Welfare to kids of illegals in LA County costs $276 million per year
 

All children born in the United States are considered citizens of the United States, with the same rights and responsibilities that you have.

Staff Writer TROY ANDERSON Should not be a journalist if he can't get his facts right.What a dick.

Not all children of illegal immigrants were born here....and if the illegals weren't here, their kids wouldn't be born here.

And I note in passing that NZ has just changed their laws to the effect that chiildren born in-country don't automatically become NZ citizens unless at least one parent is a citizen.

Get a life.

from the article....

"What I want to make clear is the children we aid are legally eligible to be aided,"

So....kids who are entitled to aid are getting it.Hardly a story, but in the current frenzy against anyone vaguely Mexican, if you put a dollar value next to the words 'Illegal Immigrants', the lowest common denominator is onto it like flies round a trailer park.

Chump change
 

Hmm.... Let me understand this. The article that began this thread reports some official whining about spending $276 million to feed and clothe children in a country than can afford to borrow $350 billion per year to fund tax cuts for its wealthiest citizens. If I were one of those citizens, this is certainly the issue I would want at the forefront of national attention.

Actually, I am curious. This thread is nothing more than a cut/paste of a news article.The thread starter offers no comment or debate. The thread starter has only three posts to his credit, all new threads, and all pushing the same barrow. Outside of this issue, spiker does not exist at the cellar.

Who is spiker and what does he want?

That's $276m just in L.A. County. Believe me, that tax cut is in the forefront of the people it benefits, being an election year. ;)

Aren't you on record as being against noob bashing? Or is that only when it's you?

Butter and Guns
 

You are certainly correct and I suspect that a large chunk of those billions in tax cuts ends up in the hands of the citizens of L.A. County. Send all of those horrible undocumented workers back home and save the $276 million. Our grandchildren's grandchildren will still be paying off the remaining billions of debt long after we have gone. The phrase is, I believe, penny-wise, pound foolish. It is, however, much easier to take candy from a baby than a BMW from a realtor or a stockbroker.

Look it up, Scooter. Children of non-citizens won't be citizens in NZ, no matter where they're born. Didn't want to repeat that part, eh?

Will you stop distorting my posts you stupid little bigot?

I asked who he is and what he wants,that is NOT noob bashing. Noob bashing is when the site bitch decides that she doesn't like being questioned on her continuous slagging of anyone who disagrees with her and launches into a prolonged and pointless attack on someone who has done nothing more than ask her a few simple queestions that she's too scared or stupid to answer honestly.

Get a fucking life, woman. You are boring as all hell.

A simple review of the immigration threads makes it abundantly clear who specializes in personal attacks and who does and doesn't answer simple questions. It must be incredibly frustrating for you that your seemigly endless calumny hasn't provoked me into responding in kind.

No illegals here, no...

What is incredibly frustrating for me is that one loud-mouthed bitch is determined to be as obnoxious as possible because someone dared to ask her to back up her prejudices.

If you could just come up with a bit more substance instead of wittering about New Zealand, and answer the straight questions when put to you, you might be interesting., You seem to be capable of expressing your thoughts in an articulate manner in between the trolling and the racism.
Such a shame that you are determined to bring this debate down to a mud slinging match.

Yet another MaggieL distortion. I point out that her state has a quarter of the average latino population, she repeatedly accuses me of claiming that there are no illegals in Pa.

If youi can't support your position with facts, please don't tell lies. I'll call you on them every time.

As to the quotes that you added, I urge all readers to read the articles in full.MaggieL would rather you only read the bits that she thinks support her story, but the articles have far more balance.

LOL, your last line is so funny when you read the first sentence!
You have no credibility just based on this one post.

I didn't say you said that; I was being sarcastic about what you actually did claim. Everybody here can go back and see exactly what you did say (in this thread and the other immigration thread), in an attempt to impeach my opinion and impugn my motives. And most of the folks here are familiar with the use of the "innocent question" as a means of making a statement or tool of misdirection.

In fact we do not have as many Hispanic illegals here as they do in California (as a percentage of the population statewide), but that does not mean the problem of illegal immigration is, to use your own words, "a continent away"; it's right here in my backyard. Statistics by state usually mean very little; US states vary too much in size and situation to be useful as statistical categories in most situations.

You ask for exact costs of largely unquantifiable things not to make the argument more factual but rather in an attempt to move the argument to one about price; the next move is likely to point out how impoverished the illegals are and how ungenerous we are not to succor the poor. Maybe you can find somebody else to go down that road with you.

Not only do you ignore the hard questions,and distort my answers, you are now trying to distort what I could say next!

I'm impressed! I've never come across it before, but you appear to be a complete, total and unspoiled idiot! we should have you stuffed and put on display at the Smithsonian!

...I'm surely not the only one who noticed that billybob completely avoided anything relating to the issue at all in that last post, instead purely going for the personal attacks he seems to look down on so much. I guess personal attacks are only unintellectual and pointless when they're directed against him?

Possibly. We'll have to wait until somebody tries one.

What is this?
 

This is the that site bills itself as "a friendly little coffee shop..?"

No, I'm reacting to an attempt to change the subject. Obviously I can't distort something you haven't yet said.

But I can certainly resist your introduction of yet another straw man.

What personal direct cash costs I might be able to prove as a result of burdens placed on government services here by illegal immigrants are irrelevant to my standing to insist that the principles of our law be observed.

It's not that your "what does it cost you personally" question is "hard"; it's that it's pointless and misdirecting. I refer you to my earlier analogy to calculating the personal dollar cost of park vandalism. Just as onerous to calculate, and just irrelevant to the principles involved.

But if you like numbers, refer back: Twenty-six percent of deliveries at Mercy Suburban (about two or three miles from here) are to illegal immigrant mothers, and will end up being be paid for by the other patients at the hospital. No wonder MHMC (the other hospital in town; there used to be three) is relocating; Mercy will end up picking up their ER and maternity load too. What will happen when Mercy throws in the towel?

NZ has the right idea with that new law declaring that children born in New Zealand aren't automatically citizens unless at least one parent is, and I think it's time we passed legislation clarifying the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment; obviously children born to illegals can't be "under the jurisdiction" of the US since they haven't submitted to it.

It used to be...then it got connected to the Internet. :-) See the history page.

That's what I thought when I signed up, too,mjohncoady.

I'm sure there are many of us that read the threads but do not respond.

I expected that one person makes an intelligent comment, another adds their 2 cents, and the banter goes back and forth in a civilized manner.

I guess I didn't read MaggieL's responses closely enough to notice that she starts off the mud-slinging and 'the rest' just let her go until she gets in over her head and starts yelling about personal attacks. As far as I can see, billybob just responded in kind, but now, he's the bad guy....go figure.:neutral:

It's so nice to have a sock puppet. :-)

Helllo....earth to planet MaggieL..........You just did.

The truth and your good self appear to be total strangers.

Nobody is trying to change the subject here except MaggieL. Every time I ask the forum for an answer, she dives in and diverts attention.

I ask again, MaggieL . How many illegals did the INS remove from your town last year?

I ask again how much has it cost you personally to accomodate the illegal immigrants in your state?

I ask again, how does employing illegals on the black market differ from employing Americans on the black market?

And while I'm asking questions for you to duck, why is it not okay to ask you to put a dollar value on the issues, when that is exactly what the author of the artuicle at the top of this thread has done?

I'll repeat my position on the article at the top of this thread, just so that you can have another try at debating it instead of shit-slinging.

The article refers to the costs associated with the care of Americian citizens whose parents are illegal immigrants.American citizens. MaggieL would doubtless like a law similar to that which exists in the country that I currently live in, but at the moment, it doesn't exist, and as the article states,

"What I want to make clear is the children we aid are legally eligible to be aided," Christensen said. "They are the children of undocumented parents, but they themselves are not undocumented. They were born in this country."

This thread is based on a distorted set of facts. These people are entitled to be in the US, and the story is dead in the water.Right alongside MaggieL's rather desperate claim that 26% of the American citiizens born in her local hospital are somehow inferior to the other 74%.

Your opinion doesn't count,charlene, you're not an American.

Wait a minute, yes you are.

Nevermind, I'm sure that if MAggieL doesn't like it, she'll find a different way of discounting it.

It's a little difficult to put my fingers on 'current' statistics without revealing information about myself I'm not willing to share, however, this information is available on the web, and it provides concrete numbers of the situation of illegal immigration in Pennsylvania. (Statewide, not just in MaggieL's neighborhood, but mine as well). I can generate the same sort of information for a southern state as well, which has a much higher population and struggles even more because of lower tax income. However, for me, this is enough justification that the illegal alien population is draining my wallet.

ETA: And before you call me racist, I work with a number of people from all over the world, date someone who wasn't born in this country, and could care less what color your skin is. If you break the laws in my country, you should be punished. Period. No matter where you were born.

I will keep looking for more updated information to prove that it's only getting worse, it's not getting better.

Source http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServe...h_research652f




INS ESTIMATE

The INS estimated in February 2003 that the illegal alien population in Pennsylvania was 49,000 as of January 2000. That represented an increase of 12,000 illegal aliens from the previous INS estimate that as of October 1996 there were 37,000 illegal residents. The latter estimate was a 37 percent increase above the INS estimate for 1992 (27,000).
Only 19 states have larger numbers of illegal resident aliens than Pennsylvania, according to the current INS estimate.
Pennsylvania has received partial compensation under the federal State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) that was established in 1994 to compensate the states and local jurisdictions for incarceration of "undocumented," aliens who are serving time for a felony conviction or at least two misdemeanors.
ENFORCEMENT OPERATIONS

The INS cited deportations of 1,259 criminal aliens in Pennsylvania during FY'2000 as their primary focus for enforcement operations. They also removed 590 illegal aliens and were holding 1,560 aliens on Dec. 1, including 1,098 convicted of crimes. (Source: AP, Dec. 4, 2000)
INCARCERATION COSTS

The recent SCAAP amounts that Pennsylvania has received were:

FY’99—$5,151,511
FY’00—$4,306,272
FY’01—$2,273,565
FY’02—$2,683,207
FY’03—$1,266,741
FY’04—$1,693,912
The amount of SCAAP awards has been declining in both total distributions and even more as a share of the state’s expenses. In FY’99 the state received 38.6% of its costs for 539 prisoner years of detention. By FY’02, the state’s reported illegal alien detention rose by 19 percent to 640 prisoner years, while compensation fell by 48 percent and since has decreased sharply.
MEDICAL COSTS OF ILLEGAL ALIENS

Under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, hospitals with emergency rooms are required to treat and stabilize patients with emergency medical needs regardless whether or not they are in the country legally or whether they are able to pay for the treatment. Congress in 2003 enacted an appropriation of $250 million per year (for 4 years) to help offset some of the costs due to use of this service by illegal aliens. This amount has been allocated among the states based upon estimates of the illegal alien population and data on the apprehension of illegal aliens in each state. This amount compensates only a fraction of the medical outlays. For Pennsylvania, the proposed payment in fiscal year 2004 is $1,168,499.

An additional link on Financial impact of Immigration (Not deliniated between Legal/Illegal, but still telling)
http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServe...searche251#msa

INS Statistics as of 2004 (Not broken down by states)
http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared...arbook2004.pdf

Comical.
Your sockpuppet act is so busted, Billy.

Like I said on the other thread, have a nice day

But it's our penny and pound, isn't it? And if we don't want to spend it on illegal aliens that's our right isn't it?
We take in more immigrants than the rest of the world combined and nobody can tell me we're bad for not accepting these criminals as well.:eyebrow:

Awesome, thanks Dagney. At last, someone who can provide figures rather than just blind prejudice. A debater.

So, do you think the US would be better off evicting these people en masse, or legalising those who are supporting themselves and benefitting from their labor and taxation?

It's your country's penny and your country's pound. If the US as a whole don't want to spend money on it, why did you re-elect a President who came in with an agenda to legalise and relax immigration?


http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...3424-5467r.htm

Could it be that your views are not in harmony with the majority?

Post 29, MaggieL.....you have been offered the chance again to answer questions, are you running out on me now?

We now have an official strategy for dealing with illegals.Whine about mexicans in general, and run away when asked for details. Dagney has provided more facts in one post than you have offered in the entire thread.
Maybe you can learn from him, but I doubt it.

In regards to the topic at hand. It's theoretically impossible to evict 11 million illegals. However, I believe that a 'dent' can be made in the population by evicting them when they're located, not ignored. Traffic tickets, misdemeanors, arrests, any time an illegal is identified, they're on a plane and sent home, at their own cost. If they can't pay outright, we bill their country of origin.

Amnesty will not make the problem better - only worse. It's not an option to consider.

1- I didn't relect him, neither did a majority of the citizens.
2- I speak for nobody but me, harmony is the least of my concerns.

Here's another "not in harmony" citizen; :D

I'll let Snopes explain who he is. :cool:

Another good post, thanks Bruce. An interesting read. Y'know, that's all I was looking for, some information..... It'll take me a while to sift through it all and verify the claims made, but the expert testimony of a former border guard with 27 years experience certainly counts for more than the simplistic rantings of a rude and angry housewife from one of the whitest states.....

The essence of good debate is information. We take the information, verify it , and distill out the facts from the bias. From there, we move to informed opinion.Once we have an informed opinion, we can counter anything that we consider to be a misconception by presenting the facts.

I have no patience with people who consider that their opinion is the only one that matters and that everyone else,especially the foreigner, is an idiot. Bring me good facts and present them as information, rather than as proof that you have won, and you will retain my interest and respect.
The internet clowns who move the first pawn on the chessboard and then do an in-your-face-asshole victory dance are tedious.

And of course this is what we're all striving for. :rolleyes:
Did I miss the post where you provided any relavant information on the topic?

I happen to live in the same state - which as I stated above has the 19th HIGHEST number of illegals in the population.

Just doing some quick math, that means there's approximately 31 states with fewer illegals in the population.

Hm...

I believe that's a blanket statement that was made in errror bob.

That one sounds interesting......particularly in view of the official stats that put the state at around a quarter the average hispanic population. What measure do you use to obtain these figures? Aren't illegals, by definitition, notoriously difficult to put an accurate figure on?

We all make blanket statements. Some of us don't mind when asked to back them up with facts, others get crabby. I'll go back and do some research on the ethnic mix state by state, but of course, even that data gets skewed on some sites for political purposes.

Which topic? there have been several in this thread.

My first post gave relevant information as to the legal status of children born in the US. I backed it up with the information that the hospital had confirmed that all of these children were legally eligible to be aided.

Now, in a good debating forum, 'legal entitlement' would be accepted as an argument by those who use 'it's the law' as a justification. Unfortunately, one individual chose it as the cue to attack the messenger [again:rolleyes: ] on the basis of his country of residence, rather than debate the issue. The option to shut up and walk away was not taken until the thread had morphed into a broad-ranging discussion with multiple sideshows.

Having proved my argument to the initial post early on in the thread, I invite jinx to specify which of the sideshows he/she would like me to provide relevant information on.

Oh horseshit, you gave nothing. All you did was parrot what was clearly stated in the article, then attack Troy Anderson for being wrong which he clearly was not.:rolleyes:

Correction, I pointed out that ALL children born in US hospitals are deemed US citizens, a legal point that Troy seems to conveniently overlook. the 'wrong' that you refer to is a matter of ethics, not of fact. Rabble rousing articles like the one under discussion serve no valid purpose. They exist only to sell Newspapers.


Now, about that horseshit,bruce.You may wish to retract it, or you may wish to eat it. Much as you would like it to, you can't make it stick.

You still don't get it. ALL THE FACTS IN THE ARTICLE ARE CORRECT.
YOU ARE WRONG. Now do you get it? You said facts and you are 100% wrong.

As far as ethical goes, reporting what a local politician is planning to tell congress and interviewing the source of the politicians data, who clarified the data so it wouldn't be misleading is unethical?
Looks to me like your pattern of crying foul and calling names on anyone that you don't agree with, again. :eyebrow:

LOL......is Bruce really MaggieL??????????

Nope. I know them both and they are definitely different people, albeit both are correct about you.

And BrianR misses the point on two counts......

Emphasis my own.


Now, who's the one who was accusing everyone else of racism? And who's the one who says that it doesn't matter where you are, because you can still know where things stand?

Ibram....................dear sweet MaggieL decided, before I had even taken a standpoint, that my opinions were void because I'm not a legal resident of the US. For that reason alone, I mock her with her own brand of racism.
Not only that, but when a friend of mine happened to point out that this forum was not particularly open to opinion, she rather ignorantly referred to my good American friend as a 'sock puppet', thus proving charlene's point.
...it's a waste of time trying to even ascertain the facts when the board is more interested in finding reasons to discredit you before you've even lodged your position. The facts and figures are out there, very easy for either side of the debate to locate and process, but the question of why people choose their debating stances remains a mystery. The only real thing that I have gleaned from this forum is that they are overwhelmingly on one side of the issue, and deeply resent any nasty foreigner asking questions as to why.

Enjoy your closed circle, there's no benefit to me in trying to figure out why you support this legislation if I don't value the process you use to determine your opinions.

So everyone is automatically on the same side if they don't agree with you? My stance on the issue is really probably closer to yours than Maggie's, but you are the one being a jerk, from my standpoint. I'm not trying to discredit you, you did that yourself. I'm just giving you a hard time on everything, because you are giving everyone else a hard time on everything. Maybe you don't realize it, maybe you don't mean to, but it is my opinion, and I will act on it.

Billy forgets that he started off with *my* opinons being void because I live in Pennsylvania, where he originally claimed than none of this really matters to us because we're all so white and far away from Mexico. I pointed out how similar NZ law (you know, the immigration law that has benefited him so much personally that his immigration has been subsidized by the NZ government) is to our own, but that's irrelevant when it invalidates his opinon, because I'm a xenophobe, and what's happening to him personally is somehow not germane. In the face of the most incredible potty-mouthed invective it is I who is rude, and I'm "deluded by stereotypes" in the eyes of a man who assumes that all females must be housewives.

It's pointless arguing with him; everything turns into a response driven by projection: So everybody else is a racist and a xenophobe, and once he's caught sockpuppeting he randomly accuses others of being sockpuppets...but that's not his fault, it's mine, of course; I forced him to do it.

Next we'll be told we're all projecting, I'm sure.... :-)

Personally, I embrace being a racist xenophobe. And I see enough illegals seeking treatment that I know why I'm not getting a raise this year despite sterling performance.

You mean you don't get a raise, even though business is booming? :-)

Well, if it was the *children* of illegals you were treating, that would be different, because they are citizens.

Wouldn't it? :-)

I still think that new NZ law has the right idea on that score...
...and I think the wording of the Fourteenth Amendment would support that interpretation, too...even though that's not how it's currently applied. (We seem to have a problem with how we apply the Second Amendment too, go figure.)

Obviously an illegal alien isn't "under the jurisdiction of the US", nor are their children...at least until they're apprehended. This is yet another way to reduce the incentives to break immigration law, along with making it unprofitable to hire illegal labor. "Dive across the border and have a kid as quickly as possible; the gringos will pay for it."

To keep flies away, it's more important and easier to cover the food than to mend the holes in the screen.

Ah, yes, but a wise person does at once, what a fool does at last. Both do the same thing; only at different times.

Uh... what?

Comparing people to flies...well, ain't that nice?

There's nothing "nice" about the situation. If the analogy disturbs you, maybe it should; I think the most disturbing thing is how apt it is. Flies don't care that it's your kitchen and your food, all they care about is they're hungry and you can't stop them.