FOX says Mexicans in the US do the work blacks don't want.......

[Brundlefly]

Fox agreed to set up a visit to Mexico by Jackson, Sharpton and a group of American black leaders.

Why? Cause the black leaders huddled together and said "Hey we can get a free trip to Cancun out of this for sure! Get Fox on the phone NOW!"

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by bfg9000


Why? Cause the black leaders huddled together and said "Hey we can get a free trip to Cancun out of this for sure! Get Fox on the phone NOW!"

It was quite a good move on their part. They "defended black pride" even outside the US. That'll surely get them a few more votes next time

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by LTEC!
Illegal immigrants as a norm, wil not use any type of social service nor approach any authority that will get them deported...since it is not in their best interest.

They however spend their money in products and services and pay taxes. Either way, the US wins.

Oh, I see LTEC already said what I was going to say. The Mexicans are owning this thread.


"ZOMG first they took our jobs now they are taking over our Apolyton threads!!!"

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by LTEC!
Illegal immigrants as a norm, wil not use any type of social service nor approach any authority that will get them deported...since it is not in their best interest.

They however spend their money in products and services and pay taxes. Either way, the US wins.

Actually, illegals cost the US taxpayers at least 10 Billion a year. I don't call that "winning".

[DinoDoc]

Out of curiosity, refering back to the article I posted earlier why doesn't Mexico improve thier medical system to something above 3rd world conditions rather shuttling the problem on our shoulders?

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Caligastia


Actually, illegals cost the US taxpayers at least 10 Billion a year. I don't call that "winning".

How was this calculated?

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Master Zen


You have a brilliant idea on how to achieve that Sherlock?

The SSA administration letters informing employers that their prospective employee had no valid SS number were good before those got axed. The sweeps were similarly effective. Actually enforcing all these laws we have would be a start.

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Whoha often mentions the Braceros program as an example of Mexican workers coming in on temporary passes to do agricultural work in the US. What he never mentions is how much money the Braceros would spend when they came to work in Texas. This is well documented. The Braceros did hard field work all day so of course needed alot of food to sustain themselves. They spent this money in the immediately surrounding areas of the communities that they worked in.

I often mention it because after the glut of labor left economic growth picked up because businesses were forced to think. Now we have people building machine tools,electronics, and vehicles spending money rather then people who pick food by hand for a living.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Out of curiosity, refering back to the article I posted earlier why doesn't Mexico improve thier medical system to something above 3rd world conditions rather shuttling the problem on our shoulders?

Because their government is a little more corrupt than even our government?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Ted Striker


How was this calculated?

http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscal.pdf

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Out of curiosity, refering back to the article I posted earlier why doesn't Mexico improve thier medical system to something above 3rd world conditions rather shuttling the problem on our shoulders?

Well for starters why doesn't the US condone our foreign debt which was contracted during a dictatorship without representation of the people so we can spend twice on health and education and reduce migration?

Oh wait, that's never an option now, is it.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Master Zen
Oh wait, that's never an option now, is it.

I refuse to be responsible if your country pissed away the bail out you got during the Clinton Admin. Though that really doesn't answer the question.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Caligastia


http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscal.pdf

And again you post that piece of crap article which I assume you cling to like the bible...

That article's methodology is crap for two reasons:

1) it only considers tax costs/benefits, deliberately excluding consumption benefits as well as price effects due to lower wages.

2) it is a single-generational model.


Simply comparing the tax payments they give vs the public services they receive is as biased and one-sided a methodology as can be. But then again, the CIS is a widely known anti-immigration group which tries to pass itself as a think-tank. If that's the only article you plan on quoting as well as the only organization you plan on believing, I'm sorry to say that you're just deliberately deluding yourself on the truth of the matter.

Then again, knowing you, that wouldn't surprise me.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I refuse to be responsible if your country pissed away the bail out you got during the Clinton Admin. Though that really doesn't answer the question.

You really know jack-sh*t about the issues don't you?

Just to enlighten your little biased mind: the 40 billion bailoff during the Clinton Administration was paid off a looong time ago. In fact, it was paid off before time. The burden of debt is that contracted during the 70-82 period, and its the interests of that debt, not the debt itself, which kills the budget.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Master Zen
You really know jack-sh*t about the issues don't you?

This is going to be one of those conversations isn't it. Ted Striker might be able to help you come up with more amusing attempts at insulting me. I however see no reason why a oil producing nation in an era of such high prices is shuttling thier freeloading citizens over to burden our system because they are too stupid to have a half way decent health care system.

However I would be interested in learning why your stringing together a collection of bull**** assumptions is a more reliable model of the costs of illegal immigration than the model Cali is using.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Master Zen
1) it only considers tax costs/benefits, deliberately excluding consumption benefits as well as price effects due to lower wages.

There is no consensus on the economic impact of illegal immgration. No hard data.

2) it is a single-generational model.

How terrible that they don't include wildly positive speculation on the contributions of future generations.

Simply comparing the tax payments they give vs the public services they receive is as biased and one-sided a methodology as can be.

There's nothing biased about it at all. Most studies of this kind don't consider economic impact because it isn't known, and to the extent the issue has been studied, it is generally thought to be trivial relative to the size of the economy.

But then again, the CIS is a widely known anti-immigration group which tries to pass itself as a think-tank. If that's the only article you plan on quoting as well as the only organization you plan on believing, I'm sorry to say that you're just deliberately deluding yourself on the truth of the matter.

You can't change the facts, so you whine about bias.