Thread: I OPPOSE illegals from coming – NEUTRAL on the ones here

Darn it! - sorry folks, I'm starting to wear down a bit.

In the post above, the estimate for illegals in CA should be:
2209000 - when I was doing some manual clean-up of the text there I zapped the end 0 on that figure - sorry.

OK folks, let's do a little simple math, shall we?

The U.S. Census 2000 estimated 10 million
Senator John McCain estimated 4 million in 2002
Source: http://www.thedustininmansociety.org/ar ... feb10.html
U.S. Border Patrol fiscal 2005 apprehended 1.2 million, U.S.B.P. 'catch rate' is estimated to be 20%, meaning 4.8 million last year.
Assuming these 2 years to be 'average', 4+million times 6 years since Census equals 24 to 25 million added to the pre-existing 10 million equals 35 million here now.

It is interesting to note that in 1986, it was estimated that 1.2 million illegal aliens would qualify for THAT amnesty. The actual total was 3.5 million. Assuming a comparable miscalculation today, 35 million is a realistic number.

Now keep in mind that these numbers don't take into account the 300K-500K annual visa overstays.

To PhredE:
1 - there's no need to say sorry if it takes you some time before you reply. Post a message whenever it's convenient for you, hun.

2- yes I figured it out that a 0 wasd missing. 220,900 should have been 2,209,000

Is the 0 missing in the numbers of all states ?
Or just with some states ???

3 -I'll answer later, I can't post right now.

To Had_enuf:

Was it so hard just to answer the question ? Now I won't mention the dolphins anymore, I only wanted an answer.

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

OK folks, let's do a little simple math, shall we?

The U.S. Census 2000 estimated 10 million
Senator John McCain estimated 4 million in 2002
Source: http://www.thedustininmansociety.org/ar ... feb10.html
U.S. Border Patrol fiscal 2005 apprehended 1.2 million, U.S.B.P. 'catch rate' is estimated to be 20%, meaning 4.8 million last year.
Assuming these 2 years to be 'average', 4+million times 6 years since Census equals 24 to 25 million added to the pre-existing 10 million equals 35 million here now.

It is interesting to note that in 1986, it was estimated that 1.2 million illegal aliens would qualify for THAT amnesty. The actual total was 3.5 million. Assuming a comparable miscalculation today, 35 million is a realistic number.

Now keep in mind that these numbers don't take into account the 300K-500K annual visa overstays.

quick answer.

That's a very interesting thing that you mentioned 1986.
The number of illegal aliens was about 3 times higher than Census predicted. Now we have 10 x 3 = 30 million illegals. Never thought of that, that Census was wrong in 1986 too with their numbers too

Originally Posted by cassie

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by cassie

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Every Democrat you have named supported the war in Iraq and those who were in office at the time voted in favor of the resolution granting Bush the power to invade. That's because they knew as most rational people know that Saddam was funding terrorists and was a threat to the region and ultimately to the US.

Obama didn't support the war, and most supported the war only because they were lied to and believed Sadam was a threat b/c of Boosh lies. The Dems want the troops out, I don't think that's a solution, but else can we do ? Saddam was not a threat to the US, the biggest threat to us is illegal immigration, but Boosh only cared about Halliburton.

Where do you learn your history, from a moveon.org pamphlet?

Originally Posted by cassie

What about Ron Paul? The fact that you support Buchanan should not preclude support of other viable candidates.

I have never heard of Ron Paul

Thank you for not listing everything and everyone you do not know. Maybe you should do something about that.

Originally Posted by cassie

[quote:1pc4os70]I can't split my vote because it would make my vote worthless. Those Nader voters in Florida gave Boosh the presidency.

Cassie, that doesn't make any sense in either a practical or literal sense.

Of course it does matter. We have a 2 party system, voting for a 3rd party will split your vote. Nader gave Boosh the presidency, this the way I see it. And who cares what I vote, I live in Ca, we will give our electoral votes to the Dems anyway, my vote is not going to change that.

Do you even understand what you are saying? Your statements above are not only self-contradictory, they don't apply to not voting a party ticket.

Originally Posted by cassie

[quote:1pc4os70]People like you wanted us to keep out of WWII. As the old saying goes, war never accomplishes anything, except the creation of the first free society in modern times, the abolition of slavery, the toppling of the Third Reich, the end of Soviet Communism...
Pacifism (the complete rejection of violence as a means of defending oneself or accomplishing a goal) is for cowards and simpletons. Even Christ at Gethsemane told the disciples to buy swords for their protection.

I'm not a pacifist. But fighting a war based on lies and for Halliburton is not the direction this country should be heading to.

I honestly do not believe that you have either the inclination or the capacity to understand why we went to war in Iraq. No offense.[/quote:1pc4os70]

I've to go now, but this quote is the most appropriate to your pro war stance:

In what Sen. John McCain described as "the most aggressive speech from a Russian leader since the end of the Cold War," Russian President Vladimir Putin on Saturday blamed the U.S. for inciting other countries to seek nuclear weapons to defend themselves. "Unilateral, illegitimate actions ... have become a hotbed of further conflicts," he said."One state, the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way."

National borders. This is true, we ignored the national borders of Iraq, yet we whine that ilegals ignore our borders [/quote:1pc4os70]
Your response is some sort of joke, right?

Cassie, I had intended to respond on the H1B issue, but PredE's comments below hit the nail on the head.

b). H1Bs are a problem simply because they represent a 'ticket' into the country. And, having gotten in [legally] many of those people just never leave. Keep in mind, that only recently has the H1B cap fallen back down to 65k/yr - back around 2000, it was up to 195,000/yr and has slowly decreased since. What it represents is, the desire by the corporate elite to undermine people's living standard in even highly-paid professions. Of course, these same people say it is necessary to 'be competitive', 'reduce operating costs', etc. when, much of the time, it is simply to boost profit margins (eg. is not an absolute necessity). Previously, undermining wages of highly paid workers was, for the most part, 'off the radar' - not any more.

I would add two things to this.

First, the underlying motivation for increasing H1B visas and illegal immigration by those seeking low-skilled jobs are the same. Both are driven by employer greed and the desire to increase profit margins. They both also displace American workers from jobs. Yes, the hiring of H1Bs has been responsible for the loss of hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of IT and other high-skilled jobs for Americans. Others on this board can tell you more about this as they have experienced it themselves.

The other thing regarding H1Bs is that Congress has been considering increasing the cap on the number of these visas from 65,000 per yr to around 120,000. About a week ago, a report was submitted to Congress that was not released to the public (but was reported on by Lou Dobbs) showing that in fact INS has already been ignoring the H1B cap. In the past few years, the US has already been approving around 115,000 H1B applications!!! So again, we see more duplicity by the federal government.


I also wanted to mention that I agree with you on the baby dolphins! I love all animals and wildlife and want to see them protected, not tortured.

Yes, KATE, we see SELECTIVE Law Enforcement depending on the benefits to those that took an OATH to uphold the Rule of Law.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by cassie

In what Sen. John McCain described as "the most aggressive speech from a Russian leader since the end of the Cold War," Russian President Vladimir Putin on Saturday blamed the U.S. for inciting other countries to seek nuclear weapons to defend themselves. "Unilateral, illegitimate actions ... have become a hotbed of further conflicts," he said."One state, the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way."

National borders. This is true, we ignored the national borders of Iraq, yet we whine that ilegals ignore our borders

Your response is some sort of joke, right?

why do you quote the entire previous conversation between us when your reply is only one sentence like you did in your message posted Sat Feb 10, 2007 11:38 pm ( PST )? We should try to avoid the unneccesary use of bandwidth from Alipac. No, my response was not a joke, Putin did make a point in his speech

Originally Posted by cassie

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by cassie

In what Sen. John McCain described as "the most aggressive speech from a Russian leader since the end of the Cold War," Russian President Vladimir Putin on Saturday blamed the U.S. for inciting other countries to seek nuclear weapons to defend themselves. "Unilateral, illegitimate actions ... have become a hotbed of further conflicts," he said."One state, the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way."

National borders. This is true, we ignored the national borders of Iraq, yet we whine that ilegals ignore our borders

Your response is some sort of joke, right?

why do you quote the entire previous conversation between us when your reply is only one sentence like you did in your message posted Sat Feb 10, 2007 11:38 pm ( PST )? We should try to avoid the unneccesary use of bandwidth from Alipac. No, my response was not a joke, Putin did make a point in his speech

I quoted the entire thing because, after all that, the best you could come up with was a quote from Vladimir Putin, who has been about as duplicitous as they come as he attempts to consolidate power in his country.

Originally Posted by Kate

Cassie,

First, the underlying motivation for increasing H1B visas and illegal immigration by those seeking low-skilled jobs are the same. Both are driven by employer greed and the desire to increase profit margins. They both also displace American workers from jobs. Yes, the hiring of H1Bs has been responsible for the loss of hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of IT and other high-skilled jobs for Americans. Others on this board can tell you more about this as they have experienced it themselves.

Isn't the reason that we have the H1B visa for high skilled jobs when there're no US citizens or legal residents available ? Should we deny a visa to a foreign surgeon who can save lives in US hospitals when we have a shortage of medical personnel in the US ? This is what the H1B was meant to be for, am I right ?

The other thing regarding H1Bs is that Congress has been considering increasing the cap on the number of these visas from 65,000 per yr to around 120,000. About a week ago, a report was submitted to Congress that was not released to the public (but was reported on by Lou Dobbs) showing that in fact INS has already been ignoring the H1B cap. In the past few years, the US has already been approving around 115,000 H1B applications!!! So again, we see more duplicity by the federal government.

I don't mind how many H1B visa's we give annually. If it's used for high skilled personnel that are a contribution to America, only when there is no American available in that field of study to do the job.

I also wanted to mention that I agree with you on the baby dolphins! I love all animals and wildlife and want to see them protected, not tortured.

On behalf of all animals that face unneccesary torture from mainly Japan, Norway, Iceland and Canada, I'm offering you this nice:


and a good: