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

[Japher]

election of Democrat women politicians by hordes of unverified illegals who registered to vote

How do you put a price on that? Boxer? Feinstein? They have cost us Billions!!!!!!!

But, I guess a good burrito solves all those debts.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Japher


I have heard some people get mad at those too...

but they are stupid, and I throw rocks at them

I wonder what else those people expect to be called...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Japher


How do you put a price on that? Boxer? Feinstein? They have cost us Billions!!!!!!!

But, I guess a good burrito solves all those debts.

Naah, they got by on white liberal votes, so blame your buddies in Marin. (although Feinstein seems to be pretty well regarded on the other side of the aisle, at least I've heard favorable comments about her from senior staffers to Republican members of congress).

I'm talking about the Loretta Sanchez (she's a hottie for a member of congress), who beat the pants off of Boob Dornan twice, causing him to whine about how the election had supposedly been stolen by hordes of wetbacks.

The Orange County Registrar of Voters at that time ('96), (a Republican) finally told Dornan to put up or shut up and submit evidence of a single illegal immigrant voter in the election, and Dornan couldn't prove even one.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


The Hoover Institution at Stanford was commissioned to do such a study in support of anti-immigration measures in Reagan's first term, using California as a basis.

The conclusion was that illegals were a net +2 billion contributor to the state economy, when you considered all pro and con costs.

Even if that was the case today, it wouldn't make much of a hole in the 10+ Billion federal cost.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Uh, d00d. Read the part about net 2+ billion benefit.

"Net" means after the costs have been included.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Uh, d00d. Read the part about net 2+ billion benefit.

"Net" means after the costs have been included.

For the state of California, yes, but not for the Fed govt.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Most of the discussion/links deal with immigration as a whole, not illegal immigration. Again, prove that the economic impact of illegal aliens is has any substantial impact on the US economy.

God ****ing dammit READ the article I posted on the last page, READ Chapter 7. It is impossible to argue with you when you deliberately refuse to read the proof that your arguments are trash.

http://www.apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?postid=3808751#post3808751

When did I ever identify myself as a "racist"? Never.

your own words:

http://www.apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?postid=3750242#post3750242

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Master Zen


God ****ing dammit READ the article I posted on the last page, READ Chapter 7. It is impossible to argue with you when you deliberately refuse to read the proof that your arguments are trash.

http://www.apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?postid=3808751#post3808751

You are linking to a study that is 10 years old, yet somehow this proves "my arguments are trash".

your own words:

http://www.apolyton.net/forums/showt...42#post3750242

Almost nobody uses the word "racist" by it's strict dictionary definition. For the most part it seems to be used to describe something evil, prejudiced and bigotted - which I am not.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Caligastia


For the state of California, yes, but not for the Fed govt.

The study included all costs and benefits. The state has never been in the immigration enforcement business, and the Feds get direct revenue benefits from the taxation of (higher) profits of businesses that exploit illegal labor and/or transact business with illegals.

The scope was limited to California, rather than attempting to study the impacts of all illegal immigrants everywhere in the US, which would take more time and cost more money to study. The Reagan admin was convinced that the California numbers alone would make their case, and when the numbers didn't, they declined to fund further studies.

[Japher]

wonder what else those people expect to be called...

Usually it's from Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, and Cubans who aren't from "Latin America" nor from "Hispana".. or something like that. I say we call 'em brown ppl, white ppl, black ppl, yellow ppl, red ppl... etc. a color can't be "racists".

[MichaeltheGreat]

"colored" people

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Caligastia

You are linking to a study that is 10 years old, yet somehow this proves "my arguments are trash".

http://www.immigrationforum.org/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=146

Take your pic.

[Japher]

"colored" people

and we'll call the gays "rainbows"

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The study included all costs and benefits. The state has never been in the immigration enforcement business, and the Feds get direct revenue benefits from the taxation of (higher) profits of businesses that exploit illegal labor and/or transact business with illegals.


The scope was limited to California, rather than attempting to study the impacts of all illegal immigrants everywhere in the US, which would take more time and cost more money to study. The Reagan admin was convinced that the California numbers alone would make their case, and when the numbers didn't, they declined to fund further studies.

I fail to see how the results of a study conducted 25 years ago have much relevance on today's situation.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Master Zen

http://www.immigrationforum.org/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=146

Take your pic.

Nothing in that link is relevant. We are talking about ILLEGAL immigration.