Down goes another GOP talking point

[Bungee Jumper]

Hmm.  I wonder if it had more to do with HCA's 1999 plans to expand its newer hospital only 2 miles away from the one you're referring to (I'm guessing), than the financial hit caused by that erstwhile sickly Pedro?

 

It really doesn't take a Kean Grad to do a quick fact check.

838646[/snapback]

 

People would rather have ten heartfelt opinions than know one simple fact. And they usually don't know the difference.

 

Coli, you started this thread to watch completely ignorant people argue over a paper they haven't read, didn't you? Admit it, you evil bastard...

[Johnny Coli]

A cursory view of illegal immigration provides the following information:

 

In 2002 illegals cost us $26 billion, and they paid $16 billion in taxes leaving us with a $10,000,000,000 deficit. That's 10 billion boys. Care to eat some crow? This comes from the Center for Immigration, a non-partisan committee.

 

http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

 

I know I was guessing double the figure or $1.1 billion, and one jacka$$ said I was making those #s out of thin air and he was right, because it was 10 times the $1.1 billion he quoted on health-care alone for a specific demographic.

 

That's $10,000,000,000

 

Here's a news story to corroborate the facts: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Aug25.html

838601[/snapback]

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:

treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion);

 

That's not ten times.

 

Our findings show that many of the preconceived notions about the fiscal impact of illegal households turn out to be inaccurate. In terms of welfare use, receipt of cash assistance programs tends to be very low, while Medicaid use, though significant, is still less than for other households.

 

Once again, it's almost the same conclusion the other showed.

 

With nearly two-thirds of illegal aliens lacking a high school degree, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments, not their legal status or heavy use of most social services.

 

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:

The results of this study are consistent with a 1997 study by the National Research Council, which also found that immigrants' education level is a key determinant of their fiscal impact.

 

 

Also, the CfI isn't exactly a "non-partisan" group.

From the WaPo article that YOU provided....

For its report, the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington-based group that advocates tougher immigration policies, used Census Bureau figures to compare the revenue that illegal immigrants contribute through taxes with the cost of government services they use.

 

You're not even reading the stuff you're posting to show that you know what you're talking about.

[Alaska Darin]

Using statistics in place of common sense is the reason we are where we are. I'm just saying...

[GG]

Using statistics in place of common sense is the reason we are where we are.  I'm just saying...

838665[/snapback]

 

It made common sense to allow Germans, Irish, Italians, Polish in the 19th century...

[Wacka]

It made common sense to allow Germans, Irish, Italians, Polish in the 19th century...

838683[/snapback]

 

Those wer LEGAL immigrants. I have nothing against people going through the process and coming here legally. It's the ILLEGALS I want to kick out, no matter where they come from.

 

My grandfather came here LEGALLY iaround 1912 from Poland.

He was against handouts for illegals. He came over here knowing little english. He taught himself. There were no classes for imigrants and radio hadn't even been invented. He learned by talking to people and reading the paper. And no. he wasn't educated. He was a tinsmith at Buffalo Forge.

[GG]

Those wer LEGAL immigrants. I have nothing against people going through the process and coming here legally. It's the ILLEGALS I want to kick out, no matter where they come from.

 

My grandfather came here LEGALLY iaround 1912 from Poland.

He was against handouts for illegals. He came over here knowing little english. He taught himself. There were no classes for imigrants and radio hadn't even been invented. He learned by talking to people and reading the paper.  And no. he wasn't educated. He was a tinsmith at Buffalo Forge.

838701[/snapback]

 

And the reason they came here LEGALLY is because a similar fight was held 100, 150 and 200 years ago between the openers and restrictioners who didn't want smelly, uneducated Catholic 'skis polluting the American landscape. And look who won.

 

Ever wonder why immigration numbers (and opening of the borders) always spiked during economic boom times?

[Orton's Arm]

A cursory view of illegal immigration provides the following information:

 

In 2002 illegals cost us $26 billion, and they paid $16 billion in taxes leaving us with a $10,000,000,000 deficit. That's 10 billion boys. Care to eat some crow? This comes from the Center for Immigration, a non-partisan committee.

 

http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

 

I know I was guessing double the figure or $1.1 billion, and one jacka$$ said I was making those #s out of thin air and he was right, because it was 10 times the $1.1 billion he quoted on health-care alone for a specific demographic.

 

That's $10,000,000,000

 

Here's a news story to corroborate the facts: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Aug25.html

 

Illegal immigrants kill, rape and destroy lives at a much higher rate than legal citizens. That's the non-economic side of it. That's the human side, and it has faces of families in agony over the death of a loved one.

 

How about the cost of identity theft? Countless hours and millions of dollars to restore your own identity:

http://redtape.msnbc.com/2006/03/hidden_cost_of_.html

 

How about the cost of all the cars they steal? How about all our US dollars going to drug lords? That's free of course...

http://www.newswithviews.com/Wooldridge/frosty2.htm

 

You were also right, I guessed too low. There are 300,000 births a year by illegal immigrants who have "US citizen" children, called "anchor children". Their cost is in the billions, but are not fitted with the equation as they are now citizens and not illegals.

 

This is just pertaining to San Diego:

-Nearly 80 percent of gang-related crimes in San Diego are illegal immigrants. They only attack other gang members right...

-In San Diego alone protests supporting and opposing illegal immigration cost the Sheriff's Department $489,000 in 2005.

 

According to a study in 1996 of the costs of illegal immigration by Rice Univ. economist, Dr. Donald Huddle, illegal aliens were displacing roughly 730,000 American workers every year, at a cost of about $4.3 billion a year, and the supply of cheap labor depresses the wages and working conditions of the working poor.

 

Are we to believe all the facts as to the cost of these people? Or just your idiotic myopic understanding of what is happening?

838601[/snapback]

An excellent post, and GG's response was inane.

[GG]

An excellent post, and GG's response was inane.

838736[/snapback]

 

 

Nice to see you covering for someone else who can't do math.

[mike1011]

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.

838655[/snapback]

 

Non-partisan doesn't mean they are for immigration, it means they are not Republican or Democrat. Because they hold a common position doesn't mean they belong to a party.

 

Now what I posted is to show the overall costs. You stated, in a biased, limited demographic, that it only costs $11 per family for illegals. If you wanted to claim (which you might out of looking like a liberal tool) that it was just for medical expenses, it's funny how I stated the true cost for the entire demographic was roughly double, a claim which proved accurate which I was chastised for.

 

You are guys are idiots, complete idiots. Common sense prevails here. They are eating up jobs, tax money, security issues, and still all you complain about is how much it costs tax payers for families between 18-64 when those #s are not accurate based upon 45 million families roughly.

 

Bottom line is they are destroying the country and you don't want to face it because it makes you look stupid. Don't worry, you do that just fine.

[GG]

Bottom line is they are destroying the country and you don't want to face it because it makes you look stupid. Don't worry, you do that just fine.

838754[/snapback]

 

Don't know about anyone else, but I got an image of Patrick chasing SpongeBob after I read your post.

[Bungee Jumper]

Non-partisan doesn't mean they are for immigration, it means they are not Republican or Democrat. Because they hold a common position doesn't mean they belong to a party.

 

Now what I posted is to show the overall costs. You stated, in a biased, limited demographic, that it only costs $11 per family for illegals. If you wanted to claim (which you might out of looking like a liberal tool) that it was just for medical expenses, it's funny how I stated the true cost for the entire demographic was roughly double, a claim which proved accurate which I was chastised for.

 

You are guys are idiots, complete idiots. Common sense prevails here. They are eating up jobs, tax money, security issues, and still all you complain about is how much it costs tax payers for families between 18-64 when those #s are not accurate based upon 45 million families roughly.

 

Bottom line is they are destroying the country and you don't want to face it because it makes you look stupid. Don't worry, you do that just fine.

838754[/snapback]

 

Yes, and when it comes to tax money, they eat up $1.1B for health care, which is proportionally less than the rest of the nation, which is all the study analyzed.

 

Everything else you're posting is just blowing smoke.

[Johnny Coli]

Non-partisan doesn't mean they are for immigration, it means they are not Republican or Democrat. Because they hold a common position doesn't mean they belong to a party.

 

Now what I posted is to show the overall costs. You stated, in a biased, limited demographic, that it only costs $11 per family for illegals. If you wanted to claim (which you might out of looking like a liberal tool) that it was just for medical expenses, it's funny how I stated the true cost for the entire demographic was roughly double, a claim which proved accurate which I was chastised for.

 

You are guys are idiots, complete idiots. Common sense prevails here. They are eating up jobs, tax money, security issues, and still all you complain about is how much it costs tax payers for families between 18-64 when those #s are not accurate based upon 45 million families roughly.

 

Bottom line is they are destroying the country and you don't want to face it because it makes you look stupid. Don't worry, you do that just fine.

838754[/snapback]

Re-read the freaking title of the thread and the original post you moron. The thread, and the study, is about debunking that undocumented workers use a disproportionate amount of the health service cost. Both the study I linked to, and the freaking study you linked to SAY THE SAME FUGGING THING. In fact, the one you posted even shows that they are less of a burden in other areas as well. As far as policy goes, undocumented workers are no more of a burden on social services than native-born americans.

 

Once again..from the study YOU FREAKING LINKED TO:

Our findings show that many of the preconceived notions about the fiscal impact of illegal households turn out to be inaccurate. In terms of welfare use, receipt of cash assistance programs tends to be very low, while Medicaid use, though significant, is still less than for other households.

 

Don't lecture me about common sense, then make crap up and link to an article that supports the opposite of what you're trying to say.

 

The bottom line here is that I'm not the one looking stupid.

[Alaska Darin]

It made common sense to allow Germans, Irish, Italians, Polish in the 19th century...

838683[/snapback]

Ah, so now we're pretending America and the way it runs today is the same as it was 500 years ago (VABills math). Gotcha.

 

I get legal immigration and the necessity. That's not the debate.

[GG]

Ah, so now we're pretending America and the way it runs today is the same as it was 500 years ago (VABills math).  Gotcha.

 

I get legal immigration and the necessity.  That's not the debate.

838787[/snapback]

 

Yup, I'm saying that the same rhetoric used at holding up immigration reform today, is the same that has been used since the first boat landed on the shores of the Atlantic.

[Orton's Arm]

Yup, I'm saying that the same rhetoric used at holding up immigration reform today, is the same that has been used since the first boat landed on the shores of the Atlantic.

838791[/snapback]

And I'm saying that policies which made sense when this country was empty no longer make sense now that it's full.

[Bungee Jumper]

And I'm saying that policies which made sense when this country was empty no longer make sense now that it's full.

838858[/snapback]

 

...without even questioning the implicit assumption that the country is full.

[Orton's Arm]

...without even questioning the implicit assumption that the country is full. 

838861[/snapback]

How much more polluted, overcrowded, and poor do you want this country to become before you open your eyes to the fact that we can no longer afford to absorb the Third World's population surplus?

[X. Benedict]

Actually it's Pedro's liver.  You know those Mexicans and their tequila. 

838221[/snapback]

 

It all comes together, Cannonball lives in the Barrio.

[GG]

How much more polluted, overcrowded, and poor do you want this country to become before you open your eyes to the fact that we can no longer afford to absorb the Third World's population surplus?

838877[/snapback]

 

We must act quickly, before the farms of Greenwich Village turn into a despotic den of homosexual depravation.

 

 

Ooops. Sorry, wrong thread.

[Orton's Arm]

We must act quickly, before the farms of Greenwich Village turn into a despotic den of homosexual depravation.

Ooops.  Sorry, wrong thread.

838895[/snapback]

Does "GG" stand for goo goo gaga?