Join The Debate!

gabby

i happen to agree with bush, mccain, medved and hewitt that an earned citizenship seems logical and reasonable for the 12 million already here.

do they frighten you too.

you gave yourself away in another post when you stated you were against both legal and illegal immigrants.

Sick of all the rationalization ---

A misdemeanor? Should be a felony.

I don't need any more of this back-and-forth stuff. You believe anything you like, enjoy.

Have fun.

And when we're all totally outvoted by those who want what we've earned (emphasize the word EARNED) and would appropriate our country and reshape it in their image(s), if they have one?

Enough.

And, no, although married to a Ph.D. type college professor, I've never attended college (although I did teach some classes)... you possibly assume too much.

That's it - fini. I'm done.

gabby

bush and mccain and many republicans believe in an earned path to citizenship so you blaming it on dems and liberals is intellectually dishonest.


second explain exactly how you would indentify and round up 12 million people.

what you guys don't understand is most illegals are not like the ones you see at home depot.
many illegals in this country are relatives of legal citizens or have been here so long they have homes, run businesses and send their kids to college.

i live in the southwest 3 miles from the border so i see the situation on a daily basis.
that is why the republican party risks losing elections for the next 20 years if they don't find a middle ground.
when you talk about rounding up 12 million people which not one responsible person including tancredo says is possible you are alienating all hispanics whether they share your political philosophy or not. most hispanics are church going, family oriented and conservative by nature but when you threaten their grandmother or another family member with inhumane treatment you lose their support.

but i say go for it.
see what happens.

oops i meant does NOT

on the last sentence.

And I told you yesterday...

...Medicaid payments are not a reliable indicator of total costs spent on medical care for illegals. I gave you the reason -- illegals prefer not to register with the government.

So why are you still posting that same, meaningless statistic?

no you don't get it

the reason i gave you those statistics was so you would understand that they don't keep statistics on illegals who are locked up they are just considered hispanic.

that was the dept. justice for goshs sakes, if they don't produce those statistics where would anyone else get them from.
that was the raw data of who is locked up in this country.

the gao did a study did a study frost and worked with ice and the best number they could come with for illegals in prisons is 55,000. that is a long way from the 270,000 your sources quoted.

v-dare is a joke.
again all you get is estimates from a think tank who's expressed interest is to dramatize the subject for conservatives who want their own beliefs confirmed.

i understand your concern about illegals and i share them but earned citizenship would start re-couping that money. i mean do you honestly believe the country is going to deport 12 million people or even 5 million people-get real.
so we might as well make them start paying.

if we tighten the border (which according to ice here in san diego had decreased illegal crossings by 60%) and deal with the ones here we can stop the drain.

i am after realistic solutions not a bunch of overheated rhetoric.

so i try to gather facts.

here is one that is interesting.


Study: Illegals aren't big drain on health care

REUTERS

March 14, 2007

WASHINGTON – Less than 1 percent of Medicaid spending went to health care for illegal immigrants, according to a study that the researchers said defied a common belief that they are a bigger drain on taxpayer money.


Advertisement

The study, published yesterday in the Journal of the American Medical Association, used North Carolina as an example to better understand how public funds are being used to treat illegal immigrants.

“This challenges a fairly common public perception that somehow immigrants are placing a very large burden on the Medicaid budget,” said the lead researcher, Dr. Annette DuBard of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

The study appeared in an issue of the journal devoted to access to medical care in the United States. Concern has been growing over rising U.S. health care costs and the number of people lacking health insurance, as well as controversy over illegal immigration.

“It is not that we are spending so much through Medicaid on health care for immigrants. It's that we are spending it at the wrong end of care,” DuBard said.

The researchers said increased access to preventive care, prenatal care, contraceptives and chronic-disease management programs may represent better use of public money by improving the health of such immigrants and lessening the demand for costly emergency care.

Medicaid is the federal-state health care program for the poor. The study examined emergency spending in North Carolina from 2001 to 2004 under Medicaid for recent immigrants, about 99 percent of whom were listed as being in the country illegally.

States experiencing an influx of illegal immigrants have rising Medicaid costs. But the study found that those emergency costs accounted for about 0.7 percent of North Carolina's Medicaid budget.

More than 48,000 people got care costing more than $185 million under Medicaid during those years, 93 percent of whom were Latino and 95 percent of whom were women.

now that is a study that has undergone peer review and listed in the very respected journal of american medicine association.

see there are facts and then there are estimates.

when you make a decision in your life do you base them on facts or on estimates.

frost here is data

http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/prisons.htm


these are department of justice data, find your illegal numbers if you can.

i googled it sonny

La Raza
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
it says what i said.


This article is about Latin American cultural identity. For other uses, see Raza.



La Raza is a Spanish-language term (literally meaning "the race", but also connoting "el pueblo" or "la gente", both of which mean "the people"), which refers generally to the people of Latin America who share the cultural and political legacies of Spanish colonialism, including the Spanish language and culture, and their descendants.

It is very roughly analogous to the English-language terms "Hispanic" or "Chicano", in that it attempts to define/describe a group of people with a common (Spanish-speaking) cultural heritage, despite the wide variations among those cultures.

The term "La Raza" may also encompass a racial significance associated with "mestizaje", or race-mixing. In this sense, the term is inclusive of the Indigenous peoples of the Americas, the descendants of African peoples brought to Latin America as slaves, European immigrants, as well as the racial identities that comprise the Iberian peninsula — and all the mixtures among them.[citation needed]

[edit] Use in the United States

In the 1960s, some ethnic political and/or civil-rights groups began to use the term to distinguish Spanish-speakers, and/or people of Latin American descent, from Anglo- and other non-Hispanic Americans — and to more inclusively describe a population, based on one or more common traits, irrespective of national or generational distinctions.[citation needed]

[edit] See also

frost

i guess you don't get it.
there is nothing to refute.
those numbers are made up. that is what an estimate is and just because "involved citizens" think they are accurate does not make them facts.

have you ever gone to school.
could you pass a math test if you gave estimates for answers.

sheesh


you have to do a study to come with facts.
you just don't do estimates.

show me the information that concretely says how many illegals are in prison or welfare.
i want numbers from the US government that specifically address those issues.

you can't do it that is why you keep evading my question.
those numbers are not compiled by the US government only by right wing websites to confirm what their sheep already believe.

when are conservatives like yourself going to start thinking for yourselves rather than engaging in group hugs.

You, Mr.Lib, suggested Amnesty was ok -

I presented some numbers which, while officially "estimates," are recognized by a very sizable segment of the involved citizens as being accurate.

I asked you to refute.

You haven't. Rather, you've twisted it, changed the rules and made it MY obligation?

And old trick. Still awaiting your proof that I'm wrong -- I haven't time to go searching for any more sources....

That's it -----

Still haven't seen anyone refute those "

Until I do, I'll just offer them to ding-dongs who want Amnesty, or Amnesty-Light.
My grandparents came through Ellis Island and were highly successful; the grandfather had an initial job sweeping up in a lace mill on Long Island, NY. A few years later he was president of the company -- yet had the audacity to quit a "sure thing" so he could go out on his own and build a chain of service stations in the 20's.
He became a legitimate millionaire, only to lose it all in the Crash of '29. So, okay, went on to sell successfully enough for New York Life that he became "Man of the Year" -- then quit that when WWII happened so he could take a cut in pay at a defense plant.
HE CAME LEGALLY.
So did my first wife. Waited over 6 months for her visa and entry to the US (from Sweden) and applied for citizenship the very day she became eligable to do so -- took the test, when it still was a test, and I'd wager that she's voted in every election, knowing the events, people and issues. Her vocabulary is superior to 99% of most Americans I've spoken with -- accent-free, in English, Swedish, Danish; not quite perfect in French or German....
Neither of these examples have ever collected a nickel in unemployment, welfare or any such garbage -- they're contributors -- and they came here LEGALLY, got it? Legally, damn it, and virtually every other legal immigrant I've had the opportunity to ever meet has also been a first class, contributing American. Got it? American!
Now, question -- do you think those poor "undocumented" bastards who BROKE OUR LAWS and snuck in will be equally fine citizens and contributors to our country.
If you can refute anything, give it your best shot.

PELOSI BLOCKS BUSH ON IMMIGRATION BILL?

PELOSI BLOCKS BUSH ON IMMIGRATION BILL?

Do you think Pelosi is feeling pressure from working class Americans not to sell them out? How can Bush pass his Amnesty when he cannot get support from the Democrats?

WASHINGTONPOST-President Bush will relaunch his push for an overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws today in Arizona, with a fresh speech on the border and a new congressional leadership that is friendlier to his views, but with the same dynamics that scuttled his last attempt: a cooperative Senate but bipartisan opposition in the House.

In contrast to her approach to other controversial issues, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has told the White House that she cannot pass a bill with Democratic votes alone, nor will she seek to enforce party discipline on the issue. Bush will have to produce at least 70 Republican votes before she considers a vote on comprehensive immigration legislation, a task that may be very difficult for a president saddled with low approval ratings.

Democratic conservatives, particularly freshmen who seized their seats from Republicans, weathered a barrage of attacks on the issue before their victories in November and are not anxious to relive the experience, aides and lawmakers say. Some of those lawmakers, such as Reps. Nancy Boyda (Kan.), Brad Ellsworth (Ind.), Nick Lampson (Tex.) and Heath Shuler (N.C.), are implacably opposed to a bill that would grant any of the nation’s estimated 12 million illegal immigrants legal residence or citizenship, at least until new border controls are implemented and working.

READ MORE http://www.controlcongress.com

sonny

i nave no dog in the fight over illegal immigration i simply want americans to make a rational reasonble decision on how to deal with it and all the emotional rhetoric that is not grounded in reality needs to be confronted.
i want increased enforcement at the borders and think that deporting 12 million illegals only 56% of whom are mexican is absurd.
there has to be a middle ground.

you speak of la raza and don't know what your are talking about.

la raza loosely translated means "the race" and has been used for hundreds of years before there was such a thing as illegals. maybe you have confused it with the aztlan movement which is a bunch of college kids who are simply a tiny minority which the mexican american community laughs at.

why would any mexican want to turn the american promise of prosperity into another mexico?

that is what i mean. people get all up in arms about something that they have the wrong name for and know nothing about.

lets bring some logic and rational thought to the debate instead of emotional hyperbole.

oops, alot of conservatives would rather base their beliefs on emotions than on facts and rational thought.
forgot about that.

Typical Democratic Overreaching

On the one hand we have Rahm Emanual trying to make a felony mountain out of a perfectly legal molehill firing of 8 U.S. Attorneys. News flash Rahm: It doesn't matter why they were fired; the President has the power to do so for no reason at all, or any reason he chooses.

Then we have the Democrats crying foul over the recess appointment of an ambassador to Belgium who they did not support because he gave money to a group that criticized one of their own. News flash Mr. Kerry: The power of consent was not given to the Senate so that it could obstruct political appointments on the basis of pique. If your skin is so thin that you can't take the kind of stones you routinely throw yourself, it's time to get out of Dodge.

These are just two examples of what has gone so wrong with our country. Rather than working to govern, the partisans in both parties use their constitutional authority to settle personal scores. This has got to stop.

Rove

Bush would serve America much better if he got rid of Kooky Karly Rove entirely.

Possibly, despite his obession with controling Bush,
Rove is O.K. but it is quite doubtful. Bush should send him off to Tasmania where he could practice his charm on the devils.

religouslib

After all your blabing about illegal immigration, you and I, and all the other posters on this and every other web sites will be paying through the nose for their costs.

I guess you don't have anything better to do with your money than to give it to people who break the law. Personally, I would like to give it to the charities of my choice, not those of the U.S. government.

There will be a severe recession in the near future. There will be a lot of people out of work because of it. That will mean illegal immigrants will also be having a tough time of it as will. Just where do you think they will be going to food, housing, and clothing? And just how do you think will be paying for it?

What you are going to see is desperate times and in those times, people do desperate things. If you follow the news, O'Reilly and Rivera got into it regarding a drunken illegal immigrant driving into two American women and killing them. As far as I can tell, that is just the tip of the iceberg. A lot of Americans have already lost their lives due to the illegals and it is a shame that a lot more will loose their lives because of a lack of border enforcement.

As you are also probably aware, many illegals are supported by La Raza whose intent is to take back a portion of the Southwestern part of our Nation. The mayor of Los Angeles is a member and I also believe AG Gonzales is as well.

The white population of California is nearly a minority in that State. It is seriously in debt and the legislature is constantly dreaming up new spending plans. The Latinos want to take over the State government and the Democrats currently in power are doing everything they can do to make it happen.

We are imploding from within. We are not long to be one nation, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. We will soon be under the "Golden Rule": He who has the gold, rules.

oh my you have lost it

the post about abstinence just came in the paper this morning so how could i have posted it 2 nights in a row.

look at the date old man it is dated april 14, 2007 it would have been impossible for me to post it yesterday.

religious liberal, you LIAR

You presented that abstinence study TWICE in TWO NIGHTS...

and then you have the nerve to malign my character because I rebutted it?????????

What the HELL is wrong with you????????

What, you expect to post information relevant to a discussion we're having, and then you claim I have a defect of character when I post the rebuttal to it? You think you get to say whatever nonsense you like, and we're somehow BAD PEOPLE if we explain why it's not relevant?

I've never met such a completely twisted individual. Please do not address me again.

religious lib

One more thing: I NEVER lie. And if you say that I do again, if I ever meet you I will break your nose.

kikimay

you have a valid point but the problem with it in supporting gabby is that gabby quoted a study she said was from the census bureau but turned out to be from someone who analyized census bureau data and then drew conclusions.

despite my concession that it may go on, their are certainly no records kept because any public official knowingly allowing illegals to sign up for welfare programs or registering to vote for that maatter could be fired and prosecuted by the federal government.

it may be happening but there are certainly no records of it, which was gabbys claim.

gabby

the national review and a right wing think tank.

come on gabby.

do you know what blog rolling is.
the way google puts things in order is by how many links are attached to certain articles.
in this way conservative bloggers and (i might add in some cases )liberal bloggers have manipulated google so that readers are getting info that is biased.

if you want the truth you have to dig deeper and get to truely neutral web sites that have not been blogrolled.

both the left and the right are not to be trusted and you have to do work at the research to get to the truth.
i don't remember the phrase but liberal bloggers made it so if you googled something like "incompetent" george bushs name would appear hundreds of times.

like i said i don't remember the actual phrase(i know it will come to be later).

please understand that i am a searcher for truth.
i don't believe what conservatives say or what liberals say unless i can confirm it.

i pose my question to you again

since it is against the law for illegals to recieve welfare just how did your source analyize information that does not exist because it has never been reported.

inkling revival

your memory and IQ are both overrated.
here is the thread


religious lib, child stats
Thanks for the interesting link.

A) Did you note that the greatest single factor in child poverty is single parenthood? that nearly half the children living in poverty are there because they're being raised by a single mother in her 20s or 30s?

The single, most effective thing the government (or anybody else) could do in this country to reduce child poverty is to provide incentives for women to bear children in wedlock. Reduce media emphasis on casual sex; create financial incentives that favor married parents; educate regarding abstinence outside of marriage, etc.

So tell us, religiouslib... what government programs are you supporting that combat this single most powerful cause of child poverty? Let's hear it.

(It's a loaded question: liberals OPPOSE any sort of program to reduce casual sexual activity. They support teen birth control and abortion programs, that are proven to INCREASE teen sex, and thereby increase births to teens.)


let me repeat the last sentence for you.

they support teen birth control and abortion programs that are proven to increase teen sex and THEREBY INCREASE BIRTH TO TEENS.

you have insulted me, called me names and accused me of putting words in your mouth.
you are so full of yourself you don't realize how incompetent and weak you make yourself look everytime you post.

don't EVER question my posts again.

Fred Thompson for President.

I am not happy with the current slate of Republican candidates. They are all never-was's or has-beens. All weak. McCain is the strongest, but still too liberal. I like Fred, he is strong, Conservative, and no-nonsense. I intend to vote for him. My "dream ticket" at the moment is "Thompson for President, with McCain or Condolisa Rice as VP."

religious lib

"you may not recall but in fact you said it."

No, I did not. You are habitually inaccurate. This is not just once; it's your pattern. I have an excellent memory, an IQ above 140 (which I'll wager is at least 25 points higher than yours), and I know what I said.

Note that I didn't call you a liar. I don't think you're that; I do think you're consistently, intellectually sloppy. And, yes, I think that's a moral flaw. You need to repent.

"you keep trying to insult me but you never can back up any of your claims with facts-- just bluster"

I take it back. THAT is a lie.

I'm done with you, sir. Your deluge of bad statistics and worse excuses for reason have worn me out. Go blather your unthinking, low-intellence nonsense at somebody who's not smart enough to see through it at a glance.

You'd better hope I don't find out what district's school board you're on, because if I do, they're going to get a letter carefully documenting your incredibly intellectual laziness. You are incompentent with statistics, and do not deserve to hold the post you hold.

lilly, left-wing character assassin

You've just demonstrated why Sr. Counselor Monica Goodling took the 5th in her testimony before Congress. You're attempting to criminalize the fact that the Attorney General didn't recall that a list had been drawn up a year ago -- apparently by some of his subordinates. This is the atmosphere being created by the character assassins of the Democrat party: the slightest imperfection will be used to criminalize Republicans. This is the tactic of tyrants; I hear the hob-nailed boots a-stomping, and they're coming from the Left.

Rant all you like; screech 'till your lungs tire and your throat burns; you will not change the fact that the Attorney General's office acted in good faith and completely within the law. There is no scandal, no matter how vicious your rants get. Personally, I find the fact that they were willing to hire religious conservatives refreshing: such people have been blackballed from serious work by the Left, locked out of any serious position in a manner reminiscent of the 50s communist scare.

Just to review your list of "scandals":

Katrina -- the mishandling turns out to have been a press-hysterical hoax, and most of the real shame rests on the corrupt Democrats from New Orleans;

Iraq reconstruction -- seems to be proceding in an orderly fashion, nobody ever said it would be easy (surely you're not trying to resurrect the bogus Halliburton hysteria here, are you?);

Walter Reed -- yes, I'm scandalized that the President of the US was not aware of the staffing levels of janitors in an Army hospital, isn't that his job?;

Hiring of 150 Christians -- Hmmm, I don't recall the EEOC allowing you to reject attorneys on the basis of their religion, have the rules changed? And I deeply suspect doctored stats, as there are not 150 US attorneys in the DOJ; those 150 lawyers represent what percentage of the total number of attorneys hired? in what positions? in what departments? by whom? I want to hear your details on that one, baby, I smell a slime job a mile away.

What filthy, amoral pigs liberals are! They can't sleep at night 'till they've slandered another innocent man.

Re Dismissal of Attorneys

Although Gonzales' office has said that the eight attorneys were dismissed for cause and that no replacements had been considered previous to their dismissal, today's NYT says that an e-mail has now appeared that proves Gonzales' shop lied. In fact, the DOJ had replacements in mind a year before the attorneys were fired: a list of names has been identified.

More on the replacement of attorneys: it now turns out that the Bush administration has hired 150 attorneys from Regent University Law School, Pat Robertson's outfit with the stated goal of blending United States law with Christian doctrine. In many cases, senior attorneys were moved out to make way for young, inexperienced attorneys who nevertheless had the correct ideological credentials---Christian and right-leaning.

In the first month of Bush's presidency The Heritage Foundation sent him a policy recommendation "Taking Charge of Federal Personnel" which specifically advised Bush to put political loyalty and ideology ahead of competence and experience when making a federal appointment. Now we have Katrina, the Iraq reconstruction, Walter Reed, and the conversion of the Department of Justice to Christianity.

Fred's excuses

I love how Novak and others continue to stick up for Thompson and the fact that he hasn't joined the raise.

whatever reason they can give to defend him. i say join, the sooner he does, the sooner, other "conservatives" will say he's not a reagan conservative, I am, I am, look at me. When will this idea that the conservatives are unhappy go away. I am very happy with at least one of the frontrunners who i know will be fiscal, social, and foreign policy conservative; something i am just as unsure Thompson will be as any other candiate.

let the light shine so we can continue to search for this candidate that does not exist. I wish he would get in already. i am sick of hearing, could fred join the race? could fred be the conservative we are looking for? and on and on it goes. lets here it fred, are you in are not, and what are you going to do for our country to make us stronger? i want to hear it! I am tired of hearing about how much everybody loves him on law and order.

inkling

i had already conceded other networks had obvious leanings if you read the post.
vic had maintained fox was center and i was disputing that claim.

religious lib and "conservative" media

Interesting anecdote about Fox's "Libby" coverage. Yes, I think we agree that Fox leans a little to the right, though we disagree on how far.

My question to you is:

How many HUNDRED such instances would you like me to produce, demonstrating that ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, TBN, the New York Times, USA Today, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, the LA Times, the Chicago Tribune, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the San Fransisco Examiner etc. are biased to the left?

Because we can. There are so many instances, it's impossible to know where to start.

religious lib and those stats again...

religious lib is becoming notorious for quoting bad or incorrectly understood statistics here. He either doesn't read carefully, or he's not quite bright enough to grasp what he's reading and assess it.

This latest is a tad bit better than most, but still far short of convincing. The Journal of the AMA... decent source. North Carolina... lots of illegals.

But... basing total cost of immigration on MEDICAID payments? That's going to yield a HORRIBLY low result.

As we all know, most illegals AVOID registering for government programs. And while some fraction of the costs may be covered by emergency Medicaid payments, the hospitals themselves end up picking up most of the tab. Something over 80 hospitals have closed in California due to pressure created by illegals.

Religious lib, you really have to do better than to just look for ammunition to buttress your preconceptions. You have to think about what you're reading and filter out the irrelevancies. No honest, thoughtful reader could read about that AMA study without asking, "What percentage of the hospital's total costs are covered by Medicaid payments?" and "What percentage of service for the illegals is covered by Medicaid?" I doubt that either is very large.

Furthermore, you need to be aware that leftist activists have systematically been entering the social sciences for many decades now, with the result that peer review is depressingly weak, and social science articles heavily skewed to buttress leftist talking points.

Still, I'll read the JAMA article when I can get my hands on it.

marginalization

Bud wrote:
< < There probably is a way to have a guest worker program with no path to citizenship, similar to the program in Switzerland, but as far as I know, no one in the U.S. has studied this possibility. > >

I have lived for over a decade in a foreign country that is essentially as you describe, and my experience there pits me against such a proposal. Allowing people to stay and work for long periods of their life but with no real chance to become a full member of that society is the best way to insure that they do NOT adopt the values of that society, that they see themselves as outsiders, and that some will get involved in some of the sociologically engendered problems that would inevitably come from this permanent marginalization.

I don't think a guest worker ought to be able to skip to the head of the line or gain an equal status (with a similar wait for citizenship) that someone in the much tougher green card program does, but NEVER offering them a chance to be a full member of this society that they are participating in (and helping, through their labor) only guarantees continued problems.

Just as an idea, allowing someone with a total of, say, twelve or fifteen years on a guest-worker visa to apply for a green card (along with English requirements, and a clean criminal record, etc.) would be a way to show such workers that they will be rewarded for hard work, honest living, and attempts to assimilate.

law-and-order and xenophobia don't mix

Bud writes:
< < Appreciation, understanding and obedience to the rule of law stops at the border. Corruption is the way of life in Mexico and the third world. You know it and the great majority of Americans know it. I lived and worked in Mexico and managed Africa and Latin America for 4 years … I have experienced this first hand and in detail. Crime and ethical corruption of all kinds are rampant throughout Mexico, most of Latin America and the third world. Your policies and lack of enforcement are encouraging that crime and very different family value to come to America. This is dead wrong for America. > >

I'm a little confused here. In your letter you suggested why amnesty would not be good and why the U.S. should not reward illegal behavior, but in this paragraph above, it seems you are suggesting virtually *any* immigration from Latin America would be bad.

After all, legal or illegal, immigrants from Latin America are affected similarly by the corruption that you describe as "the way of life in Mexico and the third world."

According to what you wrote, it would seem that, legal or illegal, allowing immigration from Latin America would be "encouraging... [a] very different family value to come to America."

So I ask you: Is it Latin Americans (and other third worlders) themselves that are problematic as immigrants, legal or illegal, and therefore should be stopped? Or are you suggesting that a person coming into the country *legally* automatically makes them unaffected (or far less affected) by the corruption that is the way of life in their home country and therefore would make them follow American values?

If it is the latter, I urge you to clean up how you say it. There is a real problem with this debate, and true law-and-order conservatives who are not bigoted against Latin Americans and other foreigners should take care that they don't let the diatribes of xenophobic bigots poison their message.

(By the way, if you look at writings from the 19th century, very similar arguments were used for keeping Irish immigrants out; later, up to the 1920s, this was applied to Eastern Europeans and Southern Europeans.)

To religiouslib

I just added the first 3 items on the google list. I doubt if peoples attitudes om immigration have changed that much in a year. I especially doubt that the degree of change is as much as attitudes from Kalifornia to Virginia would change. As for Fox being right wing, the left wing UCLA study said it was center and all the rest were left. But, if everything that is not to the left of Marx is right wing I guess you have it. By the way, I know of NO right wing big city newspapers.

You should listen to your own statement: you cannot make informed decisions if you only pay attention to media that simply affirms what you already believe.

gabby

facts do not back up your assertions.

March 14, 2007

WASHINGTON – Less than 1 percent of Medicaid spending went to health care for illegal immigrants, according to a study that the researchers said defied a common belief that they are a bigger drain on taxpayer money.


Advertisement

The study, published yesterday in the Journal of the American Medical Association, used North Carolina as an example to better understand how public funds are being used to treat illegal immigrants.

“This challenges a fairly common public perception that somehow immigrants are placing a very large burden on the Medicaid budget,” said the lead researcher, Dr. Annette DuBard of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

The study appeared in an issue of the journal devoted to access to medical care in the United States. Concern has been growing over rising U.S. health care costs and the number of people lacking health insurance, as well as controversy over illegal immigration.

“It is not that we are spending so much through Medicaid on health care for immigrants. It's that we are spending it at the wrong end of care,” DuBard said.

The researchers said increased access to preventive care, prenatal care, contraceptives and chronic-disease management programs may represent better use of public money by improving the health of such immigrants and lessening the demand for costly emergency care.

Medicaid is the federal-state health care program for the poor. The study examined emergency spending in North Carolina from 2001 to 2004 under Medicaid for recent immigrants, about 99 percent of whom were listed as being in the country illegally.

States experiencing an influx of illegal immigrants have rising Medicaid costs. But the study found that those emergency costs accounted for about 0.7 percent of North Carolina's Medicaid budget.

More than 48,000 people got care costing more than $185 million under Medicaid during those years, 93 percent of whom were Latino and 95 percent of whom were women.

»Next Story»


Sponsored Links

To religiouslib

First off if you think the US media is biased conservative you have some serious issues with reality. However, be that as it may:

Roper poll finds most Americans think illegal immigration a serious problem. 3 out of 4 want to reduce the number of immigrants coming in.

http://www.npg.org/immpoll.html

Fox Poll: Illegal immigration very serious problem

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155413,00.html

Zogby poll - 81% want illegals detained. 35% want guest worker program.

http://www.alipac.us/article395.html

This was just the top 3 in the Google search.

And I know how “conservative” Kalifornia is, I used to live there.

vic

california is much more conservative than you believe.

republicans controlled the state until they came out and passed prop. 187 which insulted most hispanics and a majority of white voters.
dems have been in charge ever since.

but here is more polling data that the biased conservative media does not want you to see.


A CNN/Gallup poll released this week found that 59 percent of Americans support allowing illegal immigrants to remain in the United States and become citizens if they meet "certain requirements over a period of time." Only 24 percent support deporting all illegal residents (up from 16 percent in a June 2006 poll).

In a Quinnipiac University poll conducted in November 2006, 63 percent of respondents supported punishing businesses that employ illegal immigrants. The same poll found 69 percent support for a "guest worker program" that would allow illegal immigrants to earn citizenship without having to leave the country.

Another poll, by CNN in October 2006, found that a majority of Americans support building a fence along the 700-mile border with Mexico.

conservatives don't get it

the majority of americans support guest worker and earned citizenship.
they also support increased enforcement.

you sit around in your conservative circles agreeing to everything each other says without allowing input from average americans. you are living in a bubble world of conservative biased media which does not report all the facts, only the facts they know you agree with.

here is the latest polling from california.


DANIEL WEINTRAUB THE SACRAMENTO BEE
Voters closer than politicians on immigration

April 11, 2007

Unlike most politicians, California voters as a group favor a nuanced approach
to illegal immigration that would stiffen enforcement at the borders but also
allow more legal immigration and create a path to citizenship for people already
in this country illegally, a new poll suggests.

That multipronged approach largely reflects a bipartisan proposal in Congress
supported by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. But it is tougher on border enforcement
than most Democratic elected officials would like and easier on illegal
immigrants than most Republican lawmakers would support.

The survey of registered voters was conducted by Field Research and included 570
interviews between March 20 and 31. The margin of error for the full sample was
plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

The results mirrored other recent polls that have found Californians very
concerned about illegal immigration even though the issue has not been at the
top of the state or national policy agenda in recent months.

According to the Field Poll, 49 percent of registered voters say illegal
immigration is a “very serious problem” and another 28 percent rate it a
“serious problem.” Concern runs highest in Southern California outside Los
Angeles County, where 58 percent say illegal immigration is a “very serious”
problem.

Large majorities of Californians favor tougher measures to stop illegal
immigration. More than seven in 10 (71 percent) support hiring more border
agents, while 63 percent favor stiff penalties on employers and individuals who
hire illegal immigrants. More than half (53 percent) support having federal
agents “round up, detain and deport” illegal immigrants they find in the
community.

The only measure in the poll that did not draw majority support was building a
wall along major sections of the U.S.-Mexico border. That idea is backed by only
37 percent of registered voters.

But the get-tough attitude of the voters is balanced by an equal measure of
tolerance, or at least realism. More than eight in 10 voters (83 percent) said
they favored a program that would allow illegal immigrants to stay in the
country and apply for citizenship if they had a job, learned English and paid
back taxes.

And 67 percent said they would support temporary worker programs that would
legalize the status of illegal immigrants and allow future immigrants to work in
this country.

Support for both wings of this approach – except for the wall – seems to have
hardened over the past year. More Californians favor stiffer sanctions on
employers who hire illegal workers than did a year ago, but more voters also
favor a path to citizenship and a guest-worker program.

The poll did find different attitudes among non-Hispanic whites and Latinos on
these issues, but not as much as some might expect.

Eighty-two percent of white voters, for instance, favor a path to citizenship
for illegal immigrants, while 89 percent of Latinos support such a program. And
while 65 percent of whites support a guest-worker program, 75 percent of Latinos
support that approach.

The differences were greater when voters were asked about the more punitive
policies.

Seventy-five percent of whites support hiring more border agents, while 54
percent of Latinos take that position. And while 68 percent of whites favor
stiffer employer sanctions, 43 percent of Latinos like that idea. Fifty-eight
percent of whites favor a round-up of people here illegally, while 35 percent of
Latinos support that approach. And while 39 percent of whites support building a
wall, 30 percent of Latinos are in favor of such a barrier.

Still, it's worth noting that large numbers of Latinos favor some policies that
only the most conservative Republicans in the Legislature or Congress would
advocate.

Like the other numbers in this poll, that finding is another demonstration that
on immigration, as on so many other issues, California's elected representatives
do not reflect the diversity of opinion in the state.

On immigration, most elected Democrats tend to oppose further measures to
strengthen border enforcement, while almost all Republican lawmakers oppose
measures to allow illegal immigrants already here to apply for citizenship. Both
parties' elected members tend to reflect the dominant view of their party's
members while almost completely excluding the position of a sizable number of
voters in each party.

This is the one issue on which President Bush is perhaps closest to the
Democrats in Congress with whom he has been at loggerheads on so many other
policy questions. Like Schwarzenegger, Sen. John McCain of Arizona and a few
other Republicans of national stature, Bush favors a policy of tougher border
enforcement coupled with a route to citizenship for people already in the
country illegally.

With Republicans in control of Congress last year, that idea stalled.

But now that Democrats hold the majority, it's at least possible that they can
cut a deal with the president. If they want to.

California is the state affected most by both legal and illegal immigration. Its
leaders, from the governor and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on down, ought to do
everything they can to bridge the ideological gap that has separated the parties
from each other, and separated lawmakers from their voters, on this issue.

Purplestater...

folks like you in the GOP Hierarchy have gambled all of "our" chips on the way overated Hispanic vote. And have lost! If your "ilk" gets nominated by the GOP there is no hope for a win in '08. Folks like yourself are so out of touch w/reality.

With the exception of a couple, there are some excellent comments here by mostly GOP'ers. The Bush/Rove team has made a huge mess by leaving the southern border wide open to the invading hordes. As demonstrated by the street marches last Spring, these "hordes" have absolutely no repsect for our Nation. Total ingrates.

We true conservative Republicans must take our party back from those rabid, open borders globalists who have hijacked it. DD

http://www.gohunter08.com

Dear President Bush

President George Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Bush,

Apparently, you have not gotten the message that the American people oppose amnesty, no matter how you define it. As a lifelong Republican who donated to your campaigns and voted for you twice, I have repeatedly communicated to you that your mistaken notions on illegal aliens and those of other Republican leaders would and have directly caused the loss of both Houses of Congress. The issues here are US sovereignty, national security at our borders, assimilation, the rule of law and the destruction of family values.

Your oft repeated phrase that family values do not stop at the border is dead wrong. American family values rely on mutual appreciation, understanding and obedience to the rule of law. Mexican and most Latin countries and families do not share this with American families.

Appreciation, understanding and obedience to the rule of law stops at the border. Corruption is the way of life in Mexico and the third world. You know it and the great majority of Americans know it. I lived and worked in Mexico and managed Africa and Latin America for 4 years … I have experienced this first hand and in detail. Crime and ethical corruption of all kinds are rampant throughout Mexico, most of Latin America and the third world. Your policies and lack of enforcement are encouraging that crime and very different family value to come to America. This is dead wrong for America.

Your immigration policies, continuing failure to enforce fully the law, and your proposals as far as you have articulated them are wrong. Flake Gutierrez bill is operationally and fiscally impractical …even if it were right to reward law breakers with a path to citizenship and ability to stay in America. Your policies are a path to the destruction of America. This country cannot sustain the huge and unprecedented immigration levels of unassimilated, unpatriotic and undereducated poor. As President Lincoln said, "You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich." What is your Administration’s response to the Heritage Foundation’s (Dr. Rector) April, 2007 report?

Your pledge to the Mexican people to work for "comprehensive immigration reform" sounds like you are pledging to push through a guestworker-amnesty program.

A "step-out-step-in" provision in no way should ever qualify an illegal alien for a path to U.S. citizenship. Simply having to leave the country for a short time before returning to claim a job and legal status is still an amnesty.

No matter how many steps and provisions are created, anything that allows an illegal alien to remain in this country indefinitely or permanently is an amnesty and will be opposed by the majority of voters. There probably is a way to have a guest worker program with no path to citizenship, similar to the program in Switzerland, but as far as I know, no one in the U.S. has studied this possibility. There is no excuse for proposals to give citizenship and the right to vote to those who came here illegally including many who have committed identity theft. If you sign such a bill, you will have committed an impeachable offense and a crime against American values.

This is a backyard and hometown problem for the majority of Americans. The US Federal Government, your administration and the last several administrations have failed to carry out Constitutional duty with regard to immigration. You can parse the language anyway you want, but the facts remain: local governments are now in US courts for trying to protect their citizens from crimes committed by illegal aliens, our jails are crowded with illegal aliens, and the lists of outstanding warrants are full of illegal aliens. Sir, this is your job. If you continue to fail at this job, then you should not be surprised when citizens begin to take the law in their own hands. That is the path you are taking America down.

You can be sure that Americans will defend their family values, even if you don't. That is an inalienable right.

Sincerely,

Clare L. Bromley, III

Who Cares?

In my opinion, the Republicans LOST because they didn't fight hard enough for the us. They didn't give a rats behind that we are being overrun with Mostly Mexicans. I don't care what anyone says, you are not asked to push 3. for German, 4. for Italian, or 5. for Arabic. THAT right there tells me that most of the Illegal Aliens are Latino, and mostly Mexican. After all the rest of the Latin American Countries will have to pass thru Mexico to get here, and they are keeping that mostly to themselves!!!
Just keep CALLING, that makes them the angriest.
Kennedy is a buffoon, look at his website.
on your home page type in U.S.Senate:Senators Home, and ALL the US Senate comes up.
IT is almost entirely the DEMOCRATS that are pushing for the Illegals "rights" $crew ours, gotta pander to those tax paying Illegals. What a hoot. I keep calling my Senators, sending e-mails, and have signed up at http://www.numbersUSA.com, join up, they will send you updates on what the congresscritters are up to, and you can send FREE faxes to congress. Do you think they care???
They have a great retirement, they have great health care, why should they give a fat fig about us??? This is what I get from Buffoon Carl Levin: Our Immigration System is broken and needs reform;
WELL excuse me SIR, BUT you were in congress when the immigration reform was passed in 1986, giving amnesty to only a few million of them, and YOU SIR promised to GO AFTER THE EMPLOYERS, AND CLOSE THE BORDER, Like I said, he works for Comedy central.
Michigan is in the toilet, BUT our congresscritters just keep on keepin on, letting the illegal aliens run rampant, THEY know where they are, they just don't give a fat fig. BUT Mr. Levin is up for re-election in 2008, IF he VOTES TO GIVE THE ILLEGALS AMNESTY, the WHOLE STATE WILL KNOW. Because I will pass it on to another to pass it on, but then we have the Sanctuary cities of Detroit, and Ann Arbor to flock to.
You do notice don't you that there are NONE on Teddy and John's Island paradise in Massachusetts don't you. Just seems what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander (with mucho buckeroos that is!), in other words DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO!!!

Who needs Rove when you got Meth!!

The White House is instead letting it be known on Capitol Hill that President of Mexico and MS-13 WILL play a big part in President Bush's forthcoming big push to pass a "compromise" immigration bill. This new plan finally allows Americans to be able to negotiate cheaper drugs. Drugs like Meth, cocaine, and marijuana. Also his fear of bird flu will be allayed by introduction of TB, chagas,bedbugs, and dengue fever..(that ought to keep those serfs busy!)

At 73 with cancer in

remission, i'm just hoping i'm still around to see how this all comes out. I'll have to admit i'm seriously considering getting some assets into foreign currency in case i have to move to Belize just to stand the govt of the country in which i reside.

"It's Bushes fault".

No pun intended,but it really is.His lack of political instincts has killed his legacy.I don't know if that was because he followed the advice of Rove or didn't follow it,but Bush was instramental in losing the the majority in Congress.He ignored the border question for five years and when he had no other choice,he came up with a plan completely unsupported by his political base.And that is why the Republicans are a minority in Congress today.And that is Bush'es legacy.Too bad.

They'll remember el pres, not la speaker

Gabby,

You're looking at this too pessimistically. If millions or illegals are able to obtain citizenship, it is President Bush the Republican they'll remember (and thank), not Speaker Pelosi or Majority Leader Reid.

That *could* mean votes for the GOP, *if* dozens of Republicans don't fall over themselves with Latino-bashing sentiments to explain why this should not go through.