The real danger of anchor babies

http://www.contactmusic.com/news/kate-winslet-is-a-hypocrite-about-nude-scenes_1244598

 

...and the liquor runner/Nazi sympathizer Prescott Bushes.

 

Too bad there's no politics board for this type of discussion.

 

Come up with proof that said grandfather actually drove away from the house when he was abandoning his family or STFU. If he walked, took a bus or hitched a ride, there's no problem.

 

Side note: That LTL post (the long-winded one about gangs and stupid immigrant children) was the most racist non-Mark2010 post I've read here in a long time.

 

Oh goody, I get to be the board racist now!

This is what happens and what becomes an equally large impediment to immigration reform as anything the Arizona governor cooks up -- people on the other side just don't want to believe anything except the "everyone is just here to work hard and look for a better life for their kids" line, so the name-calling gets going.

 

No. 1, you don't know WHERE I fall on this topic.

No. 2, saying blatantly that the immigrants don't care about education and are the reason for gangs is a racist thing to say. I didn't say YOU were a racist.

 

As to #2, it's essentially the same thing.

Two links here, I think, show the complexity of the issue. One is from the New York Times in 2010, noting how the fight against gangs has been taken over by Immigration. It shows both sides of the issue and why it's such a tough nut to crack -- they are getting some bad bad guys out of the country, but they are also on shaky ground with the Constitution in barging into the homes of people who are not committing any crimes by being here. (I am not one who believes being here is a crime in and of itself.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/nyregion/10gangs.html

Another is an Atlanta Journal-Constitution opinion piece breaking down the costs associated. It obviously comes from one side politically, so take it for what it's worth, but I believe the numbers are fairly accurate -- and among other numbers it estimates that 13.5 percent of K-12 students in California are children of illegal immigrants. Given the major performance problems in California's schools, it'd be difficult to say that isn't a factor. (I also believe any teacher who works in a mixed-race district in California would back up my statement.)

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/educating-illegal-immigrants-is-594092.html

Also of note in California, San Francisco was recently caught abusing its self-proclaimed "sanctuary city" designation to justify not reporting juvenile felons to immigration authorities, instead flying them to their home country or sending them to unlocked group homes in the U.S. where they walked out the front door. Insanity. More insanity than anything that has been cooked up in Arizona or New Mexico. But people who argued with that policy got the "racist" label.

Anecdote alert: At least in the case of my son, it is beyond dispute that, but for illegal immigration, there would be no gang problem at his middle school. Whether that is something that holds up to the entire state statistically or is just a mere anecdote is a matter for the compiler agencies, I suppose.

 

I don't know how you can use anecdotal evidence to suggest that anything is beyond dispute. I also wonder what sort of anecdotal evidence you have that so strongly links the entirety of your community's gang problem to illegal immigrants.

And you seem to have something in common with the editorial writer of the AJC. That writer spouts a bunch of stats, then ties them together how he sees fit, without worrying about details. The whole purpose of that editorial seems to be to arrive at big, scary numbers -- $44.5 billion to pay for all those illegal immigrants' kids! Gasp!

The implication is that American taxpayers are the ones paying the entire cost of educating the children of illegal immigrants -- a group you want us to believe is more interested in gang and drug activity than actually learning.

The AJC editorial seems to suggest that no illegal immigrants pay any taxes, which is absurd.

Illegal immigration is definitely a problem, but is has a lot of complex facets. And, as you said, to think of illegal immigration in broad terms with blunt solutions isn't helpful. That applies whether you scapegoat illegal immigrants or refuse to see them as a problem.

 

No. 2 is NOT the same thing. Jesus. Just because I post stupid shit on here does not mean I'm stupid ... oh wait.

People who are not racist can say something as how they see it, when someone sees that same situation as racist. Doesn't make the person racist, just saying that one observation can be viewed that way.

Christ. I really don't care this much about this topic or how you think I see you to go much further.

 

That's a very weak explanation. But on the matter of how much we care about how we see each other, I think we can find common ground and revel in our similarities.

 

Not to mention that the author of that column Lance T. Izumi is director of education studies at the Pacific Research Institute.

PRI is another right wing "think tank" like the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation, one trick ponys, all of them.

Rich middle aged white men have no problem with them of course.