measure of your
lack of familiarity with the topic of immigration.

>>>>> It does not provide support.
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> You are just unable to support your position and when challenged you say look at the internet it is there.

   You're either helpless or you're playing helpless.  In either case,
I don't give a sh.t.  None of the topics here are any secret.  In
fact, most who discuss these issues are fully aware of the topics
and the facts involving them.  Catch up.
Bill - 13 Jan 2005 07:12 GMT
>>>>>> All of this is just claims by a biased organization.
>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
>    Facts are, obviously, facts.  Are you disputing the facts?

They say things like the results of our analysis show that illegals cost $10
Billion a year. So in that sense yes. I dispute that because they do not say
how they got the number.
>>>> "FAIR seeks to improve border security, to stop illegal immigration, and
>>>> to promote immigration levels consistent with the national interest-more
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
> fact, most who discuss these issues are fully aware of the topics
> and the facts involving them.  Catch up.
H. Reader - 13 Jan 2005 20:17 GMT
>>>>>>> All of this is just claims by a biased organization.
>>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> They say things like the results of our analysis show that illegals cost $10 Billion a year. So in that sense
> yes. I dispute that because they do not say how they got the number.

   The reports I've read by those organizations provide references and
usually explain the process that delivers their conclusions.

>>>>> "FAIR seeks to improve border security, to stop illegal immigration, and to promote immigration levels
>>>>> consistent with the national interest-more traditional rates of about 300,000 a year."
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>> fact, most who discuss these issues are fully aware of the topics
>> and the facts involving them.  Catch up.
Bill - 13 Jan 2005 22:18 GMT
>>>>>>>> All of this is just claims by a biased organization.
>>>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>    The reports I've read by those organizations provide references and
> usually explain the process that delivers their conclusions.

Not the parts that I looked at.

>>>>>> "FAIR seeks to improve border security, to stop illegal immigration,
>>>>>> and to promote immigration levels consistent with the national
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
>>> fact, most who discuss these issues are fully aware of the topics
>>> and the facts involving them.  Catch up.
H. Reader - 13 Jan 2005 23:51 GMT
>>>>>>>>> All of this is just claims by a biased organization.
>>>>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> Not the parts that I looked at.

   Maybe you ought to look at the whole rather than merely
a few of its parts.
Bill - 14 Jan 2005 08:56 GMT