Blogcritics Comments on Immigration Bill Fails as Polls Show Americans Rejecting Nativism

Comment by Bastalo on Immigration Bill Fails as Polls Show Americans Rejecting Nativism

Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:57:27 EDT

If the pools quoted in the article are true, it only proves how easy it is to dupe the majority of Americans against their own best interest. I am veru skeptical given all the methods used by the powerful to manipulate the masses, that these polling numbers are correct. Most that I know are against law-breakers getting amnesty, which is effictively what the Comprehensive Immigration Bill does. How many US citizens can rob a bank, get caught, and still walk away with the loot? Yet illegal immigrants, law-breakers, march in the streets and the get citizenship! Us ordinary law-abiding citizens face down police in full riot gear, who often brutally suppress our exercise of free speech when we protest against policies that harm us all. Democracy ceased long ago, and now there is not rule of law in this nation anymore.

Comment by STM on Immigration Bill Fails as Polls Show Americans Rejecting Nativism

Mon, 18 Jun 2007 01:45:15 EDT

Netram: It's quite likely that the Indian fellow was either a LEGAL immigrant brought in by Flanagan's company, possibly on a lower wage but not neccessarily, or he was actually based in India and was being given a crash course. Blame greedy US businesses for outsourcing on that issue (Amex is a classic example ... how often do you get the Amex call, or some other pesky call centre call, just on dinner time?) Although I'm in Australia, the same problem exists here. Aussie wages are high, therefore companies kill local jobs and hand them off overseas in a manoeuvre designed to save a few bob each way on the bottom line. It's the ugly face of capitalism, and has nothing to do with illegal immigrants.

Comment by STM on Immigration Bill Fails as Polls Show Americans Rejecting Nativism

Mon, 18 Jun 2007 01:01:35 EDT

Dave: "My nextdoor neighbor's an aussie. You and your 500,000 buddies can camp out in his yard" Lol! Hope it's an Aussie-size yard, then, otherwise it'll be a bit of a squash.

Comment by Clavos on Immigration Bill Fails as Polls Show Americans Rejecting Nativism

Sun, 17 Jun 2007 23:55:44 EDT

"Clavos, "Xenophobia"? I guess you're right if that means a drastic cultural change away from what you know and love to something forced upon you by outsiders who were once your invited guests." It's xenophobia, if, instead of staying and making sure what you "know and love" endures, you simply throw up your hands in disgust and leave because you don't understand nor are willing to try to understand. And I might remind you that if you are of Irish, Italian, German, or Polish descent, or if you're of Scandinavian, Eastern European, or Mediterranean ancestry, the same xenophobia was once directed at your ancestors. "Illegal aliens are not legally allowed to be a part of the American economic equation." But they ARE part of it. Supply and demand doesn't take into account the legal status of the participants in the market. "They don't belong here. They should not be a part of what makes a fair wage in this country." Your opinion, to which you are unquestionably entitled under our British originated freedoms. I disagree; to which I'm also entitled. "Are you an immigrant?" Yes. My paternal grandfather was Swedish. His wife, my grandmother, was a German, born in New York of a German-born mother and father. My maternal great-great grandparents were illiterate, dirty Irish peasants fleeing the 19th century potato famine in Ireland, looking to make a living here. Sound familiar? Being Irish, they were also pretty hard drinkers and got into a lot of fights when not working. They had way too many children, scandalizing their "native" neighbors in New York. "You are an American citizen, correct? That was a serious question." Yes. "Doing the right thing by looking out for American workers first over foreigners should certainly be a part of the equation." Not if it jeopardizes the investor's ROI. Social "justice," especially coerced social justice, is not an objective of business, and shouldn't be, in a capitalistic system. "In fact, after much pressure, thank you Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), our lame hispandering Senate past an amendment (lame as it is), after much resistance from the left, an amendment to protect American workers by requiring employers to "try and hire Americans first", before looking for immigrants to fill the job. From your rhetoric it sure sounds like you're against what the Senate past." You bet I am. It is not the proper role of government to interfere with business. "Are you for the complete collapse of the wage system in the United States? Letting cheap immigrant labor compete directly with American workers, without any safe guards would do just that." You're telling me that 4% of workers willing to work for a lower wage are going to cause a complete collapse of the wage structure of the entire economy? So my wife's Peruvian neurologist is going to cause my nephew's American pediatrician to cut his fees? Utinam. But, I don't think so. " Flanagan walked outside into his office parking lot and shot himself to death." Sad story, if true. It's worth noting that your source for it is the John Birch Society website. But, for the sake of argument, I have lost jobs through no fault of my own throughout my life without ever even thinking about shooting myself. Mr. Flanagan was clearly not mentally stable.

Comment by Dave Nalle on Immigration Bill Fails as Polls Show Americans Rejecting Nativism

Sun, 17 Jun 2007 23:23:38 EDT

Netram, regarding your example about Flanagan killing himself. I have to ask why? He could easily have found another job if he was even halfway competent. My wife is in a position to hire people like him and when she posts jobs which require some basic computer skills and pay $60K a year with a nice benefits package she gets maybe 2 applicants and they're either totally unqualified or half nuts. This isn't an isolated phenomenon. Job listings in technical fields often remain unfilled for months around here. Businesses aren't hiring indians because they're cheaper, they're hiring them because they can't find anyone to do the work. Price may figure into it in a limited way. I guess if they offered a CEO level salary to PC maintenance guys they could find some to hire, but that's just ridiculous. You're not looking at both sides of the equation here. Businesses can only charge so much for their goods and services if they want to remain competitive in the marketplace. If they can't find anyone to hire at a salary which fits within their budget then they're screwed. Contrary to what seems to be your assumption, businesses aren't the bad guys here. To a large extent they're the victims. Dave

Comment by Dave Nalle on Immigration Bill Fails as Polls Show Americans Rejecting Nativism

Sun, 17 Jun 2007 23:14:58 EDT

Away from polls, and statistics, and facts, here is reality Dave. Many American employers when given the free choice, will higher cheap "immigrant" labor to increase their profits. Where do you get the idea that increasing profits is bad or for that matter that immigrant labor is all that much cheaper than the alternative? Plain and simple. Not because they can't find an American to do the job. Except that in many cases you can't. I'll go into detail on this later. Money trumps all in this upside down world of capitalism we have in the USA. For many, the act of patriotism and doing the right thing for America ends when greed and avarice enter the picture. Acting in your self-interest so long as it does no harm to others IS the American way. I am asking you to really sit back and think about this. Just put yourself in the place of say, a small construction company. I can do better than that. My cousin owns a small landscaping company. His son owns a small construction company and I have a friend who owns a small construction and remodeling company. Having talked with all three of them I'm intimately familiar with who they hire and why. A company that is doing well. In no danger of going under or filing for bankruptcy. When given the choice between hiring Americans who are bonded, licensed, legal, skilled, and experienced for twenty bucs and hour and an illegal immigrant from Guatemala, with none of the above qualifications for ten bucs an hour, just who do you think they will hire? There are only a few jobs in construction where you need to hire someone 'bonded, licensed, legal, etc'. Do you know what happens when you hire one of them, a Master Electrician or Master Plumber, for example? He comes out and looks at the site, gives his quote and when it's time for that work to be done he sends over a crew of immigrants who he has trained and trusts to do the actual work. Or how about 'skilled' work that an individual might do. Have you ever tried to hire a skilled carpenter in an area where there's a lot of construction? Good luck finding one who's a legal citizen and who's available to do any work at all in a reasonable period of time. Remember this company is already making a profit. They don't need to hire cheap "migrant" labor. But guess what, they do anyway. Why? Because they can. Because it has less to do with just making a profit and more to do with increasing that profit margin as much as possible, at any cost. Another fallacy. In the areas where illegals are heavily employed they are NOT paid significantly less than legal workers, except that most of them may only be hired for lower skill jobs. You can't get away with paying them less because there's so much demand that because they're willing to relocate they can ALWAYS find a job paying a reasonable wage. In that company presidents mind, is he thinking about doing the right thing by hiring his fellow American worker at at living wage? Or is he thinking hmmmmmm if I hire "migrant" cheap labor, then I can make more money. No, he's thinking. Well, the only people who I can hire for this kind of work are high-school kids, ex-convicts and illegals. I guess I'll hire the illegals because they actually show up for work the day after payday. I can pay off that Hummer I bought but still have four years of payments to go or maybe take a second vacation to Hawaii with my wife. LOL. You really have no clue at all about the entrepreneurial world, do you? The people I know who might be hiring illegals are working 18 hour days, have incredibly tight profit margins, and are driving 10 year old pickup trucks. They may have a nice house, because they built it, but they sure aren't taking vacations - they can't afford to, not because of the cost but because they don't have the free time to go anywhere and still keep their business operating. Greed is what they call that. You clearly don't grasp the difference between greed and enterprise. In fact, our government is setting it up so there is all the incentive in the world to rip of Americans and hire "immigrants" under the guise that there's not an American to do the job. The government didn't create the labor shortage? Unless you're blaming them for creating too many good work opportunities for anyone with a couple of years of junior college who can speak English. "Immigrants", many of whom are not legally supposed to be part of the American economic equation because they are not even supposed to be here. Ain't that enough to just piss of the average hard working American, trying to make ends meet like everybody else. Why? It certainly doesn't piss off hard working Americans here in Texas, because they get promoted into positions where they supervise the illegals. Their career advancement is rapid and they have incredible opportunities, built on this system of immigrant labor. My cousin's son is only 24 and he's got his own construction and development company because the construction job he worked during high school virtually shot him to the top of the business because he was the responsible white guy who could supervise the immigrant workers. So who is to stop you? Nobody!! In that moment Dave, if you were the President of that profitable company, sitting back in your chair and doing the numbers, what would you do? Would you do the right thing and hire and American or would you instinctually go for the greed and hire that Guatemalan at half price? If I could FIND an American I'd certainly hire him on the unlikely chance that he wasn't an excon or a drunk. But I'd also hire the illegal, because I would need them both. The American workers who are being hurt are fictional. The ones who THINK they are being hurt are ones who are losing jobs in industries totally unrelated to those which are hiring illegals. It's the pissed off auto worker in detroit who's trying to make his $140,000 severance package stretch until he hits retirement age and doesn't want to relocate to where the decent jobs are who's pissed off. Never mind that he could take that severance money and buy a franchise business in Arizona and retire rich. He'd rather sit infront of the TV and bitch about immigrants. That's the reality. Dave

Comment by Netram on Immigration Bill Fails as Polls Show Americans Rejecting Nativism

Sun, 17 Jun 2007 22:56:12 EDT

Clavos, "Xenophobia"? I guess you're right if that means a drastic cultural change away from what you know and love to something forced upon you by outsiders who were once your invited guests. Your xenophilia is showing Clavos. You are soooooooo wrong I don't know where to begin. Major point... Illegal aliens are not legally allowed to be a part of the American economic equation. They don't belong here. They should not be a part of what makes a fair wage in this country. What part of illegal don't you understand? Like I said before. You seem to care more about the rights and quality of life of foreigners coming to this country or already here, over your fellow American citizens. Are you an immigrant? You are an American citizen, correct? That was a serious question. Doing the right thing by looking out for American workers first over foreigners should certainly be a part of the equation. In fact, after much pressure, thank you Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), our lame hispandering Senate past an amendment (lame as it is), after much resistance from the left, an amendment to protect American workers by requiring employers to "try and hire Americans first", before looking for immigrants to fill the job. From your rhetoric it sure sounds like you're against what the Senate past. Are you for the complete collapse of the wage system in the United States? Letting cheap immigrant labor compete directly with American workers, without any safe guards would do just that. Eventually our pay scale would be no better then the places these third world "immigrants" are coming from. Globalization must be your middle name. I'll leave you with this pleasant thought. "Fox News reported on a particularly tragic example of job displacement that took place in 2003: "Kevin Flanagan, a computer programmer with Bank of America, was fired from his job after being forced to train his replacement, an Indian worker who was taking over Flanagan's job as part of Bank of America's effort to replace its American workforce with foreign labor. Flanagan walked outside into his office parking lot and shot himself to death."

Comment by Dan on Immigration Bill Fails as Polls Show Americans Rejecting Nativism

Sun, 17 Jun 2007 22:47:05 EDT

"Not really. I'm just saying that the NCF numbers on this are wrong." That is simply a lie. Taylor clearly labeled his figures "per capita income" and I posted the census stats that the data were obviously derived from. You can't change the subject of the statistics and then claim the other guy is wrong. That'd be like me saying a 727 passenger jet seats 100, and you saying that's wrong because a 747 seats 150. "They're referring to median income, and the hispanic median income is clearly 80% of that of non-hispanic white households." Dave, 36000 is 70.9% of 50,800 not 80%. 80% would be 40,640. Thanks for posting the link. Median household income just means that half the households are bringing in more and half are bringing in less. It doesn't even consider the number of members in a household. Per capita is a more meaningful statistic because it tells you exactly how much individuals of a group have to get by on. That was the point of the statistic. "Ask anyone. I'm an evil, right-wing, elistist bastard." All admirable traits to be sure. It's the sophistry that troubles me. "No, I'm saying Taylor picks and chooses his data to suit his purposes. I can do the same to suit mine." It's just that Taylor uses the same data that 99% of us recognize as authoratively legitimate, if he did it your way, he'd lose credibility. "The issue of immigration has nothing to do with crime or illegitimate children or whether Mexicans eat dogs or smell funny." Eating dogs and smelling funny, although unpleasant, wouldn't be expensive. Crime and illegitimacy would. You have to weigh the costs. I'd rather pay more for goods and services.

Comment by Clavos on Immigration Bill Fails as Polls Show Americans Rejecting Nativism

Sun, 17 Jun 2007 20:59:54 EDT

Businesses exist to make a maximum return on the investment of their stockholders and/or owners; nothing more, nothing less. Wage levels in any market are determined by supply and demand. "Doing the right thing" is not part of the equation. In the areas with the heaviest immigration, such as Texas and Florida, there is no evidence that the immigrants are taking jobs from Americans because they work cheaper. Here in Miami-Dade county, construction jobs are going begging at $20/Hr. and up, depending on skill level. There aren't enough immigrants to fill them, and, as you pointed out, Netram, the Americans have all left out of xenophobia, so the jobs aren't being filled.

Comment by Netram on Immigration Bill Fails as Polls Show Americans Rejecting Nativism

Sun, 17 Jun 2007 18:33:35 EDT

Dave you said: "The point you miss here - and will never get - is that the arguments made by racists like Taylor are irrelevant. The issue of immigration has nothing to do with crime or illegitimate children or whether Mexicans eat dogs or smell funny. It has to do with our need for inexpensive labor and their need to earn better incomes and the fact that we share an indefensible border with them. Those facts are uncontrovertible, and need to be dealt with in a sensible way, not through some fairycake wall and a police-state persecution of business owners and the general public. Away from polls, and statistics, and facts, here is reality Dave. Many American employers when given the free choice, will higher cheap "immigrant" labor to increase their profits. Plain and simple. Not because they can't find an American to do the job. Money trumps all in this upside down world of capitalism we have in the USA. For many, the act of patriotism and doing the right thing for America ends when greed and avarice enter the picture. Greed - excessive desire to acquire or possess more (especially more material wealth) than one needs or deserves Desire - an inclination to want things Inclination - A characteristic disposition to do, prefer, or favor one thing rather than another; a propensity So greed is natural desire or an inclination to do one thing over another. We got that so far? I am asking you to really sit back and think about this. Just put yourself in the place of say, a small construction company. A company that is doing well. In no danger of going under or filing for bankruptcy. When given the choice between hiring Americans who are bonded, licensed, legal, skilled, and experienced for twenty bucs and hour and an illegal immigrant from Guatemala, with none of the above qualifications for ten bucs an hour, just who do you think they will hire? Remember this company is already making a profit. They don't need to hire cheap "migrant" labor. But guess what, they do anyway. Why? Because they can. Because it has less to do with just making a profit and more to do with increasing that profit margin as much as possible, at any cost. In that company presidents mind, is he thinking about doing the right thing by hiring his fellow American worker at at living wage? Or is he thinking hmmmmmm if I hire "migrant" cheap labor, then I can make more money. I can pay off that Hummer I bought but still have four years of payments to go or maybe take a second vacation to Hawaii with my wife. Greed is what they call that. Reference above definition. There is nothing stopping him from choosing the later or the greedy option, besides his conscience of course. In fact, our government is setting it up so there is all the incentive in the world to rip of Americans and hire "immigrants" under the guise that there's not an American to do the job. "Immigrants", many of whom are not legally supposed to be part of the American economic equation because they are not even supposed to be here. Ain't that enough to just piss of the average hard working American, trying to make ends meet like everybody else. So who is to stop you? Nobody!! In that moment Dave, if you were the President of that profitable company, sitting back in your chair and doing the numbers, what would you do? Would you do the right thing and hire and American or would you instinctually go for the greed and hire that Guatemalan at half price? BTW I know about the provision to "try" (oh thank you so much) and hire an American first. Let's deal with the real world first. What is going on in the head of that construction company president first. We can deal with the "hiring Americans first" debate after you respond to what I have just presented. OK? Thanks. The point I am making is, all across the country these kinds of decisions are going on daily. Some will choose to do the right thing but many times they will choose the other option. That is wrong, that is unfair, that is hurting American workers, that is what I am angry about, and that is what I am fighting against.

Comment by Dave Nalle on Immigration Bill Fails as Polls Show Americans Rejecting Nativism

Sun, 17 Jun 2007 13:33:04 EDT

Archie, I'm a fine fellow when I agree with you, but when we disagree - even when I'm the one being logically consistent from one issue to another, I'm a 'douchebag'. Perhaps you should consider that it may be that you're just a bit inconsistent in your views. Dave

Comment by Ray Ellis on Immigration Bill Fails as Polls Show Americans Rejecting Nativism

Sun, 17 Jun 2007 08:47:14 EDT

"If this was happening in Mexico. Millions of poor, uneducated, English speaking Anglos, illegally crossing the border. Creating Anglo ethnic enclaves all over the country, demanding rights,(It's against the law to protest in Mexico if your not a citizen) speaking English, changing the culture of Mexico and making it Whiter and more European like." Actually, Netram, that did happen. It's called Texas--and we know how badly that turned out!

Comment by Arch Conservative on Immigration Bill Fails as Polls Show Americans Rejecting Nativism

Sun, 17 Jun 2007 07:13:55 EDT

I don't know about you Dave. Sometimes you can be a real decent honest guy and then other times, such as in this article, you can be a real douchebag. I would think that as someone living in Texas you would be understand the plain and simple fact that when it comes to illegal immigration, Americans are fed up. It's not racist, xenophobic nationalists we're talking about here but average Americans who are tired of pressing one for English and paying artificially high costs for healthcare due in part to being forced to reimburse the care of illegals. This sentiment is growing and all one need do to realize this is open his or her eyes and ears. So I guess the question we must all ask ourselves when we stumble upon such an article is who are we going to believe...Nalle's poll numbers or our lying eyes. I choose the latter.

Comment by Dave Nalle on Immigration Bill Fails as Polls Show Americans Rejecting Nativism

Sun, 17 Jun 2007 02:00:04 EDT

The NCF report stated clearly that they were the 2004 numbers. If you are now saying that per capita income went from half to 80% (ridiculous) in 3 years post the link. Not really. I'm just saying that the NCF numbers on this are wrong. I refer you to this report from the census bureau, and I quote:

"The median for non-Hispanic White households was $50,800. The median for Hispanic households was $36,000.

They're referring to median income, and the hispanic median income is clearly 80% of that of non-hispanic white households. "...per capita income is NOT what most forms of welfare use." Food stamps, public housing, school lunches all want to know how many people are living on how much money. Yes, but the per capita income which the NCF seems to be using is per capita income for individuals, not household income broken down by number of household members, which are two entirely different things. I think I can clear this up for you. I think you found a measley 25% discrepency and made hay. Only skimming the report, you missed that Taylor gave 2 numbers for hispanic net worth. 7.9k and 10.4k. The second, your number, is for American born hispanics. The first is *all* hispanics. The number I used does not specify American born. It refers to all hispanics. Take that as you choose to. Good people like you like to think poverty causes crime, not the other way around. You clearly don't know jack shit about what I think if you think I'm 'good people'. Ask anyone. I'm an evil, right-wing, elistist bastard. I think culture causes crime and poverty which are not particularly easy to distinguish from each other. But I also know that Mexicans are not the problem when it comes to crime. There are native-born groups which commit far more crime than any Mexican immigrants, and that's not even bringing the Salvadorans into the picture. So you figured out your own definition of illegitimacy... and Taylor's a liar? Nobody has said that any group has had that low a number in a long time. Except maybe Asians. Gee Dave. No, I'm saying Taylor picks and chooses his data to suit his purposes. I can do the same to suit mine. "Well, I looked at figures from the Department of Human Services" US Census not good enough this time eh? You could post your alternative numbers. DHS is the agency which has direct authority over welfare, so their data should be more accurate. The census is notoriously innacurate especially when it comes to minorities and illegals. I don't know Dave. What do people think of you when you deny reality when "racist sources" turn out to be accurate. The point you miss here - and will never get - is that the arguments made by racists like Taylor are irrelevant. The issue of immigration has nothing to do with crime or illegitimate children or whether Mexicans eat dogs or smell funny. It has to do with our need for inexpensive labor and their need to earn better incomes and the fact that we share an indefensible border with them. Those facts are uncontrovertible, and need to be dealt with in a sensible way, not through some fairycake wall and a police-state persecution of business owners and the general public. Dave

Comment by Dan on Immigration Bill Fails as Polls Show Americans Rejecting Nativism

Sun, 17 Jun 2007 01:17:39 EDT

"Which is what I used to check the NCF figures, but I used the latest version of the report, not one that was 3 years old." The NCF report stated clearly that they were the 2004 numbers. If you are now saying that per capita income went from half to 80% (ridiculous) in 3 years post the link. "...per capita income is NOT what most forms of welfare use." Food stamps, public housing, school lunches all want to know how many people are living on how much money. "Their terminology is imprecise. I'm going by figures for net worth collected by the census bureau." I think I can clear this up for you. I think you found a measley 25% discrepency and made hay. Only skimming the report, you missed that Taylor gave 2 numbers for hispanic net worth. 7.9k and 10.4k. The second, your number, is for American born hispanics. The first is *all* hispanics. It seems petty to clutch at such trivial differences, and embarrassing for me to have to figure out how you went wrong. I know you're busy putting out other fires. Still, I don't think either one of us think net worth is a crucial criteria for being a good American. It might possibly correlate with unfortunate behaviours. But no behavioural scientist would touch it. Good people like you like to think poverty causes crime, not the other way around. " Because I was using documents... I went with... because that seems like a pretty fair assessment of illegitimacy." So you figured out your own definition of illegitimacy... and Taylor's a liar? Nobody has said that any group has had that low a number in a long time. Except maybe Asians. Gee Dave. "I guess you can call them biased, selective or just inaccurate if you like." I call them "unrefuted" so far. "Well, I looked at figures from the Department of Human Services" US Census not good enough this time eh? You could post your alternative numbers. " Dan, I haven't called you a racist. But if you keep relying on racist sources, what do you expect people to conclude." I don't know Dave. What do people think of you when you deny reality when "racist sources" turn out to be accurate. "Jared Taylor: "It is certainly true that in some important traits--intelligence, law-abidingness, sexual restraint, academic performance, resistance to disease--whites can be considered superior to blacks."" Yea, I think I remember this quote. It's out of context of course. If I remember right, he's explaining how throwing around words like "superior" and "inferior" get some people in a lather. These people then disengage mentally from anything that threatens their egalitarian dogma. Then they coerce silence out of anyone who, the vast majority of, have a healthy respect for humanity in individuals, but don't go into meltdown over real group racial differences that have important consequences. That's something he probably see's a lot. You know the type.

Comment by Dave Nalle on Immigration Bill Fails as Polls Show Americans Rejecting Nativism

Sun, 17 Jun 2007 01:05:23 EDT

If 500,000 red neck Aussies turned up en masse and settled in Texas, with their virtually identical cultural mores, no one in America would give a damn - as a mate of mine who lives there has already experssed to me, and he doesn't support the immigrants either. My nextdoor neighbor's an aussie. You and your 500,000 buddies can camp out in his yard. Dave

Comment by Dave Nalle on Immigration Bill Fails as Polls Show Americans Rejecting Nativism

Sat, 16 Jun 2007 23:41:59 EDT

What ever you say Dave. I mean, only one seventh of the entire population of Mexico is here already, with thousands streaming across the border every day. Not too bad. By my calculation it's actually 1/9th, but why quibble? It only adds up to 4% of the US population. A minority that small won't exactly be in a position to change the nation at will. I think Pew said if allowed, over half the population of Mexico would come here. Would you be at the border welcoming each and every one of them? That seems pretty improbable. I'd like to see what they base that assumption on. And no, I wouldn't be welcoming them. As I've said before, I'm not particularly for uncontrolled immigration. I support a more developed guest worker program to reduce demand for immigration. If the number is 20 million, we could kick out every man, woman, and child living in the largest and second most populated state in the nation, Texas, and replace each and every one of them with the number of illegal aliens in the USA. That's not too many, right? Make it one great big ethnic enclave. They'd like that. They actually tried to round up and remove all the illegals here in Texas for about 2 weeks last year. The state virtually ground to a halt. It had a terrible impact on all sorts of businesses and my breakfast taco was cold. Dave

Comment by Dave Nalle on Immigration Bill Fails as Polls Show Americans Rejecting Nativism

Sat, 16 Jun 2007 23:26:54 EDT

If you look at US Census statistics (it's a big file), page 11, you'll see that 2004 per capita income for non-hispanic whites was $27,414 compared with hispanics at $14,106. Precisely the numbers quoted in the Century Foundation report. Which is what I used to check the NCF figures, but I used the latest version of the report, not one that was 3 years old. I'm guessing Dave ignored the "per capita" qualifier. It just means income per person in the houshold. Per capita income is used by social services to trigger welfare programs. Of course I looked at household income, because per capita income is NOT what most forms of welfare use. The fact that more members of hispanic households work is an important consideration. Pew Hispanic Center says "Hispanic households have less than ten cents for every dollar in wealth owned by white households." less than ten cents per dollar means less than 1 tenth, not 1 eighth as Dave instructs. Their terminology is imprecise. I'm going by figures for net worth collected by the census bureau. Surely this is a typo. 12% is about half the white rate. The "family values" gambit would really be meaningful if this were true. Sorry, the National Center for Health Statistics revises this figure upward to 43.4% in 2002. (page 3, under "illegitimacy ratio") It's even higher now. Because I was using documents from the census bureau, I went with the figures they had on the percentage of children living in households with a single female parent who had never been married, because that seems like a pretty fair assessment of illegitimacy. They have a rate of 12% for hispanics and 6% for whites. Well, no lies so far. I guess you can call them biased, selective or just inaccurate if you like. How about 50% of hispanic households using some form of welfare? Dave says it's roughly the same as the white rate. Well, if you look at US Census survey it says for hispanics of all income levels, top of the column under "in household that recieved means-test assistance" it says 49.6%. Well OK, not quite 50. But what of the white rate? Well, I looked at figures from the Department of Human Services which actually oversees those programs, and they had lower numbers for both groups, and had them within a percentage point of each other. I haven't told you to stop. Being called a racist signals to me that you can't contend. It would be nice to debate rationally, but I understand mass delusional psychosis. Ordinary logic doesn't apply. Dan, I haven't called you a racist. But if you keep relying on racist sources, what do you expect people to conclude. And yes, nativism is an irrational and delusional psychosis, and I don't expect to cure it all by myself. Jared Taylor: "It is certainly true that in some important traits--intelligence, law-abidingness, sexual restraint, academic performance, resistance to disease--whites can be considered superior to blacks."

Comment by Clavos on Immigration Bill Fails as Polls Show Americans Rejecting Nativism

Sat, 16 Jun 2007 21:47:24 EDT

We could debate this (and the truth of NCF's or the Government's statistics all day long, but at the end of the day, it's futile. Figures can be made to indicate whatever you want them to. The Mexicanos are here; they're staying. So are the Venezuelans, the Guatemalans, the Costa Ricans, Nicaraguans, Brazilians, etc., etc. Nobody with the power to do so wants to throw them out. And that's good.

Comment by Dan on Immigration Bill Fails as Polls Show Americans Rejecting Nativism

Sat, 16 Jun 2007 21:16:05 EDT

I don't think I need to go on. If the "debunking" of the 60 closed hospitals issue is on par with the "debunking" skill you've shown here, I already know which way the wind blows. Dave: "So if the NCF is where you're getting your source material, just stop telling us not to call you racists." I haven't told you to stop. Being called a racist signals to me that you can't contend. It would be nice to debate rationally, but I understand mass delusional psychosis. Ordinary logic doesn't apply. Jared Taylor: "If we were rational, we would weigh the pros and cons and decide that the cons have it. If the newcomers were white but had Hispanic rates of crime, poverty, illegitimacy, school failure, etc. we would tell them to stay home. But the thought of telling non-whites to stay home turns whites to jelly."

Comment by Dan on Immigration Bill Fails as Polls Show Americans Rejecting Nativism

Sat, 16 Jun 2007 21:08:06 EDT

White rate: US Census : 17.6%. Hmm, that sounds vaguely familiar. OK, still no lies, Surely Dave will come through with his claim that the hispanic drop-out rate is only twice as high as whites, not the grossly exagerated 3 times higher as in the report. If Dave is talking about 3rd generation hispanics, he's right. The report gives them their due as well. But hispanics as a whole are indeed around 3 times more likely to drop out. 1st generation-3.5 times, 2nd generation- 2.5. The report is very comprehensive. Dave probably only read the summary. No lies yet.

Comment by Dan on Immigration Bill Fails as Polls Show Americans Rejecting Nativism

Sat, 16 Jun 2007 21:02:48 EDT

Part 3 Dave: "They claim hispanics have a 43% illegitmacy rate, when it's actually only 12%." Surely this is a typo. 12% is about half the white rate. The "family values" gambit would really be meaningful if this were true. Sorry, the National Center for Health Statistics revises this figure upward to 43.4% in 2002. (page 3, under "illegitimacy ratio") It's even higher now.

Comment by Dan on Immigration Bill Fails as Polls Show Americans Rejecting Nativism

Sat, 16 Jun 2007 20:24:52 EDT

Apparantly you're not allowed more than 2 URL's in a comment. So this is part 2: Well, no lies so far. How about 50% of hispanic households using some form of welfare? Dave says it's roughly the same as the white rate. Well, if you look at US Census survey it says for hispanics of all income levels, top of the column under "in household that recieved means-test assistance" it says 49.6%. Well OK, not quite 50. But what of the white rate? US Census : 17.6%. Hmm, that sounds vaguely familiar. OK, still no lies, Surely Dave will come through with his claim that the hispanic drop-out rate is only twice as high as whites, not the grossly exagerated 3 times higher as in the report. If Dave is talking about 3rd generation hispanics, he's right. The report gives them their due as well. But hispanics as a whole are indeed around 3 times more likely to drop out. 1st generation-3.5 times, 2nd generation- 2.5. The report is very comprehensive. Dave probably only read the summary. No lies yet.

Comment by Dan on Immigration Bill Fails as Polls Show Americans Rejecting Nativism

Sat, 16 Jun 2007 20:21:49 EDT

Dave: "I went and started to read the report from Century foundation...It became immediately apparent that they're just lying. Their own sources don't support their assertions." Thats a pretty strong charge. Let's have a look. Dave: "They claim that Hispanics have half the income and one tenth the net worth of whites. In fact, Hispanics have about 80% of the income and 1/8th of the household net worth." If you look at US Census statistics (it's a big file), page 11, you'll see that 2004 per capita income for non-hispanic whites was $27,414 compared with hispanics at $14,106. Precisely the numbers quoted in the Century Foundation report. I'm guessing Dave ignored the "per capita" qualifier. It just means income per person in the houshold. Per capita income is used by social services to trigger welfare programs. Pew Hispanic Center says "Hispanic households have less than ten cents for every dollar in wealth owned by white households." less than ten cents per dollar means less than 1 tenth, not 1 eighth as Dave instructs.

Comment by Clavos on Immigration Bill Fails as Polls Show Americans Rejecting Nativism

Sat, 16 Jun 2007 09:52:20 EDT

"Only 12 million? Only? LOL Or could it be 20?" Yes, only. In 1890, during the heavy immigration of Europeans, 42% of New York's population was foreign born. Other cities, same year: Chicago 41% Milwaukee 39% Minneapolis 37% Every one of those cities is as "American" (whatever that means) as apple pie, and all are among the greatest cities in the country. Could it be that all those immigrants were good for those cities, as they have been for the country as a whole? Oh wait, they weren't Latinos.