Johnny Coli

And I'll be using it quite a bit.

Only a complete idiot would link to a study AND an article that proves them wrong. We have found that idiot. From the CfI report: That's not ten times. Once again, it's almost the same conclusion the other showed. So, the main issues with respect to "illegals" are the same issues that the "natives" are dealing with, specifically educating and finding jobs for less-skilled workers. To wit: Also, the CfI isn't exactly a "non-partisan" group. From the WaPo article that YOU provided.... You're not even reading the stuff you're posting to show that you know what you're talking about.

Start a thread, chief. I made the OP because Lott's winning the seat by one vote over Lamar Alexander was news yesterday, considering it was just two years ago that he was gutted by the White House and his own party for his remarks about Thurmond. Your boy Drudge had one of his "breaking news" rotating lights about it as well. I've already resigned myself to the fact that the next two years will be loud choruses of "Senator Byrd was in the KKK" and "Chappaquiddick" from your side. Either get some new material or follow the news.

That was pretty much my take. I'm sure that there are those in the GOP who would rather not have the national spotlight shown on their actions proceeding up to, and during election day. Michael Steele comes to mind.....

Hispanics were used, I believe, for sampling reasons for the area they used as their model, Los Angeles. I'm sure they could have used some other ethnic group clustered in some other part of the counry, but for statistical analysis the hispanic sampling would give a better data set to estimate from when scaling up the rest of the country. Had they only used somalians from Lewiston Maine as their model they would have been crucified for using a poor sampling technique. The 18-64 age group is the predominant age group that makes up the population of undocumented workers. I believe they said this age group constitutes 97% of the undocumented workers. That's a large enough number to assume that the remaining 3% wouldn't have a significant impact on the results. Thirdly, the study only disproves that "illegals" are more of a burden on the health industry than native-born people are. In fact, they are far less of a burden. It makes no mention of estimating the cost to educate, feed, etc. In fact, it states that those are the policy areas that should be discussed when looking at total economic impact.

His own math doesn't even work. Using his formula of four people to a family, and 260 million ppl, that's 65 million families. And that's if everyone has two kids. So, even using his completely out of the blue numbers, the cost would be $17 bucks/family.

Because not all of you can get the Journal article without purchasing it (which isn't uncommon, most aren't free), I wil paste the study methods. The data is summarized nicely in the press release that I linked to in the fourth or fifth post, that apparently some of you didn't bother to read. (If Ken or Darin think this is pushing the copywrite limits I'll delete this post. This is the methods only, though.)

Yes, why believe peer-reviewed science journals when we can rely on your unbiased observations.

From the press release (that you obviously didn't read) on the study: Yes, I feel smart.

You would think that someone so up on statistics would know that. Mea culpa btw, for linking to the actual article without realizing it was subscription-only. I get the science journals for free, and it didn't show up that way on my screen. However, the Rand Corp press release does an excellent job of summarizing the results. But he didn't read that either, apparently.

I don't assume anything, Bill. The freaking study was of households that contained immigrants that spoke either english or spanish in the LA area. Unless LA had a huge influx of undocumented irishmen that I didn't know about, then the study, and we, are speaking about predominantly hispanics. And, once again, you didn't even read the last sentence in the post I made explaining that I know not all undocumented workers are hispanic.

Have you bothered to read any of the rest of the thread, man? The study dealt with primarily hispanics. Chef Jim and GG are arguing about hispanics. And the entire debate about undocumented workers in this country is centered around hispanics. I've mentioned numerous times in many other threads that deporting all undocumented workers in this country would mean a whole helluva lot of other ethnic groups would go as well, and got roundly ignored. But score one for you for adding "clarity" to this thread.

Not every hispanic person is an "illegal."

Cat herder and Strom Thurmond jackboot-licker Trent Lott is back from the dead and ready to kick some butt! Trent Lott, Minority Whip (the irony of that particular title should hit you right about...now.) Congrats, Trent!

It's probably not a good day for the GOP-apologists to be wagging fingers and bringing up corruption. Jack Abramoff Federal inmate No. 27593-112 reported to prison this morning.

Your post is full of stats and numbers you've made up, and you call me a buffoon? If the total cost to the taxpayers is $11 each, how does their burden jump to $250 each if the total cost increases by less than half (which you pulled out of your ass, anyway)? The easy answer, of course, is that you are a fool. Also, if the undocumented workers between the ages of 18 and 64 are less of a burden on healthcare than a naturalized citizen in the same age group, why wouldn't the trend hold for the under-18/over-64 population? The answer of course, is that the trend probably would hold. To be conservative, let's just say that their cost would be equal to any other child or senior citizen in this country. It certainly wouldn't be more. Additionally, as the sample was taken from around LA, a region that many would consider abundant with undocumented workers, it is probably inflated. To err on the conservative side, the study increases the estimated total cost by 25%. So, not only is the cost most likely a bit lower than the estimate, the cost to the individual taxpayer is probably less than the $11 each that the study arrives at. Your problem is that not only did you not bother to read any part of the study, you also refuse to believe the numbers because they don't fit your own "observations." That's makes you a god-damned idiot.

The Tom Brady experiment it over.

I think you're referring to the off-broadway musical based on the scandal, starring Sammy Davis Junior, called "Abscandy Man". That was a swingin' cast, man.

Abscam?!?! Your smoking gun has rust on it.

Immigrants And The Cost Of Medical Care, Health Affairs, 25, no. 6 (2006): 1700-1711

Here's The Straight Dope on why there is the 33/45/78 speeds, and a minor mention on the 16. Here's a How Turntables Work article. And this dude is selling an old 4-speed table on Craig's list.

Here's the Rand Corp link.

16

One of the big issues that those against "illegals" have is that they believe they are a drain on the system, and that they're sucking up tax dollars for free health care. From RedState.com: Ca Prop 86; Subsidizing Illegal Aliens!. Well, a new Rand study shows that it's just not the case. Illegal aliens use little healthcare Eleven dollars!?! Round' em all up!