Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Intersting ideas, MarkSMU.

Of course, besides the obvious faults that Redscare points out like illegals NOT getting the benefits you claim they do, I'd also argue that you'd actually be increasing the size of the government because it takes PEOPLE to guard the border and/or go around and do searches on folks to check their status. It would take taxes to pay those people unless you want to hand them over to a private security corporation like Blackwater. Of course, after the first lawsuit for wrongful death or illegal search and seizure ona U.S. citizen, I'd imagine the costs would skyrocket.

First things first - stop the hemorrhaging. Make anchor babies non-citizens and deport at birth. That is the first step.

As to entire agencies to deal with the new problem? I dont think so. Border Patrol already exists in all major cities as well as throughout the state. Employers are already required to verify citizenship, penalties against companies employing illegals needs to go way up. It needs to be a real financially painful event to have willingly hired an illegal without checking employment status. Many of them do it as they are supposed to. If they were required to report the applicant and allow him to be picked up, we could have much more efficient use of our resources. Instead of only patrolling vast borders, we can efficiently pick up job applicants and cut the flow of jobs. Its not difficult for a school to do the same. But the school wont do it. Why not? Because their funding is based on the number of students that they have. They want more money so they want more students.

Niche - I dont know where you get your statistic but everything I have been able to find shows that low wage illegal immigrants are a BURDEN on the system not a financial Positive. The illegals work low paying jobs, contributing nothing to the tax base. They have kids, they educate their new US citizen at a cost to every tax payer (they pay nothing) a large percentage of their kids do not complete high school because they need to help support their family, and the cycle continues. New illegal immigrants, new anchor baby, more negative cash flow.

Current immigration policies with respect to both legal and illegal immigration encourage the entry of a dis­proportionate number of poorly educated immigrants into the U.S. As these low-skill immigrants (both legal and illegal) take up residence, they impose a substantial tax burden on U.S. taxpayers. The benefits received by low-skill immigrant households exceed taxes paid at each age level; at no point do these households pay more in than they take out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 137
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Good comeback if not for the fact that I've talked openly about living back in Houston for over a year now. In fact, it's been exactly 13 months now since my move back to town. But yeah, I'd be pisse

Don't take my word for it... Typical Marksmu tactic - dismiss it as a typical liberal tactic when you don't agree with it. And, if you think Sourcewatch is a typical liberal dot org attacking the mi

CVS is passing out half-off coupons for Aquanet in support of Rick Perry. ...or some other stupid nawn sekwitter that makes no sense and isn't even remotely relevant or true.

From the Austin Statesmen....

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/politics/entries/2009/03/12/perry_will_block_unemployment.html

To be eligible for all the money, Texas must enact legislation that would change how the state’s calculates a worker’s eligibility and extend benefits to more workers, including those looking for part-time work.

The state calculated this would be a long term BURDEN and declined the funds.

Link to post
Share on other sites

First things first - stop the hemorrhaging. Make anchor babies non-citizens and deport at birth. That is the first step.

As to entire agencies to deal with the new problem? I dont think so. Border Patrol already exists in all major cities as well as throughout the state. Employers are already required to verify citizenship, penalties against companies employing illegals needs to go way up. It needs to be a real financially painful event to have willingly hired an illegal without checking employment status. Many of them do it as they are supposed to. If they were required to report the applicant and allow him to be picked up, we could have much more efficient use of our resources. Instead of only patrolling vast borders, we can efficiently pick up job applicants and cut the flow of jobs. Its not difficult for a school to do the same. But the school wont do it. Why not? Because their funding is based on the number of students that they have. They want more money so they want more students.

Niche - I dont know where you get your statistic but everything I have been able to find shows that low wage illegal immigrants are a BURDEN on the system not a financial Positive. The illegals work low paying jobs, contributing nothing to the tax base. They have kids, they educate their new US citizen at a cost to every tax payer (they pay nothing) a large percentage of their kids do not complete high school because they need to help support their family, and the cycle continues. New illegal immigrants, new anchor baby, more negative cash flow.

Current immigration policies with respect to both legal and illegal immigration encourage the entry of a dis­proportionate number of poor

ly educated immigrants into the U.S. As these low-skill immigrants (both legal and illegal) take up residence, they impose a substantial tax burden on U.S. taxpayers. The benefits received by low-skill immigrant households exceed taxes paid at each age level; at no point do these households pay more in than they take out.

Immigration, legal and illegal, is necesary to keep growing the GDP and will be necessary to keep this country competitive against

China and India. The idea that services received should equal taxes paid is a great tea party sound bite but isn't the economic reality in a world economy based on leverage. Besides, if that were the goal, we'd be raising the hell out of tax rates on corporations, as they consume far more taxpayer-paid resources (mainly in the form of military protection, occupations and wars) than people living near the poverty line.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

First things first - stop the hemorrhaging. Make anchor babies non-citizens and deport at birth. That is the first step.

First step - Repeal the 14th Amendment. Shouldn't take long, a couple months, maybe?

Check. OK, what's the 2nd step?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

First things first - stop the hemorrhaging. Make anchor babies non-citizens and deport at birth. That is the first step.

So, uh...you want to repeal the 14th Amendment to U.S. Constitution? Is that what I'm hearing?

As to entire agencies to deal with the new problem? I dont think so. Border Patrol already exists in all major cities as well as throughout the state. Employers are already required to verify citizenship, penalties against companies employing illegals needs to go way up. It needs to be a real financially painful event to have willingly hired an illegal without checking employment status. Many of them do it as they are supposed to. If they were required to report the applicant and allow him to be picked up, we could have much more efficient use of our resources. Instead of only patrolling vast borders, we can efficiently pick up job applicants and cut the flow of jobs.

So, as ineffective as our law enforcement agencies apparently already are at curtailing illegal immigration, you think that they'd manage to not only do the job that they're already doing poorly and also expand their role dramatically...without a massive surge in hiring?

Niche - I dont know where you get your statistic but everything I have been able to find shows that low wage illegal immigrants are a BURDEN on the system not a financial Positive. The illegals work low paying jobs, contributing nothing to the tax base. They have kids, they educate their new US citizen at a cost to every tax payer (they pay nothing) a large percentage of their kids do not complete high school because they need to help support their family, and the cycle continues. New illegal immigrants, new anchor baby, more negative cash flow.

I don't know where you get your statistic either.

I'll tell you this much. If all the illegal residents of Texas were rounded up and deported over the course of the next year, sales tax receipts would decline a little bit but the big hit would be felt at the municipal level where demand for real estate would plummet, foreclosure activity would spike, rents would decline, commercial and residential real estate values would dip, and your property tax rate would have to go up to cover expenditures that are most heavily concentrated towards educating CITIZENS and providing health care to elderly CITIZENS.

Current immigration policies with respect to both legal and illegal immigration encourage the entry of a dis­proportionate number of poorly educated immigrants into the U.S.

I concur that there are an insufficient number of highly-skilled immigrants allowed into this country. We need more immigrants if we are to continue to exist as an economic superpower...'alot' more...because obviously we aren't making enough babies.

It'd be nice IMO if we could source more immigrants from a greater diversity of countries, which is why I'm personally all in favor of Fred Thompson's "tall fences, wide gates" approach. But you originally harped on trying to cut expenditures by creating larger government agencies, and that's internally inconsistent. That's why everyone is beating up on you, and that's probably the only reason that KinkaidAlum and I are in unholy agreement with one another.

As these low-skill immigrants (both legal and illegal) take up residence, they impose a substantial tax burden on U.S. taxpayers. The benefits received by low-skill immigrant households exceed taxes paid at each age level; at no point do these households pay more in than they take out.

Prove it. ...without using tired and cliched platitudes.

Edited by TheNiche
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Immigration, legal and illegal, is necesary to keep growing the GDP and will be necessary to keep this country competitive against

China and India. The idea that services received should equal taxes paid is a great tea party sound bite but isn't the economic reality in a world economy based on leverage. Besides, if that were the goal, we'd be raising the hell out of tax rates on corporations, as they consume far more taxpayer-paid resources (mainly in the form of military protection, occupations and wars) than people living near the poverty line.

Lets be clear here I am not against Immigration. I am sternly against illegal immigration. and I am against immigration of unskilled, low wage workers. We have enough idiots. We dont need other countries idiots.

To steal a quote from the heritage foundation report on the fiscal cost of low skilled immigrants.....

"Hundreds of millions more people would immigrate to the U.S. if they had the opportunity. Given this context, the U.S. must be selective in its immigration policy. Policymakers must ensure that the interaction of welfare and other financial transfer programs with immigration does not expand the fiscally dependent population, thereby imposing large costs on American society".

Educated immigrants can help this country become more prosperous. Uneducated immigrants cost us money. We have enough uneducated immigrants now to fill all the low wage jobs that Americans allegedly wont do.

Seasonal worker programs can be used for agricultural when we need short term boosts of low wage, uneducated labor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, uh...you want to repeal the 14th Amendment to U.S. Constitution? Is that what I'm hearing?

Yes I do.

So, as ineffective as our law enforcement agencies apparently already are at curtailing illegal immigration, you think that they'd manage to not only do the job that they're already doing poorly and also expand their role dramatically...without a massive surge in hiring?

I think we can reallocate resources to increase efficiency.

I don't know where you get your statistic either.

I'll tell you this much. If all the illegal residents of Texas were rounded up and deported over the course of the next year, demand for real estate would plummet, foreclosure activity would spike, rents would decline, commercial and residential real estate values would dip, and your property tax rate would have to go up to cover expenditures that are most heavily concentrated towards educating CITIZENS and providing health care to elderly CITIZENS.

There would be a short term negative effect that would be offset by long term positives. If the US could solve its illegal immigration problem, we could allow more qualified immigrants entry and actually start improving. More of the same is not helping.

There would be immediate deficits due to a decreased tax base, but there would be huge sums of money currently allocated to provide services that could theoretically be refunded to the government. However I have never seen a state budget get smaller, so it would likely just increase waste, as each department would likely be unwilling to accept less, even though the quantity of services they would be providing would drastically decrease.

I concur that there are an insufficient number of highly-skilled immigrants allowed into this country. We need more immigrants if we are to continue to exist as an economic superpower...'alot' more...because obviously we aren't making enough babies.

It'd be nice IMO if we could source more immigrants from a greater diversity of countries, which is why I'm personally all in favor of Fred Thompson's "tall fences, wide gates" approach. But you originally harped on trying to cut expenditures by creating larger government agencies, and that's internally inconsistent. That's why everyone is beating up on you, and that's probably the only reason that KinkaidAlum and I are in unholy agreement with one another.

Prove it without using tired and cliched platitudes.

This quote, "As these low-skill immigrants (both legal and illegal) take up residence, they impose a substantial tax burden on U.S. taxpayers. The benefits received by low-skill immigrant households exceed taxes paid at each age level; at no point do these households pay more in than they take out." was supposed to be hyperlinked to this article......http://www.heritage.org/research/immigration/sr14.cfm

Its a very long read, but contains alot of good information....I already know many will dismiss solely b/c of the source, but it is chalk full of good information.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we can reallocate resources to increase efficiency.

Hmmm...there are currently 1,800 Texas state police officers. It cost roughly $100,000 per officer to hire, train and support 1 officer. Let's assume that there are 2 million illegal immigrants in Texas. How many officers, at $100K per, do you estimate that it will take to ferret out those 2 million immigrants, house them while we verify that they are in fact illegal immigrants, and transport them back to their country of origin? How much of a hit on our sales tax revenue do you estimate the loss of 8 percent of our population will inflict?

Assuming that you favor the US government doing what it is constitutionally allowed to do, how much federal money do you estimate would be required to accomplish the task of deporting 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants?

You know, we're ignoring all of the legal trampling that you, as a lawyer, are proposing, but the least you could do is give us an estimate of the costs incurred by your obviously well-thought plan, as opposed to using lame terms such as "reallocate resources to increase efficiency". Just WHAT resources will you reallocate? We are not the lemmings that you want us to be. Prove your case.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

This quote, "As these low-skill immigrants (both legal and illegal) take up residence, they impose a substantial tax burden on U.S. taxpayers. The benefits received by low-skill immigrant households exceed taxes paid at each age level; at no point do these households pay more in than they take out." was supposed to be hyperlinked to this article......http://www.heritage.org/research/immigration/sr14.cfm

Its a very long read, but contains alot of good information....I already know many will dismiss solely b/c of the source, but it is chalk full of good information.

Oh! Now I get it!

The reason you sound like Fox News is not because you watch Fox News. It's clear you don't since you've said time and time again that you don't watch Fox News.... The reason you sound like Fox News is because you use the same source material!

It's all so much clearer now. Geezus. Why didn't you say so in the first place?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You dont actually believe that illegals can not collect on all these government programs do you?

You know how they collect on all those government programs?

Most likely, your unskilled illegal immigrant labor is putting more into the system than they're getting out. Many have a valid (though illegally obtained) social security number along with a valid (though illegally obtained) ID. Even the vast majority of companies who hire unskilled laborers require some semblance of legality in order to hire someone. Most companies, with the exception of your shady mom-and-pop subcontractors need their cash flow to be on the level. It's better for business that way. It helps them get loans. It helps them grow. It's nearly impossible to get a job in all but the most strenuous of work environments without a couple cards that say you can work here. Case in point, I once worked for a company who had three Mexicans with the same IDs (but with different photos) and three different social security numbers (which oddly matched the identical names on their identically numbered IDs). What do you bet those people, who paid into the system with each one of their paychecks, never filled out a 1040EZ to get their refund?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't been paying too much attention to the race as of yet... but I know one person who will definitely not get my vote... Perry! The fact that he even just mentioned Texas possibly seceding from the United States shows how UN-AMERICAN he is... I want to Governor who is PRO-AMERICA! USA!! :wub:

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

This quote, "As these low-skill immigrants (both legal and illegal) take up residence, they impose a substantial tax burden on U.S. taxpayers. The benefits received by low-skill immigrant households exceed taxes paid at each age level; at no point do these households pay more in than they take out." was supposed to be hyperlinked to this article......http://www.heritage.org/research/immigration/sr14.cfm

I don't understand the anti-"low-skilled LEGAL immigrants" stance. This great Nation was built by immigrants. Many low-skilled immigrants came here and learned skills they didn't have the opportunity to learn in their home countries. Would you have some test for them at the border where they would have to prove they had skills before they were let in or would you maybe give them 6 months to learn skills and if they don't deport them? Also, would this test be required for all immigrants or just the ones w/ dark skin?

I know on Fox News (they are also not fond of immigrants) they have brought up in the past that white people here in America need to start having more babies b/c the brown-skinned folk are growing in numbers at a greater pace. Fox News being pro-white/christian/conservative is obviously threatened by this. That leads me to believe they would accept white immigrants (legal or illegal, skilled or unskilled) for the sole reason that they would add to the white population. I could be wrong, though. :-)

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Welfare, Food Stamps - unavailable to illegal immigrants.

while it is more difficult to get food stamps in texas (vs cal and wash st), they do give it to illegal immigrants. this has been confirmed last month from an illegal who came to texas to find a better life. long story but she gave us a 30 min dissertation on the subject. Edited by musicman
Link to post
Share on other sites

Medicare & Medicaid - unavailable to illegal immigrants.

from the article you posted evidently k-12 education for illegals is guaranteed under medicare. child care and development is available via EMS funding.

Edited by musicman
Link to post
Share on other sites

I know on Fox News (they are also not fond of immigrants) they have brought up in the past that white people here in America need to start having more babies b/c the brown-skinned folk are growing in numbers at a greater pace. Fox News being pro-white/christian/conservative is obviously threatened by this. That leads me to believe they would accept white immigrants (legal or illegal, skilled or unskilled) for the sole reason that they would add to the white population. I could be wrong, though. :-)

Wait, they were saying over on the other thread that corporations couldn't think or feel and were soulless, etc. as a justification for denying them the ability to overtly support a political candidate. But here you're saying that Fox News, a subsidiary of News Corp., is bigoted, racist, pro-white, christian, conservative, and that it feels threatened...almost as though pain or anxiety were possible for it. As far as I'm concerned, if a corporate entity is that human then they need to be allowed the vote in addition to having free speech protections. It'd even have to even be one vote per subsidiary. And in line with the notion of recognizing reproductive rights, that'd mean that they should be able to form as many subsidiaries as necessary to sway the vote. I don't like the consequences of what you're getting at.

Of course, it's possible that you merely described a corporation according to your moral opinion of how it brands itself in order to generate revenue. In the same sense as you describe Fox News as bigoted (rather than as a vehicle for advertising made possible by bigoted viewers), you might also describe a liquor store as an alcoholic (instead of as a retailer with alcoholic customers) or a strip club as slutty (instead of as a sexually oriented business with sluts for employees). But that's not a whole lot better than my first hypothesis, at least IMO.

Use English more good.

Edited by TheNiche
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, they were saying over on the other thread that corporations couldn't think or feel and were soulless, etc. as a justification for denying them the ability to overtly support a political candidate. But here you're saying that Fox News, a subsidiary of News Corp., is bigoted, racist, pro-white, christian, conservative, and that it feels threatened...almost as though pain or anxiety were possible for it.

I think he's referring to the people working at Fox News...and their audience.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh! Now I get it!

The reason you sound like Fox News is not because you watch Fox News. It's clear you don't since you've said time and time again that you don't watch Fox News.... The reason you sound like Fox News is because you use the same source material!

It's all so much clearer now. Geezus. Why didn't you say so in the first place?

Typical liberal tactic - dismiss it as biased when you don't agree with it. If it said Barack Obama is a genius, you would plaster it on the front page of every newspaper in the Country.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama isn't a genius. If he goes through with this assinine spending freeze, he'll prove that point. I really don't understand all of the conservative angst over Obama. After all, he's now giving us what McCain argued for during the Presidential Debates (a spending freeze), he's given us a troop surge and increased military spending, and his watered down health care bill pisses off the Left just as much as the Right and has no chance at passing meaning it will likely take another decade or two before we debate health care again. Oh, and since many conservatives are concerned about the markets, those have been doing MUCH better under Obama than the last few years under Bush (meaning the rich are getting richer again).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Typical liberal tactic - dismiss it as biased when you don't agree with it. If it said Barack Obama is a genius, you would plaster it on the front page of every newspaper in the Country.

Don't take my word for it...

Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a New Right think tank. Its stated mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies...

Typical Marksmu tactic - dismiss it as a typical liberal tactic when you don't agree with it.

And, if you think Sourcewatch is a typical liberal dot org attacking the middle-of-the-road, oh-so-impartial and agendaless Heritage Foundation, then just look at the front page of the Heritage Foundation's website. If you still think their conclusions weren't derived a priori from their extant political positions, then I've got a bridge to sell you. It's a real all-American bridge. It likes guns and 4x4s, promotes unfettered capitalism and thinks those brown people oughtta be happy with what they got. The bridge is perfect for you.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't take my word for it...

Typical Marksmu tactic - dismiss it as a typical liberal tactic when you don't agree with it.

And, if you think Sourcewatch is a typical liberal dot org attacking the middle-of-the-road, oh-so-impartial and agendaless Heritage Foundation, then just look at the front page of the Heritage Foundation's website. If you still think their conclusions weren't derived a priori from their extant political positions, then I've got a bridge to sell you. It's a real all-American bridge. It likes guns and 4x4s, promotes unfettered capitalism and thinks those brown people oughtta be happy with what they got. The bridge is perfect for you.

Simply because the source is biased does not necessarily mean the conclusion is incorrect. Skewed, maybe, I read the article - I happen to believe the conclusions reached. You probably did not read it, and just dismissed it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Simply because the source is biased does not necessarily mean the conclusion is incorrect.

Except when it suits your agenda.

From the climate change thread:

These scientists have an agenda - they want warming to exist so they can try to figure out why.....they manipulate data to prove their points, they ignore data that refutes their hypothesis, and they team up and use "peer review" as a way to call any denier of their theory a nut job, skeptic.

I have no doubt the world has gotten warmer. I do however doubt that humans have caused it.

Please, for the love of Geezus, don't take that quote as a cue to rehash the climate change debate here. That quote is being used merely to illustrate a point. Your disbelief is inconsistent from subject to subject and based exclusively on predetermined a priori conceits. The only reason you believe anything the Heritage Foundation publishes is because you believed it beforehand. Being a thinktank stocked chock full of spin doctors whose goal it is to sway public opinion, their methodology and their conclusions should be suspect. The fact you don't believe scientists who publish scientific peer-reviewed literature but can swallow the pap churned out by that propaganda machine goes a long way as to explaining why I get so damned frustrated in these exchanges you and I have.

And no, I didn't read their report. There's only so much time in the day, and as I choose not to spend too much time perusing propaganda, I avoided it. Besides, you'd already given a sufficiently succint summary explaining the findings, didn't you?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

No matter what side you're on with the illegals debate...

The fact is, population growth is exponential.

The fact is, if you're born in this country, you are an American, regardless if your parents were or not.

The fact is, if you wanted less brown/brown culture in the country - you should have erected the fence in 1970. You're 4 decades too late to this debate.

We are now the United States of Mexico. Or "Dumpland" as TexasVines would attest.

Deal with it. Or just keep screaming at the rain...

Edited by BryanS
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact is, population growth is exponential.

That's not accurate at all. The rate of population growth has declined significantly since the 1970's; the fertility rate more than the immigration rate.

In order to assure our economic, monetary, and military hegemony in global affairs, it is essential that the rate of population growth be sustained at a reasonably high rate. This is what allows wages to be sufficiently low that our manufacturing sector is not undercut by the third world. The only way to accomplish that when U.S. citizens opt to have fewer than two children per couple is by allowing for an ever more lax standard for immigration. Yet, in the context of American history, I don't think that it has ever been more difficult to immigrate and become naturalized. In that context, it should not come as a surprise that illegal immigration is so prevalent. We created the incentive and allowed the opportunity. And to our long-term strategic benefit, people came here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not accurate at all. The rate of population growth has declined significantly since the 1970's; the fertility rate more than the immigration rate.

In order to assure our economic, monetary, and military hegemony in global affairs, it is essential that the rate of population growth be sustained at a reasonably high rate. This is what allows wages to be sufficiently low that our manufacturing sector is not undercut by the third world. The only way to accomplish that when U.S. citizens opt to have fewer than two children per couple is by allowing for an ever more lax standard for immigration. Yet, in the context of American history, I don't think that it has ever been more difficult to immigrate and become naturalized. In that context, it should not come as a surprise that illegal immigration is so prevalent. We created the incentive and allowed the opportunity. And to our long-term strategic benefit, people came here.

And they brought their habeneros with them, and I, for one, am not willing to give up my peppers. I'd sooner give Marksmu to some fundamentalist cult in Idaho before I gave up a single Tex-Mex joint in the state.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not accurate at all. The rate of population growth has declined significantly since the 1970's; the fertility rate more than the immigration rate.

In order to assure our economic, monetary, and military hegemony in global affairs, it is essential that the rate of population growth be sustained at a reasonably high rate. This is what allows wages to be sufficiently low that our manufacturing sector is not undercut by the third world. The only way to accomplish that when U.S. citizens opt to have fewer than two children per couple is by allowing for an ever more lax standard for immigration. Yet, in the context of American history, I don't think that it has ever been more difficult to immigrate and become naturalized. In that context, it should not come as a surprise that illegal immigration is so prevalent. We created the incentive and allowed the opportunity. And to our long-term strategic benefit, people came here.

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/010327.html

About 1

. . . of every two people added to the nation’s population between July 1, 2005, and July 1, 2006, was Hispanic. There were 1.4 million Hispanics added to the population over the period. <http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/010048.html>

3.4%

Percentage increase in the Hispanic population between July 1, 2005, and July 1, 2006, making Hispanics the fastest-growing minority group. <http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/010048.html>

Across the WORLD human population is an exponential growth function, in total. Here is chart for you:

world-population-chart.jpg

Exponential.

Hispanics procreate in Mexico, a quasi-developed country. Come here. And procreate some more.

In order to break-even (sustain a current population numbers), each couple needs 3, not just two children. (because kids do die - 2 or less results in decline)

A lot of Hispanic families are LARGE. Well beyond just 3 kids... hence the growth... by 2050 the national language of the US will be Spanish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bryan, the scope of your comments appeared to be limited to the United States when you posted what I was responding to, and you seem to have tried to refute my criticism with a graph that illustrates NOT ONLY that the population growth rate in developed nations such as the U.S. is anything but geometric...but that the population growth rate in developing nations has now demonstrated a second inflection point.

Look, this is a simple argument. Just google around for Census population counts by decade and import the data into Excel. Then run a quick formula to show what the percentage rates have been. As I recall, they top out at about 35% growth per decade (natural + immigration - emigration) in the mid-1800's and pretty steadily decline to around 8% or 9% over the last couple of decades. If we aren't witnessing economic growth at historic levels, cannot compete within the manufacturing sector, and threats to our economic hegemony, we need look no further than that very very basic data set.

And since you seem intent on discussing Hispanic issues...I AGREE with you that a mono-cultural set of source countries are a problem. I'd like to see that problem resolved through more equitable immigration policy, and I'm hoping that this is a place where Obama really shines...Bush's policy proposals weren't bad either, but he'd already spent too much political capital on the war to accomplish anything by the time that immigration became a hot button issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well beyond just 3 kids... hence the growth... by 2050 the national language of the US will be Spanish.

You do know America doesn't have a "national" or an "official" language now, right? English is by far the most common, but by no means is it mandatory. Are you suggesting Spanish-speakers are so enamored with their own language, and since they'll have achieved a majority population share in the US to the point where they can dictate laws, they'll go to the point of actually declaring Spanish a national language in order to spite the dirty English-speaking mongrels? I didn't realize Mexicans were so vindictive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know how they collect on all those government programs?

Most likely, your unskilled illegal immigrant labor is putting more into the system than they're getting out. Many have a valid (though illegally obtained) social security number along with a valid (though illegally obtained) ID. Even the vast majority of companies who hire unskilled laborers require some semblance of legality in order to hire someone. Most companies, with the exception of your shady mom-and-pop subcontractors need their cash flow to be on the level. It's better for business that way. It helps them get loans. It helps them grow. It's nearly impossible to get a job in all but the most strenuous of work environments without a couple cards that say you can work here. Case in point, I once worked for a company who had three Mexicans with the same IDs (but with different photos) and three different social security numbers (which oddly matched the identical names on their identically numbered IDs). What do you bet those people, who paid into the system with each one of their paychecks, never filled out a 1040EZ to get their refund?

E-Verify?! I-9?! Bahahaha!

This debate is beyond hilarious.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you suggesting Spanish-speakers are so enamored with their own language, and since they'll have achieved a majority population share in the US to the point where they can dictate laws, they'll go to the point of actually declaring Spanish a national language in order to spite the dirty English-speaking mongrels? I didn't realize Mexicans were so vindictive.

are you suggesting that mexicans are the only ones who speak spanish?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Typical liberal tactic - dismiss it as biased when you don't agree with it. If it said Barack Obama is a genius, you would plaster it on the front page of every newspaper in the Country.

Sounds like what Conservatives also do when they don't agree w/ it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sarah Palin was in town on Sunday for a rally for Rick Perry.

See pics from the event here: http://www.houstonpr...w/view/29258322

She's in town today too as a featured presenter in a Zig Zigler networking pep rally sort of thing. It's nice to know she'll shill for whoever greases her palm with the requisite forty pieces of silver.

Link to post
Share on other sites

She's in town today too as a featured presenter in a Zig Zigler networking pep rally sort of thing. It's nice to know she'll shill for whoever greases her palm with the requisite forty pieces of silver.

That and her talking points.

Link to post
Share on other sites

She's in town today too as a featured presenter in a Zig Zigler networking pep rally sort of thing. It's nice to know she'll shill for whoever greases her palm with the requisite forty pieces of silver.

If you've got her 10 grand, I'd bet she'd do weddings and bar mitzvahs, too.

The Ted Nugent thing out at the Rick Perry pep rally is almost as embarrassing as the Who at the super bowl. At least the Who got a cool light-up stage. All terrible Ted got was a bunch of pinched-looking folks and a faulty sound system. But then, I'm sure he's used to that from the gun show appearances.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Ted Nugent thing out at the Rick Perry pep rally is almost as embarrassing as the Who at the super bowl. At least the Who got a cool light-up stage. All terrible Ted got was a bunch of pinched-looking folks and a faulty sound system. But then, I'm sure he's used to that from the gun show appearances.

I'm kind of surprised the Nuge would put on a show for Perry. I figured he'd be more of a Medina kind of guy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anyone listen or watch the Democratic debate last night? I listened to it (KUHT) on the way home from the office, and was generally happy with Bill White's answers. OTOH, Farouk Shami didn't come across well at all. Maybe if I had been watching instead of just listening (though that seems backward), but his answers were at best weak. I dont' have any doubts he is a smart man, but he doesn't seem to have an ounce of political prowess.

Now where is my "Anyone but Perry" bumper sticker?

http://www.chron.com...an/6857795.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anyone listen or watch the Democratic debate last night? I listened to it (KUHT) on the way home from the office, and was generally happy with Bill White's answers. OTOH, Farouk Shami didn't come across well at all. Maybe if I had been watching instead of just listening (though that seems backward), but his answers were at best weak. I dont' have any doubts he is a smart man, but he doesn't seem to have an ounce of political prowess.

Now where is my "Anyone but Perry" bumper sticker?

http://www.chron.com...an/6857795.html

Didnt hear the Democratic debate. It doesnt matter that I missed it though; I have as much a chance as a write in candidate as Bill White does spending millions on his campaign. I did however listen to Michael Berry on the way home last night just replaying over and over the Medina clip where she basically stated she believed the 911 truthers were onto something....after appearing to be a viable candidate and gaining so much momentum - she must have been drunk or on crack to answer his question the way she did. The Glen Beck interview was not even over and they were already telling her that she had just committed political suicide.

Now we are stuck with all bad choices. White - terrible and has no chance, Shami - terrible and even less chance. Perry - terrible, though better than the other 2 so far, and Hutchinson - terrible.

I hate to say it because I cant stand Perry or his whole trans-texas corridor idea, but he unfortunately remains the only viable candidate on the ballot. Sometimes elections are about picking the best of the worst....I feel that way about this one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Farouk Shami's professional campaign staff quits

Businessmen Clayton Williams and Tony Sanchez bought instant credibility in their runs for governor through large investments of their personal fortunes, but hair-care millionaire Farouk Shami isn't finding it so easy.

Political professionals say he isn't being taken seriously because he has shown a naivete about state government (he did not know the names of the state comptroller or attorney general when asked who they were), has had a series of miscommunications and had his professional campaign staff turn over twice. He fired one staff after they'd been on the job for 10 days, and the second quit Wednesday.

Even Shami's gaffes have gotten little media attention.

“It's a campaign where the only thing serious about it is it involves serious money,” said Dave McNeely, a former political columnist who now lectures at the University of Texas.

McNeely said if it was not for the $5 million Shami personally has lent his campaign, the media would not take him any more seriously than the five other long-shot candidates who have filed to contest the party's nomination with former Houston Mayor Bill White.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6872442.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Anyone know when we'll start to see numbers come in?

Shortly after the polls close, they'll start to post early voting results. The rest will come in as the County Clerk's staff gets tally cards from the voting machines.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...